The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Say the I bought back my own debt, but I still owed the money too myself.
Would you consider that I have a net asset, because I own my own debt?
The money in the SS trust fund by law is NOT part of the general fund, hence it is NOT the same as other tax income. The Treasury bonds held by the Trust Fund are the same as Bonds held by private individuals, foreign governments, or private pensions funds. For the Government to default on them is equal to defaulting on any other bond. As the article I posted and you obviously did NOt read states, SS has already cashed out on its bonds without any issues.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Originally posted by GePap
The money in the SS trust fund by law is NOT part of the general fund, hence it is NOT the same as other tax income. The Treasury bonds held by the Trust Fund are the same as Bonds held by private individuals, foreign governments, or private pensions funds. For the Government to default on them is equal to defaulting on any other bond. As the article I posted and you obviously did NOt read states, SS has already cashed out on its bonds without any issues.
That certainly is correct, and I did read the article. It's wrong. You and the author do not understand the reason why bonds have value. They have value because someone else, besides the holder, agrees to pay on it. If the holder agrees to pay on it, the 'bond' has no value.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
That certainly is correct, and I did read the article. It's wrong. You and the author do not understand the reason why bonds have value. They have value because someone else, besides the holder, agrees to pay on it. If the holder agrees to pay on it, the 'bond' has no value.
Kid, I am sorry, but you are not one of the people in poly I go for advice on Economics. I trust the author of the article and the chief actuary for Social Security a Hell of a lot more.
This "discussion" comes to an end.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Originally posted by Ming
Does anybody that supports the current system actually plan on trying to live on the small monthly checks they provide when you finally qualify
Not I. I'm planning on a nice government pension plus my accumultated savings and maybe a military pension if I ever reenlist.
Originally posted by Ming
Does anybody that supports the current system actually plan on trying to live on the small monthly checks they provide when you finally qualify
God knows I'm not. But it's surprising how far that small amount goes when you own your house and car outright, are supporting only yourself, and have no consumer debt to service; those are my mother's circumstances, and she lives on her $892/month pretty well.
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
I'm still reading teh Times article GePap posted (it's 10 screens long), but here's the best bit so far, about the creation of the program:
Arthur Altmeyer, head of the Social Security board, came under heavy fire at a Congressional hearing. Looking for a way to safeguard the reserve, he made an intriguing suggestion: why not let the government invest in sound private securities, and thus insulate the surplus from Congress's eager hands? As Altmeyer recounted in his memoir, Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican senator from Michigan, threw up his hands and snickered, ''That would be socialism!''
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
Originally posted by Oerdin
The was an interesting article in Money Magazine a few weeks back. It seems that a very large percentage of American own two, three, or even four houses now and the pecentage is expected to grow.
Define a large percentage?
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Rufus: In defense of Vandenberg, index funds weren't invented until relatively recently. Index funds allow the government to be impartial and hands-off managers of the funds. If you have the government choosing winners and losers rather than the market, that's socialism.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Kid, I am sorry, but you are not one of the people in poly I go for advice on Economics. I trust the author of the article and the chief actuary for Social Security a Hell of a lot more.
This "discussion" comes to an end.
Too bad for you.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by DanS
Rufus: In defense of Vandenberg, index funds weren't invented until relatively recently. Index funds allow the government to be impartial and hands-off managers of the funds. If you have the government choosing winners and losers rather than the market, that's socialism.
I know, I know; but it's still pretty funny...
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
Time has a great article on Social Security which sticks almost entirely to the facts and avoids taking sides, however, it does point out blatant lies Bush has been telling.
Originally posted by Oerdin
Time has a great article on Social Security which sticks almost entirely to the facts and avoids taking sides, however, it does point out blatant lies Bush has been telling.
The thing is that Bush and others are saying that social security is going to go bankrupt, and those who oppose him say that there are assets in the fund. Both are wrong.
When SS starts running a deficit the govt will borrow money to finance it and deduct the IOUs in the trust. That's all that will happen.
edit: of course if you have to borrow to pay for something that means you haven't traded any 'assets' for it.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by DanS
If you have the government choosing winners and losers rather than the market, that's socialism.
No, it's state capitalism. There's a difference.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
And here's the kicker. From Oerdin's TIME article.
What's more, studies of how Americans invest their 401(k) accounts suggest that, given the chance to make choices, most can't even beat a basic index fund. People tend to chase last year's returns, sticking with stocks long after they have peaked, or invest too conservatively or fail to diversify. Still, there are reasons to think the public, particularly younger Americans, might be open to the idea of taking more control of their own retirement. As the New Deal generation dies off, it is being replaced by one far more skeptical about Social Security. In the TIME poll, a majority of the work force--53%--said they had little or no confidence that the current system would provide full benefits when they retired. Half of those from 18 to 34 said they supported the idea of diverting part of their Social Security taxes into individual accounts, compared with only 30% of those 55 and over. (That's one reason Bush rarely misses an opportunity to reassure older people that his plan would maintain their benefits.)
But in all age groups, a large majority said they would reject the plan if it meant heavy government borrowing.
There is no way to completely transform SS without doing one of 3 things.
Tweet
Comment