ROK Drop Open Thread – January 30, 2011

Tags: Open Threads

• kushibo
  10:00 pm on January 29th, 2011 1

  Not to steal any of GI Korea's thunder (or business), but I'm attempting a Korea Finder of my own. My only rule is that Mark cannot play. (But if he does know the answer, he can email me).

• kushibo
  10:10 pm on January 29th, 2011 2

  GI Korea wrote:
  

  what does everyone think about Social Security going broke in the US by 2037?

  They've been projecting a going-broke date thirty to forty years in the future for almost twenty years now (in this 1996 Time article, it was supposed to go bust by 2029).

  But of course, it will have to be tweaked, not so much because there are more elderly (who have been paying into it most or all of their working lives), but because we're living longer than before.

  Fine, as a Gen-Xer, I've always figured I would have to work until I'm 68, 69, or 70 anyway. That's probably the easiest solution, and I'd rather do that than lower benefits (but let people have the option of retiring "early" at 65 and getting lower benefits, if the age of eligibility is raised).

• setnaffa
  11:49 pm on January 29th, 2011 3

  SS is going broke because it's paying people who never contributed. It should only be for retirees or their survivors.

  Just another Democrat Ponzi scheme.

  When is Obama gonna fill my gas tank and pay my mortgage?

• Jeff
  2:33 am on January 30th, 2011 4

  YATZEE! STENAFFA Nails it. I agree totally. It was a pot of money the government just couldn't leave alone.

• kushibo
  4:30 am on January 30th, 2011 5

  setnaffa wrote:
  

  SS is going broke because it’s paying people who never contributed. It should only be for retirees or their survivors.

  To which group(s) are you referring and do you have a link to the claim(s)?

  Are you referring to blind kids?
  

  Just another Democrat Ponzi scheme.

  While some of those who retired not long after it started made out like bandits, it is mostly contributor-driven.

  And without this "Democrat Ponzi scheme," there'd be hella more elderly poverty.

  I guess people forget that old age was once a time of poverty and privation for the elderly, before Social Security and then Medicare.

  But since you seem to want to get rid of SS, how do we prevent retirees from becoming destitute?
  

  When is Obama gonna fill my gas tank

  He already did.
  

  and pay my mortgage?

  I don't recall that specific campaign promise. Gotta link?

  Or were you just attacking Obama for a Ponzi scheme hatched by FDR and managed by every single Republican and Democrat in the White House since then?

  Really, the Obama Derangement Syndrome we see today is as bad as some of those with Bush Derangement Syndrome from the last decade.

• Aurelius
  4:45 am on January 30th, 2011 6

  The sad part is that the media still promulgates the fiction that there is still this enormous trust fund in a lock box out there somewhere to finance most of the SSA. What they refuse to acknowledge is that the lock box just holds an IOU, as the trust fund monies are long spent on other items in the budget.

  So when they say that Social Security is now operating at a deficit, that means that the amount of the deficit is directly added to the general Federal budget deficit, and the National Debt.

  But they are too busy in DC arguing about High Speed Rail to deal with minor issues like this.

• Greg
  5:32 am on January 30th, 2011 7

  Girl with girl cheating OK, half of boyfriends say

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110128/od_nm/us_chea…

• Tor
  7:26 am on January 30th, 2011 8

  SS is already insolvent by any fair accounting, the projected cost of paying out the benefits already 'earned' is greater than the amount of money in the supposed lockbox, projected interest included.

  If SS was a private enterprise it would be declared bankrupt for this reason.

  SS also takes in far less money each day than the projected cost of paying out the additional benefits to which people are supposedly entitled after paying that money in.

  When they say SS is now running deficits they mean that they are paying out more to current retirees than they are collecting from current contributors. But SS has been accumulating liabilities at a faster rate than it has been accumulating assets for decades, and so it has really been running deficits for longer than I've been alive.

• Thomas Lee
  7:44 am on January 30th, 2011 9

  #1 – answered!

• ChipperB
  11:15 am on January 30th, 2011 10

  1 out of 19 Americans is on social security. That includes a butload of people on disability, some of whom are illegal aliens and grand parents of foreigners. Thanks for looking out for us Congress!!

• Tom
  11:24 am on January 30th, 2011 11

  America is bankrupt, never mind Social Security!

• Teadrinker
  11:38 am on January 30th, 2011 12

  #2,

  Took the words right out of my mouth. Think about it, this one is so obvious even a Canadian had noticed the pattern.

• Teadrinker
  11:45 am on January 30th, 2011 13

  #5,

  That's nothing. You think the housing crisis is bad? Baby boomers are just starting to enter nursing homes. Wait 5 to 10 more years when most of them have died. Yes, prices haven't hit rock bottom just yet.

• Glans
  1:16 pm on January 30th, 2011 14

  The Social Security trust fund is working in exactly the way Alan Greenspan and Ronald Reagan designed it. They raised the payroll tax higher than was needed for current benefits. They used the surplus to buy US Treasury bonds. Now the bonds can be redeemded, to continue paying benefits when payroll taxes are no longer sufficient. When all the bonds are gone, payroll taxes will still cover 78% of benefits. That's 25 years in the future, so we have time to prepare for it.

  If a private person, or a financial institution, or a foreign government buys a US Treasuey bond, the Treasury doesn't put the money in a lock box. It uses the money to fund the government! When the bond matures, it repays the private person, financial instution or foreign government. Well, the Social Security Administration bought US Treasury bonds, the Treasury spent the money, as it would with any bond, and now the Social Security Administration will start redeeming its bonds.

• ChickenHead
  1:56 pm on January 30th, 2011 15

  Glans…

  Do you pay your Mastercard with your Visa?

  If a private person played this game, they would be broke and in jail.

  Saying Social Security is financially sound and working as intended is the same game used by those borrowing from Social Security to claim the federal budget is sound.

  In reality, government should spend within its means and not require these shell games… as, no matter how you structure or rationalize it, the money still has to be paid back by the same taxpayers.

  Your attitude is simply a reflection of modern marketing doublespeak… where bad things are represented as being good… and good things are dismissed with ridicule… and far to many people buy into it through ignorance or, worse, too much "education" influenced by those who benefit from such policies.

• Glans
  4:31 pm on January 30th, 2011 16

  ChickenHead 15, yes, I paid my Mastercard with my Visa. It was called a "balance transfer" and it was very useful when rates were high but falling.

  Reagan and Greenspan weren't playing a game. They were prudently preparing for the retirement of the baby boomers. The increased payroll tax meant the government would borrow that much less from other sources. Now the bonds can be redeemed, just like any other bonds.

  The US government can continue to borrow from individuals, financial institutions, and foreign governments. The bonds it sells to them won't be a game. They'll be real obligations, just like the bonds held by the Social Security Administration.

• Glans
  4:34 pm on January 30th, 2011 17

  Michelle Bachmann wants to cut your benefits.

  VFW criticize Michelle Bachmann

• someotherguy
  4:35 pm on January 30th, 2011 18

  Well SS being "sound" is a yes and no answer, its complicated. SS is a separate fund setup by the treasury department, SS contributions (usually from payroll tax) go into this fund and can not be withdrawn by the government. Yes I said that, the US Government is prohibited from drawing direction from the SS fund. Instead they may borrow against it (which is wrong as hell). What this means is they can take out Government securities against the SS money, but the money doesn't leave the fund (its still there). The only real difference in all this is if the government needs to actually spend from the SS fund's principle rather then from its interest + yearly contributions. What happens then is that they US Government basically prints money to cover its borrowed amounts and you get mild inflation. Not good by any means, but not Armageddon -end of the world- -society collapsing- mad-max style results.

  Example,

  Borrowed by the General Fund – $14,154,711,962,569

  Income: Income taxes. Outgo: Defense 30%, Interest 19%, …

  Saved by the Social Security Trust + $2,558,301,655,402

  Income: FICA Payroll taxes. Outgo: Benefits and disability

  Saved by all Gov. Trust Funds + $4,631,666,507,962

  Income: FICA & gas taxes. Outgo: Medicare, highways, etc.

  First number is the "national debt" people talk about, its a negative number representing money we awe. Second number is the amount in the SS fund, its positive and represents cash inside the fund, this number is not imaginary its a real value and can not be used for anything other then SS checks. Third number is the all the other "funds" like medicare and HW funding, again this is real account with real money that can only spent on specific things. The actual amount of negative money is 9.5tn USD, not a small number by any imagination but not the 14tn+ the alarmists are claiming.

  As a country we really need to get serious with our spending, we waste entirely too much money on government programs. This is the skinny of it, we can not continue spending money this way because while 9.5tn isn't outrageous compared to our GDP, if it keeps getting bigger then our children and grandchildren will have hell to pay. Thankfully most of the money we owe to ourselves, we borrowed against our future in the last 10~20 years and its time to pay up.

• kushibo
  5:55 pm on January 30th, 2011 19

  Thomas Lee wrote:
  

  #1 – answered!

  Nice job, Thomas!

  I wonder why my response to setnaffa's #3 hasn't shown up yet.

• ChickenHead
  6:48 pm on January 30th, 2011 20

  Glans…

  You are certainly the king of sudden misunderstanding when you are unable to counter a point.

  So, in the spirit of my question, after you paid one credit card with the other, were you debt free… or did you still owe the same amount in a different way…

  …much like the taxpayer still must cover SS obligations by paying back all those IOUs… plus interest… which have funded needless spending and wasteful projects… yet are some how touted as an "investment" by Social Security.

  Not really much of an "investment" in the big picture.

  The debt can be defaulted on or inflated away… but the side effects might be worse than what likely will happen…

  …taxes will go up, services will go down and old people will get shafted.

  When citizens start rationalizing and defending the obvious accounting tricks and pyramid schemes which could never be done personally, I realize why America is financially where it is now.

  Black is white. War is peace. Debt is wealth.

  It is all crazytalk.

• kushibo
  6:51 pm on January 30th, 2011 21

  ChickenHead wrote:
  

  So, in the spirit of my question, after you paid one credit card with the other, were you debt free… or did you still owe the same amount in a different way…

  I'm not going to speak to the merits of Glans's position or lack thereof, but when I, say, take a student loan at 0% or 6% interest and use the leftover money to pay off a used car loan at 15%, I still owe the same amount of money but I'm also saving a significant amount of money over the course of the loan.

• ChickenHead
  7:46 pm on January 30th, 2011 22

  Apples and oranges, Kushibo.

  The so-obvious-it-needs-not-be-spoken-of action of taking advantage of lower-interest loans is a much different issue than getting into grossly unaffordable debt and thinking it will somehow pay itself off just because your interest is a few points lower.

  A better method is not to get into debt unless it is an investment… works for people, works for governments (with some exceptions).

  Sorry if I am irritated. I feel like I have been dealing with idiots for the last 3 days… bunch of military guys came down and much of what they said was depressing for so many reasons… from the military to their personal lives.

  Anyway, maybe the problem is with me. Maybe I am the dumbazz for not being deep in debt to finance a better lifestyle and dependent on those around me to make my life easier.

  That seems to be the American way these days… and it is amazing how it is excused and rationalized by seemingly smart people who can't understand why things don't work out when money gets tight or they are forced to help themselves.

• Glans
  8:02 pm on January 30th, 2011 23

  Are you too busy to read? Listen!

• ChickenHead
  8:17 pm on January 30th, 2011 24

  Glans…

  Perhaps due to your failure to address ANY of my points, you seemed to have changed the topic to Ling and Lee.

  I listened.

  Those drama queens are full of more manufactured shyt than I thought. Is the whole book like that?

  If you truly think my opinion of them is wrong, stop playing games. Simply write a page or so telling us the real situation and be prepared to defend your position.

  As for now, please tell us more about the joys of national debt… and Social Security's isolation from it.

• Glans
  7:20 am on January 31st, 2011 25

  Senator Toomey says we should prioritize federal payments. In case the debt ceiling isn't raised, we should pay China before Social Security recipients; pay China before our own military personnel.

  Read his Full Faith and Credit Act.

• Retired GI
  9:05 am on January 31st, 2011 26

  FIRST: Cut international aid to Korea, Haiti, Iraq, Philippines and all others.

  Then cut welfare, farm subsidies, military spending. Close military bases in other countries and bring them home.

  Then cut Political pay and benefits. Followed by their retirement pay.

  There! I fixed it. Now, go forth and pay China off. Then Japan.

  Oh damn near forgot about killing the HUD and Education Dept. I'm sure there is more wasteful spending out there, but it is a start.

  Go forth now, I told you how, and fix it.

• Greg
  8:26 pm on January 31st, 2011 27

  Canadian sentenced 25 years for running Thai pedophile brothel

  http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Canadian+s…

• ChickenHead
  9:05 pm on January 31st, 2011 28

  Retired GI,

  Foreign aid is actually a drop in the bucket. Welfare is a killer.

  They like to hide the numbers by splitting them up… but when you add food, medical, housing, cash and all the rest, the total is disturbing…

  …more-so when there are so many empty jobs that Americans Won't Do.

• setnaffa
  12:05 am on February 1st, 2011 29

  Has anyone ever tried to correlate the number of illegal aliens with the number of unemployed citizens still seeking employment?

  Not trying to make a point either way, just wondering…

• Teadrinker
  12:33 am on February 1st, 2011 30

  #22,

  "A better method is not to get into debt unless it is an investment"

  Bingo!

  We sold the apartment because it wasn't doing anything for us as an investment, felt we were throwing money out the window because we were also paying interest on the mortgage. We invested our money into something else. Since then, we've been making about 10% per month on our investments (I kid you not).

• ChickenHead
  8:30 am on February 1st, 2011 31

  Teadrinker,

  “10% per month”

  Hmmm… that is possible, I suppose. There are things that are the right place at the right time…

  …but, WITHOUT exception, if the money is invested with a person or organization in a fund of some sort, there will be a time when the pyramid runs out of base… and everybody makes a -100% return in a matter of seconds.

  Nobody can pay that kind of interest… as there is no low-risk reinvestment that will generate that kind of money… and if it IS low-risk, much cheaper financing is available.

  I have seen this play out twice here in Korea and once among the retirees in the Philippines… very tragic in all cases… and I BEGGED some of the people to get out… but everyone is smarter than me when they are getting easy money.

  I don’t know your deal. If you bought the right piece of land, started the right business or got the right stocks, you may be good. If you invested with a person or a fund, get out.

• JoeC
  10:50 am on February 1st, 2011 32

  BUSTED!

  Microsoft's Bing Caught Copying Google Search Results

  Bing, although denying that they outright copy results, and has all but admitted the claim. Director of Bing Stefan Weitz told FoxNews.com that the strategy is one of many that Microsoft uses to provide the best search results

  Got'em with the old honeypot trap routine.

  Unsure, but suspicious, Google set up a trap. From December 17 to December 31, engineers inserted a "honeypot" result as the top result for specific search queries — including, hiybbprqag, mbzrxpgiys, and indoswiftjobinproduction — and waited to see if the same results would appear on Bing. Lo and behold, the identical results popped up.

  Of course, nowhere on Bing's News listing is there any mention of this story.

  Microsoft! I know its a bad habit you have. But you've got to learn to do your own work and stop plagiarizing.

• kushibo
  10:55 am on February 1st, 2011 33

  JoeC wrote:
  

  Microsoft! I know its a bad habit you have. But you’ve got to learn to do your own work and stop plagiarizing.

  It's a fifteen-year-old joke, but…

  Windows95 = Macintosh87

• ChickenHead
  7:44 pm on February 1st, 2011 34

  A new joke:

  Newton87 = Edsel58

  I actually have a Newton. It works… and could potentially be useful for something… except, as usual, Apple locked it up and there is no easy way to get info on or off of it.

  I just keep it in a box hoping my joke will have a second layer of funny in 2037 when it can be sold to a collector of such things at an Edsel-like price.

• Glans
  8:11 pm on February 1st, 2011 35

  Japan's 'James Bond' volcano erupts again.

• Greg
  8:38 am on February 3rd, 2011 36

  Rep. Rand Paul: It’s time to end foreign aid, including aid to Israel

  http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/28/rand-paul-i…

• JoeC
  9:17 am on February 3rd, 2011 37

  #36

  His father had been saying that for some time.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpfxr5yyZ7s

• ChickenHead
  9:35 pm on February 4th, 2011 38

  Hey, all you computer guys…

  I'm putting together a new computer based on an Athlon 3GHz quad core.

  I want to put a 500 watt power supply on it… even though that is probably overkill as there will be no heavy-duty graphics done on it.

  This computer will run 24/7.

  Here is the deal.

  I have 14 computers… many of which run continuously. In the last year I have had TWO power supplies die… one actually caught on fire briefly and made a lot of smoke.

  Both of these were relatively expensive name brand bought-in-America power supplies that were actually purchased new. On the other hand, I have only lost 3 no-name made in Korea supplies in the past 5 years… on computers that got heavy use in unheated/cooled rooms.

  Many of the no-name power supplies, and their replacements, came from the recycle yard for free… as there are hundreds of them just thrown away.

  (I also use micro ATX PSUs for much of the equipment I build as they supply lots of quality-regulated power, they are easy to replace by the user, I have quality CAD drawings of their form factor… and they are free… which allows me to pass the savings onto… me.)

  So… I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion. I can drop 80-150 for a Corsair, FSB or something made by Seasonic… but I can buy something local that comes in an equally fancy black-painted box for much less money that might be just as good… or better.

  But, I have no idea what PSUs are good in Korea.

  Anybody have an idea?

• Glans
  10:46 am on February 5th, 2011 39

  Freshman Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-NY, didn't know that Uncle Sam pays for her health care.

  "Buerkle, who voted to repeal the health care reform act, was twice asked about the health insurance she receives as a government employee. At first she said she couldn’t understand why people were so interested in her health insurance, and that taxpayers didn’t pay anything for it. She later corrected herself after being handed a note from a staffer. Like most employees, she pays for a portion of her insurance and her employer, the government, pays the rest, she said."

  Read about it at TPM or go directly to Syracuse.

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Notify me of new posts by email.

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.