Is Hillary Clinton the unelectable one ?

[fskimospy]

Isn't that definition of a ponzi scheme?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp

That perfectly describes what happened to the Teamster pension fund. The fund is collapsing because there is a lack of new workers. The pension worked beautifully as long as there were more workers than retirees. Once that starts to reverse, the fund collapses.

First, I assume this means you admit that Social Security is nothing like a ponzi scheme?

As for the rest, you left out important parts of the definition, as Ponzi schemes involve fraud. Additionally, a Ponzi scheme requires a constant stream of new capital from investors while a pension does not. Not only do pensions gain additional capital from investments, unlike a Ponzi scheme, but there is absolutely no requirement for their liabilities to grow faster than their assets, also unlike a Ponzi scheme. The definition isn't just wrong, it's wildly wrong.

As for the Teamsters pension, it looks like the fund is at risk of failure for a number of reasons, not simply that they have fewer employees now.

But pensions still rely on more people paying in than taking out. If more people are taking out, the fund collapses because the fund is forced to liquidate its investments. It doesn't matter if the fund actually had investments or not since the end result is the same - a lack of new investors causes the fund to collapse. That mechanism of relying on new investors is what defines a ponzi scheme.

This is false. Pensions do not require more people paying in than taking out so long as they have properly structured their investment portfolio and their level of benefits.

When you have less money coming in than going out this does cause a pension to liquidate some investments, but that's not inherently a bad thing. Pensions do not need to grow ever larger in order to fulfill their purpose, much like your retirement account is not a failure if you are having net withdrawals later in your life.

This is why when looking at a pension's health people generally look at its assets as compared to its liabilities, not how many new workers they have coming in. It's also why a comparison to a ponzi scheme is absurd.

To be fair, the non-ponzi elements of pensions had realistic expectations when they were created. ZIRP and NIRP are recent problems. In 1990, you really could get 10% every year from bonds alone. I remember regular bank accounts paying 5% interest. That was a really glorious time for savers and retired people.

Most people get a very small percentage of their income from interest, so high rates didn't really mean shit for regular people almost ever. I'm sure that pension funds and other institutional investors could take advantage of them though.

That all speaks to the challenges of managing the fund though, which is a totally separate thing from calling them a Ponzi scheme, which is badly inaccurate.

 

[mect]

If you remove all the fake scandals she's been involved with over the years then what are we left with? We are left with policy positions. If you look at the Hillary detractors, policy is one thing I never hear them talk about or complain about.

Okay I'll give you some policy positions.

1. Fire arms - Hillary seems to blow whichever way the wind is blowing. Back in 2000, she supported national gun registration. In 2008, she opposed it. While I haven't heard any recent claims, based on the language she is currently using, I would assume she's for one again.

2. Military action - She supported Iraq, and although she admits that was a mistake, she still seams to be very hawkish in terms of using military force.

3. LGBT Rights - I can understand that lots of people have evolved on this issue. So own up to it. Don't try to paint yourself as a long standing supporter if you haven't been. I've evolved on this subject myself. But I don't claim that I was a supporter from the start. And I'm not running for president.

4. Breaking up big banks - she says she'll do it if they are ever a danger, the problem is when its a danger, most likely it will be too late. I'm of the opinion if a bank is too big to fail, its too big to exist.

5. Patriot Act - Clinton supported the original, and supported the reauthorization. She has demonstrated little regard for Americans' rights to privacy.

6. Campaign finance reform - sure, she says she is against letting the wealthy have control of political campaigns, but she isn't willing to act. She tries to make her campaign sound similar in nature to Sanders when there really is no comparison.

 

[Fern]

Is Hillary Clinton the unelectable one ?

I think probably so. I say that because I believe the FBI will recommend charges. (This assumes the investigation will be completed soon.) I have no idea what the DoJ may do. I don't know that it matters; the resulting poo-storm will devastate her chances.

I also predict she won't drop out, not even if charged.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I think probably so. I say that because I believe the FBI will recommend charges. (This assumes the investigation will be completed soon.) I have no idea what the DoJ may do. I don't know that it matters; the resulting poo-storm will devastate her chances.

I also predict she won't drop out, not even if charged.

Fern

I think the chances of the FBI recommending charges against her is close to zero. I'm not aware of any nonpartisan source that thinks otherwise.

 

[Fern]

Or maybe pensions are in trouble because of right wing policy to beat down union membership over the last 35 years, huh?

I think it's the expense and difficulty of administering Defined Plan pensions.

Number of people doesn't really matter, excepting to spread the administrative costs.

Pensions are a generational transfer in many respects. Members keep the plan afloat so when there are fewer & fewer members it starves the fund of money. Today's Teamster retirees, for example, paid the pensions of even older Teamsters now passed away.

That's not how pensions are supposed to work and younger employees shouldn't be paying for older ones.

The appropriate amount, calculated with a number of variables such as life expectancy and expected investment yield, for employees should be invested each year. Plans can be, and were, 'frozen'. (I.e., no new employees added) This shouldn't jeopardize them.

What generally jeopardizes plans is unrealistic expectations of investment returns and ever-increasing benefits. (Look at govt employee plans.)

Over estimating investment income means a smaller annual investment (cash outflow) in the plan. It can also actually result in the business/company taking money back out of the plan.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I think the chances of the FBI recommending charges against her is close to zero. I'm not aware of any nonpartisan source that thinks otherwise.

"Nonpartisan source"? Bwuhahaha. You're the least likely person on this board to even recognize a nonpartisan source.

If you wanna go out on a limb and predict the FBI won't recommend charges - do it. But man-up and please stop trying to hide behind unnamed "nonpartisan sources".

Fern

 

[glenn1]

So just to verify what you are saying; you want a safety net system that is untouchable by government and certainly not affected by the whims of Congress? So if we were to pass a law that says SS can't be touched by Congress, can I assume you'd support that?

If so, then I agree with you, SS shouldn't be a political football, it should be the safest safety net we have.

Well, a law like that could be repealed by a future Congress so that's not much of an improvement over the current situation. My approach would mean the account was the actual property of the contributors and thus Congress could not repeal because that would be an unconstitutional taking and prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Sure Congress could do something like tax distributions at 100% but I'm only trying to fix one problem and not all of them. I'm actually surprised some progressives would express opposition; do you really want some future GOP Congress ditching the "social security entitlement" to fund tax cuts?

As for other changes to SS, I would be OK with allowing people to shift some contributions to private accounts, but that's a Day 2 item at best and would not be suitable for all, or even maybe most. As someone else said, the MyRA seems like a tentative first step in that direction. Maybe allow it as an "add-on" to the current system.

 

[ivwshane]

I've never seen you post before so I'm not familiar with your views and posting history. Regardless, thank you for answering the question. It would appear though that your concern is more about trust than actual policy questions, you at least are able to articulate why you distrust her in the first place and they are at least based on facts.

Okay I'll give you some policy positions.

1. Fire arms - Hillary seems to blow whichever way the wind is blowing. Back in 2000, she supported national gun registration. In 2008, she opposed it. While I haven't heard any recent claims, based on the language she is currently using, I would assume she's for one again.

2. Military action - She supported Iraq, and although she admits that was a mistake, she still seams to be very hawkish in terms of using military force.

3. LGBT Rights - I can understand that lots of people have evolved on this issue. So own up to it. Don't try to paint yourself as a long standing supporter if you haven't been. I've evolved on this subject myself. But I don't claim that I was a supporter from the start. And I'm not running for president.

4. Breaking up big banks - she says she'll do it if they are ever a danger, the problem is when its a danger, most likely it will be too late. I'm of the opinion if a bank is too big to fail, its too big to exist.

5. Patriot Act - Clinton supported the original, and supported the reauthorization. She has demonstrated little regard for Americans' rights to privacy.

6. Campaign finance reform - sure, she says she is against letting the wealthy have control of political campaigns, but she isn't willing to act. She tries to make her campaign sound similar in nature to Sanders when there really is no comparison.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, a law like that could be repealed by a future Congress so that's not much of an improvement over the current situation. My approach would mean the account was the actual property of the contributors and thus Congress could not repeal because that would be an unconstitutional taking and prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Sure Congress could do something like tax distributions at 100% but I'm only trying to fix one problem and not all of them. I'm actually surprised some progressives would express opposition; do you really want some future GOP Congress ditching the "social security entitlement" to fund tax cuts?

As for other changes to SS, I would be OK with allowing people to shift some contributions to private accounts, but that's a Day 2 item at best and would not be suitable for all, or even maybe most. As someone else said, the MyRA seems like a tentative first step in that direction. Maybe allow it as an "add-on" to the current system.

I think you have raised a reasonable concern and I can't really find fault in your solution so I'd certainly support it.

 

[fskimospy]

"Nonpartisan source"? Bwuhahaha. You're the least likely person on this board to even recognize a nonpartisan source.

Lol. By all means try me! Show me a source that says it is likely she will be indicted (or have charges recommended against her) that you believe to be nonpartisan.

Take as much time as you need.

If you wanna go out on a limb and predict the FBI won't recommend charges - do it. But man-up and please stop trying to hide behind unnamed "nonpartisan sources".

Fern

I'm not going out on a limb at all, haha. If you stick your head out of the ultra right wing media bubble from time to time you will see that.

This is another one of those things where conservatives will be terribly confused and convinced something nefarious has happened. I mean EVERYONE knew Hillary was going to have charges recommended against her, so how could it have all gone wrong?

The answer is simple, it was never that way. You were duped again.

 

[Fern]

Lol. By all means try me! Show me a source that says it is likely she will be indicted (or have charges recommended against her) that you believe to be nonpartisan.
-snip-

I don't need a source. Someone like you who is used to being told what to think just can't imagine that there are people around who don't.

Quick! Run find a hundred page paper to tell you what to say next.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I don't need a source. Someone like you who is used to being told what to think just can't imagine that there are people around who don't.

Quick! Run find a hundred page paper to tell you what to say next.

Fern

Haha, I'll take that to mean you can't find one.

I am impressed to see that you are relying on your deep knowledge of the law, the FBI, and the contents of Hillary's email server to form what is undoubtedly a well supported opinion. When it turns out to be wrong I'm sure that you won't allege corruption or conspiracy, but will instead own up to your own bad prediction.

Oh who am I kidding. Haha. You're a birther, after all. You'll believe anything.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it's the expense and difficulty of administering Defined Plan pensions.

Number of people doesn't really matter, excepting to spread the administrative costs.



That's not how pensions are supposed to work and younger employees shouldn't be paying for older ones.

The appropriate amount, calculated with a number of variables such as life expectancy and expected investment yield, for employees should be invested each year. Plans can be, and were, 'frozen'. (I.e., no new employees added) This shouldn't jeopardize them.

What generally jeopardizes plans is unrealistic expectations of investment returns and ever-increasing benefits. (Look at govt employee plans.)

Over estimating investment income means a smaller annual investment (cash outflow) in the plan. It can also actually result in the business/company taking money back out of the plan.

Fern

Oh, please. Explain how a declining membership doesn't starve the fund. There are basically half as many workers supporting the plan as there were 30 years ago with a large # of retirees reflecting the previous membership level.

Pensions have always depended on current membership to hold up the fund balance. Denied members they're denied the ability to do that. It's just that simple.

 

[Fern]

Oh, please. Explain how a declining membership doesn't starve the fund. There are basically half as many workers supporting the plan as there were 30 years ago with a large # of retirees reflecting the previous membership level.

Pensions have always depended on current membership to hold up the fund balance. Denied members they're denied the ability to do that. It's just that simple.

No. Actuarial determinations dictate the amount of (expected) liability for the current employee population and thus the amount required to be invested in the pension plan. Think of a (lifetime) annuity. There is only one person (or two if spouse is covered). There are no new people to contribute to your annuity. Now imagine an annuity for a group of people.

What you're describing (new people pay for old peoples' benefits) is the SS system.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, please. Explain how a declining membership doesn't starve the fund. There are basically half as many workers supporting the plan as there were 30 years ago with a large # of retirees reflecting the previous membership level.

Pensions have always depended on current membership to hold up the fund balance. Denied members they're denied the ability to do that. It's just that simple.

They really aren't dependent on that, so long as the fund is structured correctly. If you need current contributions to cover outlays that means your fund is fundamentally flawed and doomed to collapse without changes. Think about it: if current contributions are going to retirees instead of investments that means they can't generate returns, which means the next group of workers is going to have an even bigger hole to fill.

This is different than social security which is a true pay as you go system.

Fern might be a nut about other things but he's right about this.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Oh who am I kidding. Haha. You're a birther, after all. You'll believe anything.

Careful, lying is prohibited.

"Birther" means two things: An assertion Obama was born abroad and his BC was forged.

I've never said either.

What I said was that the BC he first offered wasn't his original BC. I was correct. I also said that BC only stated his place of birth as Honolulu, not a hospital. I was correct there; it is easy to verify. HI offers a BC known as a delayed BC". I am correct; this is easy to confirm. If a person is born at a hospital they will not have a delayed BC. Obama's first BC didn't list a hospital, thus his original BC could have been a delayed BC, which I said would be interesting. This, of course, was resolved when he released his original displaying his birth hospital.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Careful, lying is prohibited.

"Birther" means two things: An assertion Obama was born abroad and his BC was forged.

I've never said either.

What I said was that the BC he first offered wasn't his original BC. I was correct. I also said that BC only stated his place of birth as Honolulu, not a hospital. I was correct there; it is easy to verify. HI offers a BC known as a delayed BC". I am correct; this is easy to confirm. If a person is born at a hospital they will not have a delayed BC. Obama's first BC didn't list a hospital, thus his original BC could have been a delayed BC, which I said would be interesting. This, of course, was resolved when he released his original displaying his birth hospital.

Fern

Birther certainly isn't defined that way, and you are (or at least were) most definitely a birther. If you really insist I can go dig up some of your birther posts from the past when I'm not on my phone. There are plenty.

If you feel that you are being unfairly maligned by all means report my posts! Just because things you wrote in the past are now embarrassing doesn't mean they didn't happen.

 

[Fern]

Birther certainly isn't defined that way, and you are (or at least were) most definitely a birther. If you really insist I can go dig up some of your birther posts from the past when I'm not on my phone. There are plenty.

If you feel that you are being unfairly maligned by all means report my posts! Just because things you wrote in the past are now embarrassing doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Dig them up.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Dig them up.

Fern

I will most definitely do so when I'm not on my phone. How fun!

 

[blankslate]

ah, the classic stages of grief... Righties and Bernie Bros are at:

Bargaining: This stage may involve persistent thoughts about what could have been done to prevent the loss. People can become preoccupied about ways that things could have been better. If this stage is not properly resolved, intense feelings of remorse or guilt may interfere with the healing process.
__________________

Are you so sure? I favor Senator Sanders right now over Secretary of State Clinton because he has pretty much been talking and championing the same causes for just about all of his time in the Senate as far as I know.

If Sec. of State Clinton wins the nomination I will vote for her because as much as I believe Senator Sanders is better than she is... I have no doubt that she is much better than any Republican candidate especially in light of the shake up of SCOTUS in recent days.

She's having trouble with even the more outsider candidates still in the republican field and gets crushed at this moment by some of the more moderate ones. It's not a stage of grief... I'm genuinely afraid if the republican primaries yield a Governor Kasich or a Senator Rubio.

Never mind the matchups with could change look at the favorability ratings... Senator Sanders is 51% favorable and 36% unfavorable. Sec. of State Clinton is 37% favorable and 58% percent unfavorable. Sure negative ads could hurt Senator Sanders in that department but in Sec. of State Clinton's case it looks like the damage is largely done and all negative ads would do is reinforce the numbers she has now.

Hell, maybe they're bullshitting us. But one or two posters here who favor the republican party over the democratic party have indicated that they would vote for Senator Sanders over a republican candidate depending on how that primary turns out.

______________

 

[Zorkorist]

If Mao Tse Tung wins,

Can I be Stalin?!

-John

 

[LPCTech]

I just found this video..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

its amusing.

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzY_803xAlM

 

[blankslate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg

Super Predators... We have to bring them to heel.

Yeah that's kosher.


_____________

 

[fskimospy]

Dig them up.

Fern

So I did a quick search and found this thread, of which the whole thing basically shows what I'm talking about. It's basically you trying to pull the same thing now as you did then where you claim you aren't a birther but are just 'raising questions'. (that just so happen to work as apologism for birthers, haha)

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30807808

Here's the easiest quote where you declare that the HI official in charge of birth records unequivocally stating that Obama was born in Hawaii doesn't count as proof for him being born in Hawaii, but if you go through it further and look at other threads we can find you concocting scenarios for planted newspaper announcements, saying that the governor certifying his birth doesn't count, making up crazy and wrong things about the law, etc.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=237740&page=15

Are you a birther in the same way that nuts like boomerang are where you think it was forged? Nope. You are (or were) a birther in the sense that you continued to push conspiracy theories about Obama's birth even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's a birther to me all day.

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
That is pretty clear cut.

Clear cut about what? That his original BC is a #1, #2 or a #3. That's all she says. (Well, also that's the HI BC copy is not a forgery. But I've never believed that anyway). Actually, she provides less info than the copy does. The copy lists his birth place as Honolulu, she confirms it. All that means is it is not a type #4. Now she doesn't address it, but the copy shows it was issued only a few days after his birth; therefor he doesn't a have a type #3 BC either. But we still don;'t know if it's a #1 or #2. Do we?

(If she had said he was born in 'so-n-so' hospital, it WOULD have been answered, but she didn't.)

 

[Indus]

I refrained from posting till now since I wanted to see the results of Nevada first. And from South Carolina it's clear that Cruz, Rubio, Trump -- all three want insanely large tax cuts for the rich, all three want to take health insurance away from millions, all three oppose same-sex marriage and now all three have taken up extremely conservative positions on immigration.

So really the answer to unelectable is apparently not as the GOP is doing more to make Hillary electable than Hillary is capable of by herself.