A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so you do understand that a number true at one point in time is menaingless for a changing number?

Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know much about Columbia, and wouldn't be surprised if it lacks a diversity of views on this issue. But trashing a dead man doesn't seem like a very good way of making this case. Typical Dershowitz.

Club's source http://www.nysun.com/article/8865

At times he singled out for censure an assistant professor of modern Arab politics, Joseph Massad, who is accused of ordering one of his students to leave his classroom if she continued to deny Israel's alleged atrocities against Palestinian Arabs. Mr. Massad, who denies that the incident took place, is among dozens of Columbia professors who in 2003 called on the university to divest itself of financial holdings in companies that support Israel.

"Anybody who advocates for divesting only from the Jewish state ... at a time when Iraq was posing a great threat to the world, when Iran was posing great threats ... when China is oppressing million of Tibetans, when the Kurds are still denied independence and statehood, to single out only Israel for divestiture at that point in time cannot be explained by neutral political, even ideological consideration," Mr. Dershowitz said.

Mr. Massad, who argues that Israel is a racist state, has publicly urged Palestinian Arabs to continue their resistance against Israel and supports the creation of one binational state containing both Israel and the occupied territories.

"If you were a space alien from a distant planet and your spaceship landed at Columbia University, you wouldn't think necessarily that the reality is a two-state solution," Mr. Dershowitz said. "You would think there is another potential reality - the one-state solution, the secular national state of Palestine."

there have been complaints for awhile about Jews being ridiculed by Pro-pali profs at Columbia. Dershkowitz is "helping" his cause because he's not trying to change the pro-pali minds, he's trying to highlight the problem to the general public. The public recognizes that ignoring this nonsense is maybe not a good idea.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

When I tell Ty he's being dense because he doesn't understand the math, but wishes to pretend he does, and you do this----- it's like when punky little kids make fun of someone speaking a foreign language. They think its okay, because they don't understand what the person is saying, and since they don't understand it must be stupid- to them le Français des rois is gibberish- that kid is you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there have been complaints for awhile about Jews being ridiculed by Pro-pali profs at Columbia. Dershkowitz is "helping" his cause because he's not trying to change the pro-pali minds, he's trying to highlight the problem to the general public. The public recognizes that ignoring this nonsense is maybe not a good idea.

My only point is that even if Dershowitz is right about all that, trashing Said probably is counterproductive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
When I tell Ty he's being dense because he doesn't understand the math, but wishes to pretend he does....

I'll give you benefit the doubt, and assume I didn't explain myself well. Early last year, the Administration issued a prediction that the deficit would be, say, $580 billion. (I don't recall the exact numbers.) At the time, people pointed out that the prediction was unrealistically high. As they said, the actual number came in lower -- say, $420 billion. But the Administration continues to talk as if the deficit actually was what they predicted. So their ostensible target for halving the deficit is $290 billion, not $210 billion. The math is very simple. Even you should be able to follow it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Instead of government spending, what we really should do is outlaw birth control. My bet is we'll get more babies without having to further incentivize sex.

And, to Wonk's point, the AIDs deaths will lessen the retirement problem (but they will screw up Medicaid, won't they?).

I'll be dropping off the babies at your house, honey.

Or, more realistically, getting a black-market tube-tying.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll give you benefit the doubt, and assume I didn't explain myself well. Early last year, the Administration issued a prediction that the deficit would be, say, $580 billion. (I don't recall the exact numbers.) At the time, people pointed out that the prediction was unrealistically high. As they said, the actual number came in lower -- say, $420 billion. But the Administration continues to talk as if the deficit actually was what they predicted. So their ostensible target for halving the deficit is $290 billion, not $210 billion. The math is very simple. Even you should be able to follow it.

The math point goes back to % over 65 thing. I haven't read any of this ss crap other than GGG's new taxes

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know much about Columbia, and wouldn't be surprised if it lacks a diversity of views on this issue. But trashing a dead man doesn't seem like a very good way of making this case. Typical Dershowitz.

There is some diversity of opinion at Columbia. There is the "Israel is engaged in genocide" opinion, and there is the "criticism of Israel or sympathy for Palistinians is antisemitism" opinion. Everyone else just keeps their head down to avoid being hit with stray invective.

Dershowitz is probably harming his cause with people who actually are familiar with Said, but to most of the public, the combination of the terms "arab" "academic" "new york city" and "university" means that he was obviously an amoral, socialist, wild-eyed, anti-American corrupter-of-youth, and Dershowitz is just pointing out the obvious.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The math point goes back to % over 65 thing. I haven't read any of this ss crap other than GGG's new taxes

Well, if you've convinced yourself, that's something.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• It's not often that a professor tells a packed crowd at Columbia University that Edward Said was a political extremist and that faculty members in the school's Middle East studies department encourage Islamic terrorism.
  
  The professor who made those statements yesterday isn't from Columbia but from Harvard. Law professor Alan Dershowitz showed up at the intellectual home of Said, a literature professor who was a fierce critic of Israel, to rebuke Columbia's faculty and administration for tolerating an atmosphere on campus that he said promotes the hatred of Israel

Uh-oh.

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal, therefore these Columbia profs speak for him. Does not compute, does not compute. Call in Slave.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We may need to talk. I haven't found those tax-free vehicles yet.

Send me a PM.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
We may need to talk to the IRS. You can do a defined benefit plan and max out defined contribution plan contributions (like $45k I think; obviously I did not work on communications at the end of last year!!), but for partners in a law firm there's not really the option of nonqualified comp because of the way partnership tax works. So generally the other options are stuff that is sometimes known by the term of art "tax fraud."

I'm not inclined to believe you over the fleet of lawyers and tax advisers who've reviewed our various plans.

And other vehicles I was referring to are things like 529 plans.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Uh-oh.

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal, therefore these Columbia profs speak for him. Does not compute, does not compute. Call in Slave.

Are you my internet stalker?

Please educate me on the last time 1 liberal criticized another. I can't recall this happening recently.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not inclined to believe you over the fleet of lawyers and tax advisers who've reviewed our various plans.

2

[sgtclub]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines