Wow, Brad DeLong and others caught someone in the media doing his
job. Rex Nutting of CBS Marketwatch fact checking lies.
Bush exaggerates a few facts about Social Security WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -
President Bush made several factual errors Tuesday about Social
Security's long-term
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
long-working spouse.
But, I still don't see it getting above 40 %. Let's look at the last $1k
of earnings of the spouse looking at a 20k/year job. She's in the 15%
marginal income tax bracket, her SS tax is 7.65%, and she is working for
too few
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I was pointing out that you were glossing over the fiscal
responsibility of Clinton and Gore who converted the annual deficit to
an annual surplus before chimp chump came into office.
Strange. I thought the subject under discussion at that time was
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
More from DeLong:
My view: Why wait? Expel Wayne Allard from the Senate immediately for this
gross violation of his oath of office.
This is some of the silliness that decreases the value of Brad's web
site (normally about half of what he writes is
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If you read the top of the page you saw it was as of 12/31/04 a
horribly 2 weeks ago.
Gary, this is very simple. You are quoting results that include expenses
from a time period when the expenses had not been lowered. In the time
period since the
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Tell me. If, instead of making radical changes we tweaked the system;
tied increases to inflation rather than wages (as you suggested),
gradually increased the retirement age to, say 70, made benefits 100%
taxable above a certain level of total
Thanks for the cite, Gary.
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The Academy warned that infinite-horizon projections provide little
if any useful information about the program's long-term finances and
indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise in the
demographic,
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Unlike them I am not paid shills for the American Enterprise Institute
being paid to persuade people that privatized federal savings
To clarify we were discussing:
Dr. Kent Smetters (Associate Professor at Wharton, former
economist for the
On Jan 14, 2005, at 6:29 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
Anyway, they are obviously qualified to have an expert opinion. You may
have partisan disagreements with them, but dismissing them as paid
shills is hardly persuasive, unless you can show some credentials that
qualify you to give an expert opinion.
I
Apropos an earlier discussion...
On Jan 12, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
[...]
You really need to learn how to read.
[...]
And you are completely clueless. Why do you pretend like you know what
you are talking about?
[...]
If you bothered to look at the performance of SP500 index funds
Behalf Of Gary Nunn
Today I got calls from several people at work because they
had heard that my
town is being evacuated due to the flood gates imminent opening.
SNIP
Anyone interested can see the carnage as it happens:
http://wbns10tv.com
Looks like things are better for Gary.
On Jan 13, 2005, at 8:35 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Doc says that Tommy appears to have a virus. Antibiotics are *not* in
order at all (which is just as well, I'd worry about how his stomach
would take it). We need to monitor his temperature and bring him bck
tomorrow if it's too high. Doc is
Original Message
Subject: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:37:33 -0800
From: FAIR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAIR-L
Fairness Accuracy
In a message dated 1/13/2005 11:36:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doc says that Tommy appears to have a virus. Antibiotics are *not* in
order at all (which is just as well, I'd worry about how his stomach
would take it). We need to monitor his temperature and bring
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
(taxes paid to government over one's lifetime- cash benefits received
from government over ones lifetime)/total income over one's lifetime.
I just realized the source of the difference. We are both writing out
the formula for lifetime net tax rate, but
Erik wrote:
I guess I haven't been clear (or perhaps you are confusing my position
with Bush's confusing rhetoric).
Or maybe I'm somewhat dense when it comes to this stuff. Thanks for
clarifying things for me.
--
Doug
___
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Erik wrote:
I guess I haven't been clear (or perhaps you are confusing my position
with Bush's confusing rhetoric).
Or maybe I'm somewhat dense when it comes to this stuff. Thanks for
clarifying things for me.
I don't think you were being
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
40% stock portfolio would be expected to return 2.8%, which is a premium
of only 2.8% over government bonds (the government can essentially
typo, should be 0.8% premium
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
Why the gloomy outlook? Not optimistic about security?
~Maru
Erik Reuter wrote:
In the long term, that will
make a big difference, but compound interest takes decades to make a big
difference. Also, my prediction is that over the next 10 years, equities
will return less than their long term 4%.
Curious: I would have thought that dividend would have been higher;
taxes were lowered significantly on them, and the economy has registered
mediocre gains, in which companies should be able to take profits. But
then I just heard that the producer price index has fallen noticeably.
So perhaps
20 matches
Mail list logo
