Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
@ruth, I think it's read as in the age 18-29 bracket, 19% of people of that age voted, of them 60% voted Obama, and 37% voted Romney, and so on down the list.
I think you are reading it incorrectly. When you say "19% of people of that age voted", I think that is wrong. I think the correct way to read it is "19% of people who voted are in this age bracket." Add the 19 and the analogous numbers in the other rows and it adds to 100%.
Perhaps? Are you telling me you can't work in addition to taking 12 hours? 12 hours x 2 semesters per year isn't much especially if you aren't working
OK, 12 hours a week, add three times that (at the very least) for most classes and that's your school work per week. That makes it 48 hours a week for course work. That's without adding transit time and what not. Now say you work 30-40 hours a week (not exactly a possibility these days but go with me,) you have 88 hours tops (again no transit time added.) The issue is the resource of time. I knew many that were at 12 or 15 hours and had issues making every class like I did where I only missed about 3 classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
You are correct that cost will go up but for 2 years not 4
That depends on if you go at 12 credits or not. At 12, one needs to take summer courses as well to finish in 2 years (which actually turns out being more expensive as you pay another semester or two of fees compared to 15) or you go another fall and/or spring semester as well. In particular university would end up being more even if they do lock-in pricing as you enter at the grade you would have and still pay for increases in your fifth year. At the community college level you may hit the same issue but year to year.
OK, 12 hours a week, add three times that (at the very least) for most classes and that's your school work per week. That makes it 48 hours a week for course work. That's without adding transit time and what not. Now say you work 30-40 hours a week (not exactly a possibility these days but go with me,) you have 88 hours tops (again no transit time added.) The issue is the resource of time. I knew many that were at 12 or 15 hours and had issues making every class like I did where I only missed about 3 classes.
That depends on if you go at 12 credits or not. At 12, one needs to take summer courses as well to finish in 2 years (which actually turns out being more expensive as you pay another semester or two of fees compared to 15) or you go another fall and/or spring semester as well. In particular university would end up being more even if they do lock-in pricing as you enter at the grade you would have and still pay for increases in your fifth year. At the community college level you may hit the same issue but year to year.
I drive 1-1 1/2 hours each way to work, work 50 ish and take 12 hours. You are greatly overestimating the time needed to take 12 hours, at least at the cc level for prerequisits
I drive 1-1 1/2 hours each way to work, work 50 ish and take 12 hours. You are greatly overestimating the time needed to take 12 hours, at least at the cc level for prerequisits
I am going by the standards that are talked about at most orientations at both universities and community colleges. I realize it maybe more or less but it is a guideline for most people in most classes. I assume that the PES courses aren't in most majors and would only be used as a filler like I did my last community college semester.
Neither the massive Clinton tax increases, the Bush tax cuts, nor the Obama tax increases have had any measurable impact on Social Security.
SS's problems are almost completely demographic.
That's not what 450 economists, including 11 Nobel laureates, said, who wrote a letter to Bush warning him about the effect of his proposed tax cuts:
Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.
1) I don't hate the Boomers. I think as a generation they're a bunch of hypocrites. But I don't hate them. Their generation wrote some of the best music ever, for instance. If they had kept up their social activism, they could have been one of the best generations of all time. Instead they end up like the sell-out in Jackson Browne's "The Pretender."
2) What you personally do has absolutely no bearing on the actions of your generation as a whole. Like it or not, your generation spans the era from 1946 to 1964. Like it or not, they vote for anyone who promises to lower taxes and keep inflation low. Doesn't matter if they deliver or not. They just have to promise it. The Boomers have shown wild enthusiasm for running up the national debt -- otherwise they would vote for people who are against putting massive tax cuts and unnecessary wars on the national credit card. Look at the cult following among Boomers for Ronald Reagan. Boomers as a group love running up debt which they won't have to pay -- they'll be dead before it becomes a problem.
You can say whatever you want -- what matters is the actions of the Boomer herd. That is EASY to look up, even for those with rose-colored blinders permanently glued to their face.
I love how you say we'll "be dead before it becomes a problem". Very telling. We are not a "generation as a whole", as you claim. 18 years encompasses two generations- so really, in trying to make a point for yourself, you are making MINE. As I've told you a million times- we from 1964 have absolutely nothing in common with Boomers from 1946- some of them are our parents! The youngest Boomers were in high school and were not "cult following" Ronald Reagan.
You must have a lot of time on your hands to keep going for week after week with no break. I can't help but think how that time could be better spent for your own pleasure instead of making it crystal clear how much you despise 18 years of American births.
1) I don't hate the Boomers. I think as a generation they're a bunch of hypocrites. But I don't hate them. Their generation wrote some of the best music ever, for instance. If they had kept up their social activism, they could have been one of the best generations of all time. Instead they end up like the sell-out in Jackson Browne's "The Pretender."
2) What you personally do has absolutely no bearing on the actions of your generation as a whole. Like it or not, your generation spans the era from 1946 to 1964. Like it or not, they vote for anyone who promises to lower taxes and keep inflation low. Doesn't matter if they deliver or not. They just have to promise it. The Boomers have shown wild enthusiasm for running up the national debt -- otherwise they would vote for people who are against putting massive tax cuts and unnecessary wars on the national credit card. Look at the cult following among Boomers for Ronald Reagan. Boomers as a group love running up debt which they won't have to pay -- they'll be dead before it becomes a problem.
You can say whatever you want -- what matters is the actions of the Boomer herd. That is EASY to look up, even for those with rose-colored blinders permanently glued to their face.
You have posted nearly nothing of what this so called herd has done to harm you or this country. You continue to play that broken record. The boomers are not a homogeneous group regardless of how convenient it is to assert they are.
1) I don't hate the Boomers. I think as a generation they're a bunch of hypocrites. But I don't hate them. Their generation wrote some of the best music ever, for instance. If they had kept up their social activism, they could have been one of the best generations of all time. Instead they end up like the sell-out in Jackson Browne's "The Pretender."
2) What you personally do has absolutely no bearing on the actions of your generation as a whole. Like it or not, your generation spans the era from 1946 to 1964. Like it or not, they vote for anyone who promises to lower taxes and keep inflation low. Doesn't matter if they deliver or not. They just have to promise it. The Boomers have shown wild enthusiasm for running up the national debt -- otherwise they would vote for people who are against putting massive tax cuts and unnecessary wars on the national credit card. Look at the cult following among Boomers for Ronald Reagan. Boomers as a group love running up debt which they won't have to pay -- they'll be dead before it becomes a problem.
You can say whatever you want -- what matters is the actions of the Boomer herd. That is EASY to look up, even for those with rose-colored blinders permanently glued to their face.
I don't know where you get this cr@p. Many Boomers have kept up their social activism. If you attend meetings set up to protest pollution by local industry and other corporate or military issues adversely affecting communities, it's often Boomers who are doing the organizing and dominating the protest activity numbers-wise. It was Boomers, in part, who got Obama elected (as your own figures prove) in order to turn around this train wreck of an economy, hoping he'd raise taxes. It's GW Bush and his conservative and Holy Roller supporters who recklessly ran up the national debt, it has nothing to do with what age groups voted for whom. "Cult following among Boomers for Reagan"??! That's a small minority of Boomers. Reagan's biggest fans were from the generation prior to the Boomers. My observation is that most Boomers hate Reagan. Maybe it depends on where you live.
I don't know what kind of a bubble you live in. Do you get involved in political and social change issues where you live? I doubt it, because if you did, you'd see that a lot of the activity involves and is lead by Boomers and Gen-X-ers. Throughout the Bush admin in my town, every week there were protesters on a certain street corner in town, protesting the mid-east wars. ALL of those protesters were Boomers. I think it was mainly a veterans' organization, not sure. Every week, rain or shine, snow or summer heat, month after month, year after year, those people were out there at the busiest intersection in town, protesting the war, and the tax cuts. Where were you back then, Scoop?
You don't have a leg to stand on. This latest post of yours demonstrates that you simply don't get out much or get involved with causes.
Neither the massive Clinton tax increases, the Bush tax cuts, nor the Obama tax increases have had any measurable impact on Social Security.
SS's problems are almost completely demographic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
That's not what 450 economists, including 11 Nobel laureates, said, who wrote a letter to Bush warning him about the effect of his proposed tax cuts:
Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.
Ruth, your interpretation of the economists' statement is incorrect, and the snippet above is taken out of context. Read the full statement below from start to finish and it is clear that the economists the tax cuts as a solution to the then-less-than-full recovery from the recession. Their statement is NOT about Social Security. Indeed, their statement implies that Social Security is a general obligation of the Treasury, which it explicitly IS NOT. Social Security is not a general welfare or transfer payment obligation of the Federal Government.
Notwithstanding, those economists are a very serious lot and their advice should be given much weight, even though many of the signatories are avowed left-wing-progressive economists. Most of the statement isn't about economics at all.
Economic growth, though positive, has not been sufficient to generate jobs and prevent unemployment from rising. In fact, there are now more than two million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of the current recession. Overcapacity, corporate scandals, and uncertainty have and will continue to weigh down the economy.
The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus. As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.
Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.
To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment. Such a stimulus plan would spur growth and jobs in the short term without exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Bush:
We enthusiastically endorse your economic growth and jobs proposal. It is fiscally responsible and it will create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans. Moreover, it will improve corporate accountability and strengthen the nation's international competitiveness.
In fact, if you are to conclude that the Bush era tax cuts did in fact harm social security (which it didn't), you would also have to conclude that the massive Clinton tax increase helped social security (which it didn't) and that the multiple massive Obama tax increases have helped social security (which they haven't).
At the end of the day, there is no way to get around the demographics: we are living longer, we are reproducing at a lower rate, and the distribution of age groups is no longer thought to be a normal distribution ("bell curve"). Rather, it has a fat tail of elderly who are just living longer. In total, the average age of the population is aging. These things are facts that no one disputes.
Coping with the Demographic Challenge: Fewer Children and Living Longer
Summary
Due to demographic changes, the U.S. Social Security system will face financial challenges in the near future. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancies are causing the U.S. population to age. Today 12 percent of the total population is aged 65 or older, but by 2080, it will be 23 percent. At the same time, the working-age population is shrinking from 60 percent today to a projected 54 percent in 2080. Consequently, the Social Security system is experiencing a declining worker-to-beneficiary ratio, which will fall from 3.3 in 2005 to 2.1 in 2040 (the year in which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted). This presents a significant challenge to policymakers.
One policy option that could help keep the Social Security system solvent is to reduce retirement benefits, either by raising the normal retirement age or through life expectancy indexing, to reflect the fact that people are living longer. However, these reductions in benefits have the potential to harm economically vulnerable retirees. Other options, such as progressive price indexing proposals, explicitly protect the retirement benefits of low lifetime earners. Still other options would seek to raise additional revenue for the system.
Since individuals will be living longer in retirement, many policymakers believe it is important to encourage older workers to delay retirement so that they can maintain a quality standard of living throughout their retirement. One proposal to encourage continued work would be to increase the early eligibility age for Social Security benefits from age 62 to age 65. This could possibly hurt individuals who need to retire from physically demanding jobs but would ensure that people receive higher benefit amounts once they were able to fully retire.
Other proposals that could promote more work at older ages include expanding phased retirement options and reforming pension and defined contribution systems to create incentives to work and save.
You have posted nearly nothing of what this so called herd has done to harm you or this country. You continue to play that broken record. The boomers are not a homogeneous group regardless of how convenient it is to assert they are.
Let's use the G.I.s as an example.
"The G.I. Generation lived through the Great Depression and fought WWII."
Accurate statement, yes? Not every member of the G.I. Generation was affected by the Depression. Plenty of people worked their way through the Depression. It wasn't dustbowl starvation for everyone -- even if it was for some.
And not all the men fought WWII -- plenty of 4Fs who didn't go off to fight for instance.
Nitpicking does not negate the statement that the G.I. Generation lived through the Great Depression and fought WWII.
Read this article and watch this video from my favorite Boomer -- P.J. "But running the world means taking responsibility for it. The boomers have been good at taking things: Mom's car without permission, drugs, umbrage at the establishment, draft deferments, advantage of the sexual revolution, and credit for the civil rights and women's liberation movements that rightly belongs to prior generations. The one thing that can be left in plain sight without us putting our sticky mitts on it is responsibility. Ask our therapists. Or the parents we haven't visited at the extended-care facility."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
