Yesterday afternoon I shucked down to my birthday suit, grabbed a bottle of gin and sat my naked ass upon the couch all in anticipation of the lesbian episode of Postcards from Buster. This was going to be hot, hot, hot!
Well, Mr. Floppy and I were sadly disappointed. There wasn't even any deep tongue kissing, let alone double, dastardly, strap-on penetration amidst the stately maples of Vermont. Nothing.
I finished my gin, sat in my buffness and awaited the President's State of the Union™ speech. At least, I was prepared to have W shove his misguided "Give Money to the Corporations... errr.... Social Security revamping" plan right up my hairy wazoo.
In all seriousness, I did watch the controversial episode of Postcards from Buster with my daughter by my side.
When it was finished, like the responsible adult that I am, I decided to discuss the episode with her:
"So," I began "Did you notice anything different in the show?"
"They used milking machines instead of milking the cows by hand." replied my six-year old.
"Yes. That's true... but did you notice anything different about the families?"
"They had a bonfire."
"True... but was there anything different from our family?"
"They ate real cheese. Not that weird Kraft stuff."
"Again, that is correct... but what about the mothers. Was there anything different about them?"
"One of them was as big as Kirstie Alley™."
At that point I gave up. I decided our new Secretary of Education was out of touch and left it at that.
"Hey Dad?" asked my daughter as I got up to leave. A ha! Here it comes I thought.
"Yes?"
"Could you put some clothes on?"
*originally posted today at brianlewandowski.com
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steve S
Funny, funny! Thanks for reminding us that we aren't born with intolerance, it is a value instilled by others.
2 - Anna
Hilarious! Thanks. (and please go put some pants on)
3 - bhw
I wanted to watch the episode, too, but I screwed up with the TiVo and set it to record today's episode instead of yesterday's. It's, like, the most simple interface to use, and I blew it.
ANYway, I'm not surprised to hear that there was really nothing to tell about the episode.
4 - NancyGail
Social Security is going to be tough passing. Not enough Reps to carry the vote. They would need Dems help, which Reid vows ain't gonna happen.
5 - naz
Can someone tell me what the conseses is amoung republicans and democrats concerning the merits of the social security reform? are people for privatising ?
6 - Aaman
Consensus? You've got the wrong playbook there
7 - bhw
I really want to know what Buster Baxter thinks about Social Security.
8 - Roy Smith
No consensus. Democrats are dead set against privatising, and a lot of Republicans are nervous that if they vote for privatising that they will be beaten with a stick by the voters come the next election.
9 - Maurice
Those voters with good math skills are all for the reform. Ask your financial advisor if you should invest in a scheme that will never even pay back your original investment. Don't forget - your employer is matching your 'contribution' to this lame lose money plan. It should be obvious that the plan needs to be overhauled. The Demoncats just don't like it that the Repuglicans came up with a plan.
10 - naz
Well, if I were an american i would be left of teh democrats even. But having said that, I think the reforms sound pretty good.
Problem is, how does the govenment get the moeny to do it without going bankrupt. I mean your economy is already in a scary place, the world economy is shifting quickly, and then these unprecedented expenditures for internal overhaul ....
it could be dangerous.. but I hope it works.. other than that privatization is horrible thing in 99% of instances..
11 - naz
ARe all bloggers republicans..?
The democrats seem to be afraid to sticktheir noses out without getting them bashed in.
Calling all the cowardly democrats!! come out and fight for your country before its lost forever! please.. I dread even a few more years with a republican america next door..
12 - Roy Smith
1) Privatizers can't promise good returns. Read this article to learn about the assumptions you have to make for privatization to come out ahead. I personally don't believe in a P/E ratio of 100.
2) If this were just about me and my investments, I would probably support this. However, the road to privatization probably (at least in the Republican vision of how the world should be) include:
a) Elimination of disability benefits
b) No safety net for those whose investments do poorly.
c) No means to protect the financially underinformed from making lousy investment decisions and thus ending up in poverty.
Social security is a safety net designed to guarantee a minimum level of dignity to retirees. It is not intended as an investment program. That is what we have 401(k)'s and IRA's for (and believe me, I am using those tools, and everybody else should, too). If you are not concerned that a significant fraction of our elderly may end up in poverty, by all means support this.
13 - Maurice
I knew there were some people with bad math skills here but Roy gets the prize as the first to speak up. Roy give me $5000 a year for 40 years and I will guarantee $1000 bucks a month to you for as long as you live after age 65. You may want to use a calculator. If you are still confused go here and calculate your retirement 'benefit'.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ANYPIA/anypia.html
14 - Roy Smith
Maurice: Did you read the article? Projecting future earnings (particularly from stock markets) is all about what assumptions you make about the economy.
Besides, my beef with privatization has more to do with the social aspects of it than the financial aspects.
15 - andy marsh
naz - thank God you're not an American!
16 - Roy Smith
By the way, how did we get from Postcards from Buster to Social Security reform?
17 - Maurice
Roy -
glad you backed down from the financial arguement. I would have required you to find one mutual fund that lost money over a 40 year period.
BTW I have a theory. I think Buster and Mr. Foppy are one and the same. You notice you never see them together.
18 - Roy Smith
If a mutual fund lost money over a 40 year period, it wouldn't have lasted 5 years, so that is a non-argument.
The financial argument (again, read the article) is based on the fact that if you use the economic assumptions used to say that social security is going broke, you have to conclude that the stock market isn't going to cut it either. If you assume that the economy is going to grow fast enough to make privatization work, then social security isn't insolvent in the first place.
The social security administration uses conservative (I would argue pessimistic) assumptions about the future of our economy to make its projections. The financial argument is still valid, but my main opposition is still based on the social costs.
19 - Maurice
Ok Roy, I read your article and I was able to ignore many of the errors. Some I can't ignore. For example: the writer refers to the social security trust fund going broke. There is no trust fund. Social Security is a money transfer scheme that started with 40 workers for every retiree and now has 3 workers per retiree. The writer also refers to dividends as part of the expectation for growth. WTF. I avoid stocks that pay a dividend because they are non-growth stocks. Your comment about mutual funds not being around if they lose money for 5 years tells me you are unfamiliar with how stocks and mutual funds work.
20 - Roy Smith
Maurice: Rather than argue with you about investment philosophy, since you seem set in your convictions, I will just ask you to find an economist who will take up the challenge ("No economist left behind")described in the last paragraph of the article: "make a projection of economic growth, dividends and capital gains that will yield a 6.5 percent rate of return over 75 years".
According to the article, "Not one economist who supports privatization has been willing to take the test".
Those non-dividend paying "growth" stocks that you like to invest in depend on economic growth for their capital gains every bit as much as other stocks do for dividends.
21 - Maurice
Milton Friedman
22 - Roy Smith
Yes, Milton Friedman supports privatization of Social Security. Has he made a projection of economic growth, dividends and capital gains that will yield a 6.5 percent rate of return over 75 years? If so, what is it? What assumptions does he use?
23 - Maurice
Roy,
I already explained that the aritcle is riddled with errors. Dividends are unimportant to the issue because only utilities and other non-growth stocks pay dividends. Capital gains is a tax term not a stock term. You seem to have an axe to grind that has nothing to do with how to fix this problem; or even how money works. I'll address you confused comment about mutual funds. They are like a football team. They have many players (stocks) and are managed (coached) closely by a fund manager. If one player is injured (poor performing) then he is benched (sell some) and if he is really bad fired from the team (out of the fund). All these teams (funds) are in competition with each other and so get better as the years go by.
One last point to consider. At the end of your working life you will have contributed $200k to SS. The money you contributed was consumed by retirees (and used by corrupt politicians to pay bills) and so now you are hoping that there are enough young whipersnapers out there to pay your way. What if you had put that 200k into a mutual fund paying a measly five percent? You would have over $634k for your retirement. Now I am going to do the math for you. Instead of the $1000 a month you would get from SS you will have $2641 a month.
* calculations assume $5000 contribution per year (which is what you currently pay not counting your employers matching $5000) at %5 compounded per year for 40 years. Life expectancy of 20 years after retirement. Do you want the dry, microwaved burger or the.....
24 - Big Bri
So I guess you guys didn't become heathens from watching Buster?
(At the current rate of deductions and such, Social Security will be able to pay out at 80% of current amounts in 2042. It's not for another 20 years or so that the system even begins to take in less than it pays out.
Not sure how you can stop the system now without adding another 2 trillion big ones to the defecit. I guess we could get more loans from China. Did you even know that China pays a lot of our debts for us?
All is needless. A simple solution is to be a fatalist like me. You live everyday like your last. It stops you from getting caught up in the ...yawn... or the political hype. Now if you excuse me, I have to swell neklkid chicks sitting here looking for something to do! Aloha!)
25 - Roy Smith
Maurice:
Mutual funds and share prices (of both stocks that pay dividends and those that don't) depend upon growth of the economy, and fundamentally can't get very far ahead of economic growth (that is what causes bubbles). Tell me what assumptions about economic growth you use to support your 5% return - and and is that 5% before or after inflation? The social security administration actually pegs their numbers to projections of economic growth when they predict how solvent they will be.
What projections of economic growth are you using?
Also, you seem to be under the presumption that you will be allowed to pick your stocks or mutual funds under the privatization scheme, but when pressed the privatizers say, well, no we are going to offer only a limited selection of the broadest mutual funds. If this is the case, then the performance of those stocks that pay dividends is important because they will inevitably be part of the broad mutual funds.