I agree with your point concerning the Dems utter failure to put their fleeting majority to use. I blame a lack of leadership on the part of Obama for this. Obama should have driven the healthcare reform effort instead of trying to play fair broker between the two parties. For the political effort expended on Obamacare we might have gotten to a single payer system. Same with most other issues, Obama was simply too enamored of his own victory to capitalize on it.
As far as the law creating the current tax deadline, there is no parity between parties. The Republicans refused to raise the debt limit to cover spending they had already helped pass into the law. It was the shameless irresponsibility and opportunism of the Republican Party that has brought us once again to a pending fiscal disaster.
Dance! Dance the Jhhnn night away-uh-ay-ay!
I have no problems with lowering taxes for all Americans if you have a plan to pay for the government we have today. This means we have to cut back from government services somewhere to makeup the difference.
I'd much rather see us draw down the massive defense budget than take away from education, health care, science/tech research, and other invaluable public services.
I don't see any Republicans making this argument, their cuts are centered around basic services that overwhelmingly benefit the poor and middle class. They have no interest in drawing down the military industrial complex at all, in fact, they want to expand it.
Thus, the only logical choice is to vote Democratic. They are the only ones offering a sensible plan to reduce not only entitlements but to increase revenue through higher taxes on the wealthy.
That is an interesting position that presupposes that the need for a strong military capability is outweighed by the need for a strong social welfare apparatus.
Is the world now so safe for American interests that we can effectively draw down our military and focus mostly on building the welfare state at home?
Certainly that is the Democrat position and it will remain so unless or until the United States is challenged so effectively that even they will be forced to acknowledge that there is now a need for a more powerful and more effective military, however that might be defined at that moment.
The issue that I have is that the ramp up for an effective military is so much more difficult, more costly and time consuming than the ramp up for social welfare programs.
How long does it take to train up and equip an armor division and the lift capability to get it anywhere? How long to build and train up a fighter or bomber wing? How long does it take to build up a space defense or an electronic warfare capability?
You can literally increase your food stamp program within a few months. You need years to build modern military capability. And that presupposes that the required funds and expertise are going to be there when you change your mind.
Modern wars are fought with what you have right there and then, NOT with what you might build over time once the hostilities commence.
We have 11 carrier strike groups, one of which is based out of Japan, the rest home ported out of the US. At any time some of them are going to be in ports for retrofit and maintenance.
If the US is challenged with keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and keeping the sea lanes open in the event of a China-Japan confrontation, and you, wise social welfare Democrat that you are, previously stopped development and rollout of the new Ford-class carriers and just mothballed one or two Nimitz class carrier strike groups to bring your complement down to 9 to save money for food stamps, was it a wise choice?
Let me posit a very possible scenario. Iran has been allowed to build out a nuclear arsenal on Obama's watch. For peaceful purposes, of course. They decide to use it on a couple of American carrier strike groups and have figured out how to do so without a clear signature that they were the ones doing so. Now you have your planned draw down to just nine CSGs and AND significant battle losses, leaving you with just seven CSGs. What are you going to do? Issue out more food stamps?
A US military footprint in one region stabilizes another. All of a sudden, you have two CSGs in port and five deployed. All of a sudden, China realizes you are not quite the deterrent that you were before. Of course! You issue more food stamps!
Don't worry, PJABBER. I have defeated Diablo on enough different toons now that I no longer fear my world of inner terror. I have defeated my own projections and the terror center in my brain has shrunk and my reasoning faculties arisen to hold sway. I am the warrior who has conquered fear. I have met the enemy and he is me or was.
That is an interesting position that presupposes that the need for a strong military capability is outweighed by the need for a strong social welfare apparatus.
Is the world now so safe for American interests that we can effectively draw down our military and focus mostly on building the welfare state at home?
Certainly that is the Democrat position and it will remain so unless or until the United States is challenged so effectively that even they will be forced to acknowledge that there is now a need for a more powerful and more effective military, however that might be defined at that moment.
The issue that I have is that the ramp up for an effective military is so much more difficult, more costly and time consuming than the ramp up for social welfare programs.
How long does it take to train up and equip an armor division and the lift capability to get it anywhere? How long to build and train up a fighter or bomber wing? How long does it take to build up a space defense or an electronic warfare capability?
You can literally increase your food stamp program within a few months. You need years to build modern military capability. And that presupposes that the required funds and expertise are going to be there when you change your mind.
Modern wars are fought with what you have right there and then, NOT with what you might build over time once the hostilities commence.
Let's consider proposed cuts to the US Navy, certainly a profligate spender of taxpayer money.
We have 11 carrier strike groups, one of which is based out of Japan, the rest home ported out of the US. At any time some of them are going to be in ports for retrofit and maintenance.
If the US is challenged with keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and keeping the sea lanes open in the event of a China-Japan confrontation, and you, wise social welfare Democrat that you are, previously stopped development and rollout of the new Ford-class carriers and just mothballed one or two Nimitz class carrier strike groups to bring your complement down to 9 to save money for food stamps, was it a wise choice?
Let me posit a very possible scenario. Iran has been allowed to build out a nuclear arsenal on Obama's watch. For peaceful purposes, of course. They decide to use it on a couple of American carrier strike groups and have figured out how to do so without a clear signature that they were the ones doing so. Now you have your planned draw down to just nine CSGs and AND significant battle losses, leaving you with just seven CSGs. What are you going to do? Issue out more food stamps?
A US military footprint in one region stabilizes another. All of a sudden, you have two CSGs in port and five deployed. All of a sudden, China realizes you are not quite the deterrent that you were before. Of course! You issue more food stamps!
it is very easy to get to 1 mill in assets. my parents have a house on farm land that is worth 500k, 3 or 4 hundred in retirement, plus contents and other assets. sounds like this will kill every small family farm in the country, as land and land/water rights and farming equipment can be worth way more than 1 million, while the family has little cash.
43% on dividends is CRAZY! whats the point of investing if i have to give half of it to the .gov? good thing i'm selling all my stock to buy a house this year.
Sure, because the Chinese leadership wants to destabilize their best customer and debtor.
May I ask what average annual rate of return Fidelity currently considers the "historic norm" they use in their calculator?
Likelihood of Success
The likelihood of success is determined by running your plan through a minimum of 250 hypothetical market simulations and determining how many of the simulations provide you with assets until the end of your plan.
The Asset Liability Modeling Engine is based on historical market data that incorporates a risk premium approach through Monte Carlo simulations to consider the probabilities your portfolio might experience under different market conditions. A straightforward deterministic model, where returns are assumed to be the same every year, does not usually yield the most reliable results. While over very long periods of time, markets have averages, it is often the case that the market performs both above and below these averages.
Monte Carlo Simulations
Monte Carlo simulations are mathematical methods used to estimate the likelihood of a particular outcome based on historical market performance analysis. The Monte Carlo approach has been around since the turn of the century and is used across many fields, such as physics, chemistry, and biotechnology to solve complex science problems, particularly those that fall into a nonlinear category. The tool uses the Monte Carlo approach in which markets are assumed to change. Historical performance simulations are conducted to determine the probability that a portfolio may experience a certain minimum level of performance.
Monte Carlo simulations are analogous to rolling several pairs of dice. Each Monte Carlo simulation reproduces a random set of results by generating a random return for the scenario. When analyzed together, these results suggest a probability of occurrence.
For example, if you repeatedly roll four dice at the same time, the probability of all sixes coming up in the same roll is very low; however, other results may be more probabilistic, such as one six occurring in any given roll. For the purposes of our Monte Carlo simulation, we randomly generate a series of hundreds of returns for a given scenario. Together, these scenarios provide a probability that a certain amount (or greater) of assets/income occurs at that level.
Most family farms are incorporated in some form or another these days. Those that aren't are stupid.
You're delusional-
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/richer-rich-and-poorer-poor/
Only 1 in 10 families had a net worth in excess of $629K.
That was 2006, before the housing bubble popped, clobbering the housing worth of Americans.