I am not Liberal. Are you?

[once a runner]

Southpaw, sorry I was busy today and couldn't get right back to you. SS isn't in dire straits. Yes, it won't be fully funded by 2042 when the ratio of workers to retirees reaches 2:1. How would I fix it? You seem to already know, but I'll tell you anyway. Yes, I would slightly raise the tax and slightly cut the benefits on the other end and raise the 90k cap. Make 3 small changes and it's solvent again in 2042.

I know, those are dirty words to you. But I don't see the point in overhauling the whole system when it just needs tweaked.

Doesn't the president have the votes to overcome the AARP and a possible filibuster? I can't image why the AARP would be against such a plan. Probably just a bunch of liberals I suppose. Although that wouldn't explain why Bush got the majority of their vote in 2004.

[Pale Rider]

Bush got the majority vote because in spite of all the lies from Kerry, Moveon.org, George Soros, Teddy Kennedy, Tom Daschle and other Libs, the PEOPLE thought of him as the best, most trustworthy candidate. AARP is made up of both parties. Not all old folks are sharp as tacks. If the family as a unit hadn't disintegrated from the 50's till now, you would have enough harmony in a family that they would look and care for the older family members as the older ones did for the younger as they grew up. Too much ME ME ME generational difference now. That's why the old folks have to look for themselves, and why they don't want anyone messin' with their SS or Healthcare systems. Their fixed incomes preclude them from living large like their offspring. Very few had the foresight to prepare for their old age because they gave and did all they could for their offspring, and now when they need aid and comfort in their old age, they get put into assisted care centers because the "family unit" either won't or can't care for them. I'm not saying this happens across the board, but it does far too often compared to what it used to.

[fleaflicker]

Southpaw, you're right that some prices decrease as others increase. Going by the Dell example, it was a novel computer at the time, and rather new. It probably (I'm not computer expert, so I don't know) employed some things that other computers didn't have. Also, being new, Dell hadn't figured out how to effectively mass produce it- yet. So the 2K price tag payed for research, marketing, and manufacture, which, with a new computer, would probably be rather pricey. Now, Dell has figured out how to effectively mass produce it. Since being able to mass produce a produce is cheaper, the price has gone down. Also, there have probably been some replacements as far as material goes for stuff that works almost as well as the original materials (or maybe not), but doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Thus, five years later, you can get that 2 grand machine for about 600 bucks.

[TheAnalyst]

I doubt Dell had problems figuring out how to mass produce a pc. New technology costs more because people are willing to pay for it. It probably costs about the same to make a $500 pc or a $2000 pc. If a company wants a return on their investment (R&D, etc), they better get it up front, while the technology is new, when consumers are demanding it. Technology advances so rapidly that what cost $2000 last year is $1500 this year because of old technology. There are consumers who do not need or cannot afford the price of new tech, so they are willing to pay $600, thus manufacturers still produce them.

[DCPassarelli]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="94814"]Ok, if the U.S. dollar was in a deflationary period, wouldn't that mean the value of a dollar went down against foreign currencies? If that's true, then this deflationary period would only affect the value of a dollar in foreign countries, such as in stock prices and such, not necessarily the amount of goods and/or services a dollar would buy at home in the United States.[/quote]
I'm going to have to say, "WTF?" to this one. Seriously dude, that makes no sense at all. If deflation occurs, the value of the dollar when compared to other counties money would go up because it can buy more. What a dollar buys is what determines its worth when compared to other county's currency.

In reference to the computers:
The reason new computers cost so much is the amount of R&D that goes into the brand new technology. The companies have to get enough money to pay the engineer's that develop the equipment when people will buy it. To actually produce it, for the most part, costs the same. Who would buy an old video card when a new one that is better costs the same? (The answer is someone that buys a Dell) The computer market is probably the best place to see the greatness of competition working properly.

[Pale Rider]

Don't forget about all those that lost their @SS because they had to get in on the new technologies stocks and over-invested, then when the tech market crashed some years ago, they almost all took a bath, because they "put all their eggs in one basket" theory, hoping to get rich quick. Thus the need for the consumer to diversify with a good package of mutual funds to spread out any potential disastrous crashes .

[Lancelot 8]

What to make of this...

Overall: 55% Conservative, 45% Liberal
Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

[fleaflicker]

According to Southpaw and El-Moldo, you're a dirty liberal. According to me, you're a moderate. Anyways....

Mutual funds are generally a wise choice, but they're still worthless if the stock market crashes. So if I go and invest all my money in mutual funds (as opposed to stock) and the stock market crashes again, I'm still broke either way. It's a risky business.

[El-Moldo]

Don't get me into this!!!

[Pale Rider]

flea: Yes there is risk. As in all things. Let me ask you this. Just what if: FDR had never started the whole SS thing, and all there was was the banks, which as of now give something like 1 1/2 % on savings. What's the current rate of inflation? I don't know exactly, but your savings will NEVER keep up with it. If there was no SS, most people would be spending what they make, just like they do now. All the people that now have no retirement plans because now remember we have no SS, where would they be? If you think it's tough now to see people in their 60's and 70's working part-time to make ends meet, it would be a heck of a lot worse with those folks in their 80's and 90's STILL working, because there is no SS. People would LITERALLY work till they fell over and died. There would be no monthly stipend from Uncle Sam as there is now. What have people been saying - it used to be a ratio of 16 working people supporting every retiree, but with the population getting older and older, and less working folks, the ratio is now like less than 3 to 1? How is it going to get better? Sure, increasing the ceiling to a higher limit will help, but it AIN'T the CURE! That only prolongs the inevitable! Use some common sense. What will a 4 % selective investment by you matter out of the total monthly check? I have explained it time and time again on here how it works. I guess like some, you either selectively read and don't comprehend or just don't comprehend period. Now having met you, I know it's probably neither of those, so what's the beef? Save a couple bucks a month in a program that will gain you great benefit in the long run, so you MIGHT NOT have to work into your 80's, or buy all those Big Gulps and Mickey D's fries, that X Box game you just HAD to have, that Star Wars premier you JUST HAD to go to, or what have you. You see, hopefully, what I mean. The term is DELAYED GRATIFICATION! YOU WILL NOT DIE IF YOU DON'T GET WHAT YOU WANT RIGHT NOW! BTW- for the sake of YOUR argument, let's say that you do invest that 4 % and after a few years the market DOES crash. So you lost your 4 % monthly investment. You still have your other 96 % don't you? If not, what happened to it? Oh, that's right. By the time you are ready to retire and hope to withdraw your SS monthly stipend, guess what- IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE, because now there is maybe only 1 person working for every 1 that is drawing that SS. There are no more funds to cover it. What would you have your Government do then? You aren't capable of taking care of your own needs because you are on death's doorstep due to advanced age and you expect your Government to do it for you. Let's hear it for SOCIALISM!