Bachmann's coming to Homer Glen!

This GOP debate has been terrible.

I didn't watch it - I don't watch Presidential debates in a year where the President isn't actually getting elected, but I understand that some members of the crowd booed a soldier for having the gall to be gay. That's pretty classy. Not quite as classy as Obama Death Panels making decisions on the last debate, but still.

This GOP debate has been terrible.

Any highlights or lowlights you would like to share? I wanted to watch but couldn't.

 

 

Any highlights or lowlights you would like to share? I wanted to watch but couldn't.

 

The obligatory crowd lowlight was the booing of a gay soldier who asked a question about DADT.

The obligatory crowd lowlight was the booing of a gay soldier who asked a question about DADT.

 

Santorum's bizarre answer to the question was pretty awful as well. He also never thanked the soldier for his service.

Santorum's bizarre answer to the question was pretty awful as well. He also never thanked the soldier for his service.

I would like to hear God Loves the Infantry's response to this. Damn democrats republicans not showing respect for those who serve our country.

This was a pretty interesting back-and-forth between Romney for several reasons, but mainly Perry just looked completely out-classed in his response.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QymX8cPVic#

Any highlights or lowlights you would like to share? I wanted to watch but couldn't.

 

Highlights:

 

1) Huntsman got a lot of questions and bombed them all. No cheering, some boos.

 

2) Romney did OK, much better than Perry.

 

3) Finished on a good note.

 

Lowlights:

 

1) Perry bombed. Got booed when he talked about immigration. He did the worst

 

2) Gingrich didn't do well. Was boring, had nothing new to say. '

 

3) Bachmann was very annoying

 

My Favorite line from last nights debate came from Perry in regards to immigration..

 

We need to get the Aviation on the ground.

My Favorite line from last nights debate came from Perry in regards to immigration..

 

We need to get the Aviation on the ground.

 

i think he said it 3 times.

 

Jim Perry is very stupid.

 

 

Edited September 24, 201114 yr by mr_genius

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fox-ne...bate-yet_b89147

 

more peopled tuned in to the debate

Sadly Perry has the most experience with immigration issues and how they helped Texas. His immigration plans would actually play better to Dems than Reps. He hasn't really started spending money, plenty of time to get back on track.

Sadly Perry has the most experience with immigration issues and how they helped Texas. His immigration plans would actually play better to Dems than Reps. He hasn't really started spending money, plenty of time to get back on track.

He also is way, way, way behind Mittens in raising money.

I would like to hear God Loves the Infantry's response to this. Damn democrats republicans not showing respect for those who serve our country.

 

I'm sure he'll never respond to this since it doesn't fit his narrative.

I'm sure he'll never respond to this since it doesn't fit his narrative.

Guys, we really don't need to egg on a person who hasn't been in this thread for a while.

He also is way, way, way behind Mittens in raising money.

 

Who had a four year head start

The Texas (Perry) solution for social security . . .

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0912688176.html

 

It's been working for thirty years.

 

 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf

 

basically the galveston plan is worse for anyone but "very high income" singles over time.

Edited September 25, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf

 

basically the galveston plan is worse for anyone but "very high income" singles over time.

Well the competition doesn't like it. That's like asking Coke about Pepsi. I like the no unfunded part . . .

This thing again?

Tex, here's a direct quote from your WSJ piece. I've highlighted a key detail.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won't go below a base level and goes higher when the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75% and 5.75% every year, with the average around 5%. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, of 6.5%-7%. When the market goes up, employees make more—and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

 

But not all money goes into employees' retirement accounts. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1980, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn't just a retirement fund: It's also social insurance that provides a death benefit ($255), survivors' insurance, and a disability benefit.

If a very large fund went to a bank today and tried to set up a retirement plan that guaranteed a 4-5% return every year, do you think you could get it?

 

You know why Galveston was able to do that? Look at the date. 1980. What were interest rates like in 1980? The fund is able to lock in high interest rates because interest rates were through the roof and the place they were putting the money was betting against additional inflation. No private scheme would give you a deal like that today, 10 year interest rates are basically negative when adjusted for inflation.

And how will the government offer bigger returns? More subscribers?

And how will the government offer bigger returns? More subscribers?

If Galveston created the same setup right now and interest rates moved back to averaging 6-7% long term, then OASDI would offer a significantly higher return than a Galveson-like program.

 

OASDI also has much, much, much lower overhead costs than any private program.

If Galveston created the same setup right now and interest rates moved back to averaging 6-7% long term, then OASDI would offer a significantly higher return than a Galveson-like program.

 

OASDI also has much, much, much lower overhead costs than any private program.

 

Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75% and 5.75% every year, with the average around 5%. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, of 6.5%-7%. When the market goes up, employees make more—and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

 

And they are offering bigger benefits which become part of your estate, not lost like in SS.

And they are offering bigger benefits which become part of your estate, not lost like in SS.

But they're again able to do so because they set the program up at a time when the feds were paying 13% interest rates and banks were charging 15% rates on mortages. If you went to a financial institution and offered them a plan that included a guaranteed 5% annual interest return...that would have looked like a great deal for the financial institution at the time.

 

Now, banks are offering 1% interest rates and Treasuries are returning negative interest rates. A similar deal would, right now, be going to a bank and offering a -10% interest return.

 

No one would want Galveston's program if it lost 10% of its value any year that the economy turned down. The deal works because they took out the right deal at the peak of interest rates. Even the fact that they're paying a lot more in management fees doesn't matter.