Interested Party's Comments
Dec 15, 2006 | comments: 20
Interested Party Dec 17, 2006, 10:04am EST
Chris,
Thanks for the input. Its more along the line of discussion I wanted to see. Its not clear to me why the skeptics totally dismiss any results they don't like or why they are all grouped on the conservative side. If there are good scientific reasons against global warming someone should publish them in a reputable journal.
In my view its good to see some conservatives who accept the likelyhood of climate change. It's a problem that we all need to address together.
Dec 15, 2006 | comments: 20
Interested Party Dec 16, 2006, 9:05am EST
So far I see one response to the polarization question:
liberals see it as a way to control industry.
Is that what's going on with the global warming issue?
Dec 15, 2006 | comments: 20
Interested Party Dec 15, 2006, 6:34pm EST
This really is not a fringe theory among climate scientists. Most of the "thousands of scientific detractors" are less qualified than I am to be making pronouncements on climate science. But let's not get into that contest. If the proponents of carbon dioxide forced global warming are deluded, why is this partisan delusion rather than one that is uniformly spread across the political spectrum?
Nov 27, 2006 | comments: 25
Interested Party Nov 28, 2006, 7:08pm EST
The real problem is that the goverment is not really going to do anything until its way too late. Us Voters have not really been doing much to help out either. And lurking in the background is the really big problem, Medicare/Medicaid.
Nov 27, 2006 | comments: 25
Interested Party Nov 28, 2006, 6:27pm EST
Mike,
You caught me. I hadn't meant to make my assertion quite as outrageous as it was. I was aiming not for the pension fund standards but for making up for the pay as you go shortfall by higher returns. A look at the numbers suggests even that more modest goal would not be reachable without more capital than is available in the current surplus.
Nov 27, 2006 | comments: 25
Interested Party Nov 28, 2006, 3:07pm EST
I haven't run the numbers but my guess is that SS is pretty well funded as a pension plan where better than goverment rates of return can be expected. (The actual legal requirements for pension plans generally less than necessary considering the continuing failure of defined benefit pension plans.) Back in the Clinton era when there was an actual operating surplus it would have made sense to also chip in some funds from general revenue to make certain that the funding was adequate. I just don't buy a two tier system that doesn't maintain something like the current SS pension in the guaranteed defined benefit part. Once you do that why bother folding IRAs and 401Ks into SS.
Nov 27, 2006 | comments: 25
Interested Party Nov 28, 2006, 1:30pm EST
Basically, the system needs higher investment returns than are obtained from goverment securities. The only alternatives are higher SS taxes or lower pay out. The issue is whether it should be a system where we all share the risk and reward or where we each do it individually. SS as the base safety net should take the shared road. Individuals can use IRAs and 401Ks to seek higher returns and improved retirement lifestyle.

As a side benefit, getting the some of the SS money out of the goverment bond pool will help make people realize just how big the current deficit is.
Nov 27, 2006 | comments: 25
Interested Party Nov 28, 2006, 9:41am EST
I would like to see some consideration other approaches for getting a higher return on the current social security surplus. (Of course, this would require the feds to stop using that surplus to finance the deficit.) Perhaps instead of buying goverment bonds, highly insured private anuitities could be purchased or part of the money could be invested in conservative index funds. It's the individual private accounts that's the problem. They are fine for people who luck out in their investment choices but would leave us with a lot of poor folks who guessed wrong.
Nov 24, 2006 | comments: 8
Interested Party Nov 28, 2006, 9:10am EST
The purposed 5 billion dollars of public money is designed to outweigh the current (or at least year 2000) level of private donation. I think that this anonymous scheme would stimulate small private donation and deter large corrupting donation. Maybe this would leave room for the honest man.
Oct 23, 2006 | comments: 9
Interested Party Nov 15, 2006, 4:48pm EST
for those not in the know: != means not equal
Nov 15, 2006 | comments: 66
Interested Party Nov 15, 2006, 12:33pm EST
Why not add usenet style threading for both articles and comments? It would make it much easier to follow the conversation on a particular topic. It would be nice if group owners could start the threading by specifying major topics.
Oct 23, 2006 | comments: 9
Interested Party Oct 23, 2006, 9:46pm EDT
Pilgrims != Puritans
Oct 22, 2006 | comments: 5
Interested Party Oct 23, 2006, 12:14pm EDT
Actually the authors of the study took samples from all over Iraq with a serious attempt to randomize the locations. Although sampling bias is always a danger, statistical surveys are considered by most experts a being more reliable than most other methods. As noted in the article the official Iraqi death reports don't come close to even counting the normal deaths in a country the size of Iraq.
 
Interested Party
The Distant Past
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.