Politics: A new beginning

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


3. Do you know whether a static or dynamic methodology was used?

You mean, voodoo economics?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I hope your kidding.

My kidding what?

I was a little, but you bitch about how it's impossible to project A and B out that far, and then you say that stuff that would have to be derived from projections of A and B (incorporating still more variables) are more important.

Sheesh.

Though, I am heartened by your implicit blessing of increased tax rates.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Bullshit

Well, I don't mean that her argument was bullshit, I mean that she used that word . . .

A side question for whoever might know - in this econ forum, it sounded to me like they were loading the entire "fix" into 2014, with nothing in the intervening years. Am I reading this correctly?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, I don't mean that her argument was bullshit, I mean that she used that word . . .

A side question for whoever might know - in this econ forum, it sounded to me like they were loading the entire "fix" into 2014, with nothing in the intervening years. Am I reading this correctly?

Having not read the article, and not knowing what the fix is, I will say that budget rules account out ten years, so you can load up in the 10th year to make up for the previous nine. That's why the estate tax goes away in 2010, and comes back to its original point in 2011.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, I don't mean that her argument was bullshit, I mean that she used that word . . .

A side question for whoever might know - in this econ forum, it sounded to me like they were loading the entire "fix" into 2014, with nothing in the intervening years. Am I reading this correctly?

Maybe someone with the WSJ can look at the full article -- I was only looking at DeLong's condensed version.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OK, conservatives -- you voted for him, and this is what he's doing:

eliminating federal spending on K-12 education,

I heard a piece yesterday or the day before on NPR (sorry Atticus, I still can't let go) about how some school districts' reactions to the No Child Left Behind Act has been just to go ahead and eliminate Federal funding all together. Apparently, the average district gets about 7 percent of its funding from the Feds, and the NCLBA will throw in another percentage if they follow the guidelines, but the individual districts end up having to increase their budgets by up to another 20 percent or more in order to comply with all of the requirements of the Act. It's just easier to turn down all federal money and than to follow the law.

Sorry, I can't find a cite. I'll keep looking.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, I don't mean that her argument was bullshit, I mean that she used that word . . .

Dammit, I found another lecture series that outlined the "what they paid in vs. what they were paid out" subdivided for average income levels over the working life for 1971, 1980, 1995 and an estimate for 2010, and lost it because I got dumped out of the site. I'm not looking again, but will go chastize the taunting Canadian who gave me the 17% number, because it appeared from those charts that the average retiree of 1971 got back only 3x what they would have earned investing their contributions at a 6% interest rate; Mr. average earner retiring in 1980 got a little under 2x that amount (so far), and all the rest of us are fucked from here on out. Most current beneficiaries paid between 2 and 8% SS taxes with a lower cap on taxable income, and are receiving benefits of nearly 100% of SS taxes taken in from a workforce that is larger, earning more in real terms, and being taxed at a 12.4% rate (excluding employer contributions) on income capped at a higher level (in real terms), all of which works out to rather more than the T-bill rate or return.

There's also the "beneficiaries so far have gotten $10 trillion more than they paid in" thing which is popular with the privatizers, but I haven't found any sources explaining exactly where they came up with that, how or if it deals with inflation, time value of money, etc.

Whatever is done will need to phase out those of us who have paid a lot in already, but the inevitable phase-out should be helped by the fact that almost no one our age (i.e.: 35-40 and below) expected to ever see a penny, anyway.

edited to add: also, the "overall low returns" stuff usually is taking advantage of the fact that (i) it includes the recent & future retirees (mid 1990s and later) who will see basically 0 return without more huge hikes in the tax rates (which would speak against my "stop it now to stop the robbery" argument - the people who are robbing future generations blind have already run off with the bulk of the loot), and (ii) higher earners have suffered net losses from pretty early on. Joe average taking benefits through the 80s and 90s made out like a bandit, and his lower earning counterpart even moreso - which is fine, I guess, if you can acknowledge the heavy redistributive effects not just from generation to generation but among wage-earners also in the same retiree groups.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you were to relate something about the science that someone other than you and BRC could follow, that might be interesting. But your summary rejections of the science make for pretty dull reading.

Hey, I followed it. That's why I shut up -- he answered my question.

Others could benefit from following that example. But instead, folks seem to prefer taking turns as the Black Knight. ("NO ARGUMENT SHALL PASS!")

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you were to relate something about the science that someone other than you and BRC could follow, that might be interesting. But your summary rejections of the science make for pretty dull reading.

"the science" cannot be challenged, because the average joe sees a scientists pronouncement as factually unchallengable. Its like how everyman might not question when Matlock pulls something in court, but a lawyer would. You have to know you should call bullshit.

SAM's W Po article talks about how many species will die if Temps go up 2.5 to 10.4 degree in the next 100 years. There is no questioning of this premise, and the only skeptic is a "conservative" who doesn't question the increase; he is simply confident species can overcome the increase.

note in this century, if there was an increase it was smaller that the "prediction." the predcitions are based upon circumstantial evidence and can't be argued or challenged.

It's like the evolution argument that went on here. If one questions a "theory" and says there are holes in it, you are just dumb.

Ty said I question consesus science. i don't know what they means, but I do think that questioning science is not dumb, to the contrary accepting it as gospel is dumb.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I heard a piece yesterday or the day before on NPR (sorry Atticus, I still can't let go) about how some school districts' reactions to the No Child Left Behind Act has been just to go ahead and eliminate Federal funding all together. Apparently, the average district gets about 7 percent of its funding from the Feds, and the NCLBA will throw in another percentage if they follow the guidelines, but the individual districts end up having to increase their budgets by up to another 20 percent or more in order to comply with all of the requirements of the Act. It's just easier to turn down all federal money and than to follow the law.

I heard the same report (I can't let go either). The bigger problem with NCLBA is that before, the 7% block grant was targeted to specific demographics, like ESL, learning disability and special education. NCLBA bumped that to 8% (how generous!) but includes mandates that the money must now be spread amongst 100% of the student population. Which means a net reduction in services to the groups previously targeted for funds, who inarguably have a much higher per capita cost to educate.

[Hank Chinaski]

any of you Cali guys who know Michael Jackson's lawyer may want to advise a stall game. Flyers in NH are claiming Dean suports pedophilia.
1 million $ donataion = pardon next January

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107804,00.html

Now Dean has also been targeted with fliers that are meant to look pro-Dean, but really contain falsehoods and misinformation, including the claim that Dean wants to legalize civil unions for pedophiles.

it is beyond belief that ther printer of the flyers is on the same general team as Dean, or that anyone who made the flyer could be involved with any legitimate candidate,

[Hank Chinaski]

this was a class move by Rumsfeld?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/tim...eld/index.html

Rumsfeld, in a Pentagon meeting with Time's top executives late last year, had correctly suspected he was among the candidates for the magazine's honor, and offered what one participant called some "free advice" as the meeting came to an end.

Time Managing Editor James Kelly told CNN that Rumsfeld's unsolicited suggestion to honor the troops was the "first time in my recollection that someone who was obviously a candidate has volunteered someone else."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Has this been discussed here yet? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/nyregion/07DIAL.html

Family settles for $3 million with City of NY.

I meant to respond to this earlier. The family certainly deserved something based on what I've read and what experiences I've had. I'm not sure what the right amount is, but I'd agree that something significant was deserved by his loved ones.

The best summation I've heard came from his mother (it might be in the link -- I didn't check). She said (paraphrasing here), if any off duty police officer was in his shoes and clothes, had an unmarked car pull up screeching, had 4 guys jump out without badges or uniforms and run up on em, the police officer would have drawn a weapon and started blasting the 4 assailants. The fact that the assailants were unidentifiable police officers, the victim was an innocent civilian, and the tables were generally turned 180 degrees from what is right in the hypothetical switching of roles, indicates that this guy was a true victim of some very negligent conduct.

And this was the one with 41 shots worth of negligence, right?

Some very conservative and defensive police officers I know have almost unaminously agreed that the officers should have been held personally responsible for what happened.

The conversation a few weeks ago about when its okay for a police officer to even point their gun at you (generally) is almost right on point to this case. In any case, 3 million is light compared to what some other cities have paid for far less egregious misconduct.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

According to the New York Times
Under the agreement, neither the city nor the Police Department admitted any wrongdoing in the case, although city officials did express their condolences.

WTF? If you're getting a release and giving up $3 million, would it kill you to apologize for shooting someone 19 times?

[bilmore]

"Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias."

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html