* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
It's that SS payments are tied to an index that has gone up faster
than the cost of living for 70 years...
Except that that's not true.
Except that, if you have an intelligent point at all, you are quibling
on a minor detail that
At 09:56 PM 2/17/2005 -0800, you wrote:
JDG wrote:
Sure, the Social Security Administration has government bonds, but if
Congress were to pass a law establishing the Social Security Retirement
Age as 80, then a good portion of those bonds wouldn't be a darned
thing.
Until the next election
Erik Reuter wrote:
The benefit formula has been indexed to wages for years.
No. COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index, which is based on a
market basket of goods.
Although there are plenty of people who argue that the CPI is biased upward, the problem with it
relative to the actual cost
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:26:06 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:45 AM 2/17/2005 -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
Social Security cannot accumulate any excess revenues, be they assets,
investments, etc. All current revenues that Social Security cannot spend
on current benefits are
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:45 AM
Subject: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Erik Reuter wrote:
The benefit formula has been indexed to wages for years.
No.
To briefly digress to the original root of theis figuring - the Iraqi
voter percentage.
According to the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, 58 percent
(or 8.55 million) of the 14.66 million Iraqis registered actually
voted on January 30. This figure is substantially lower than voter
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
Except that, if you have an intelligent point at all, you are quibling
on a minor detail
The question of whether or not Social Security benefits have kept up with
the actual cost of living of its beneficiaries is no mere detail.
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Cat-astrophe (was: E-mail program questions)
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:09:50 -0600
At 10:13 AM Tuesday 2/8/2005, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: Ray
Erik Reuter wrote:
Which is not the question under discussion, Nick. This is really
pathetic. For someone who is otherwise intelligent, you really have a
blind spot or some weird defense mechanism against admitting you spoke
out of ignorance and were dead wrong.
You appear to have resorted to
From: Nick Lidster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Enterprise Cancelled
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:51:40 -0330
- Original Message - From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
Which is not the question under discussion, Nick. This is really
pathetic. For someone who is otherwise intelligent, you really have a
blind spot or some weird defense mechanism against admitting you spoke
out of ignorance and were
Erik Reuter wrote:
Assume what you like. Whatever lets you wallow in your blissful
ignorance and inability to admit you were wrong.l
What in the world are you suggesting that I admit I'm wrong about? Have you addressed the
difference between the CPI-W and the CPI-E or the reason for the
Gary Denton wrote:
To briefly digress to the original root of theis figuring - the Iraqi
voter percentage.
According to the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, 58 percent
(or 8.55 million) of the 14.66 million Iraqis registered actually
voted on January 30. This figure is substantially lower
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
Assume what you like. Whatever lets you wallow in your blissful
ignorance and inability to admit you were wrong.l
What in the world are you suggesting that I admit I'm wrong about? Have
Man, you've got it BAD, Nick. Now you are
On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
We are a society of fairness, compassion and mercy, aren't we?
Not lately, no, we're not. We've done a hell of a lot to be ashamed of
in the last couple years, and it looks like some nations, such as Iran
and Syria, are worried -- justly so --
Dan Minette wrote:
That's true, but the initial benefits are not based on COLA.
Wasn't the subject at hand the *increases* in benefits?
Are you guys talking about increases in initial benefits only, not COLAs? The Primary Insurance
Amounts?
Then Erik is right, but in only one sense. Benefits
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
We are a society of fairness, compassion and mercy, aren't we?
Not lately, no, we're not. We've done a hell of a lot to be ashamed of
in the last couple years, and it looks like some nations, such as Iran
and Syria, are
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:50:00 -0600, Dan Minette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, but I would suggest that proposals while there are GOP majorities
in the House and Senate and a GOP President will go nowhere. That is
likely
At 06:05 PM 07/02/05 -0800, David Brin wrote:
snip
* We can't grow our way out of these deficits. As the NY Times analysis
notes: Despite strong economic growth and soaring corporate profits last
year, federal tax revenues amounted to only 16.3 percent of the total
economy, comparable with
William T Goodall wrote:
Living costs is one thing, medical care is another. Yes, no?
Medicare doesn't cover a lot of medical costs.
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
William T Goodall wrote:
On 18 Feb 2005, at 11:56 pm, Robert Seeberger wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you and Erik, but I think Nick is also
correct. It seems to me that the Cost Of Being Old is rising
dramatically, and the main causes are due to the rising health
costs
that are effecting
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't care to discuss anything further.
You call what you were doing discussing? Ha!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used to not pay for medication at all. Then for a few years I had
a 10$ co-pay for pretty much every drug. Now I have a 30$ co-pay and
many drugs are not covered at all.
That is a GOOD thing. Small costs that people can pay for should
definitely
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't care to discuss anything further.
You call what you were doing discussing? Ha!
Aren't you overdue for your meds?
Isn't that further lowering the level of discourse?
I could be
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't care to discuss anything further.
You call what you were doing discussing? Ha!
Aren't you overdue for your meds?
Isn't that
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't care to discuss anything further.
You call what you were doing discussing? Ha!
Aren't you overdue for
At 01:24 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, you wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Yes, you and I definitely helped build tomorrow's economy. I have no shame
in receiving Social Security. But, there is a limit on how much I feel I
can ask of my kids to support me in turn. Further, even if I don't have
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
*Very* occasionally. And not with a very young child.
Really? Huh -- IME, the opposite is true. Corporal punishment is most
effective with preverbal (preintellectual) children, because children
at that stage of development cannot be reasoned
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
*Very* occasionally. And not with a very young child.
Really? Huh -- IME, the opposite is true. Corporal punishment is most
effective with preverbal (preintellectual) children, because children at
that stage of
JDG wrote:
Let me put it another way.Retirement is a predictable and forseeable
problem.One can reasonably assume that as one advances in years, one
will want to continue to consume goods and services, and that one will be
either unwilling or unable to work in order to fund that
Doug Pensinger wrote:
JDG wrote:
Let me put it another way.Retirement is a predictable and forseeable
problem.One can reasonably assume that as one advances in years, one
will want to continue to consume goods and services, and that one will be
either unwilling or unable to work in order
JDG wrote:
You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that
restores the benefits?
If Congress raised the SS retirement age to 80, I'll flat out garuantee
you they'll get throw out on their collective ear. They don't even have
the balls to make some of the minor changes
Julia wrote:
So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches
it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!!
Actually, you're just putting in 6.2% and your employer is matching it
for a total of 12.4%
D'oh!
--
Doug
___
33 matches
Mail list logo
