@parados,
For every $1,000 invested in 3% US Savings Bonds per year for 44 years, at the end of those 44 years one's total investment would be worth $1,000 x 89.04840911 = $89,048.41.
Subsequently, the annual income one (or one's heirs) could obtain from that 44 year investment would be equal to $89,048.41 x 0.04653929 = $4,144.25 per year for 35 years.
If that investment had been $2,000 per year for 44 years, then the annual income one (or one's heirs) could obtain from that 44 year investment would be $8,288.50 per year for 35 years.
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
If that investment had been $2,000 per year for 44 years, then the annual income one (or one's heirs) could obtain from that 44 year investment would be $8,288.50 per year for 35 years.
Um. Are you sure those numbers are right?
Investing $2,000 a year at 3% interest, for 44 years, compounded yearly, would net you a total of around $191,000 at the end of that time.
The $8,288.50 payout per year for 35 years you talk about, comes out to a total of over $290,000. Where exactly did that extra 100 grand come from?
Not only that, but do I even have to point out to you that income from your bonds is
taxable to you or your descendants? At what point do you account for the taxes you owe on your investment?
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
ican makes another uninformed comment about the returns on his savings; he doesn't understand that there are IRS rules that stipulates withdrawals after the retiree reaches 70; no "level" withdrawals.
@ican711nm,
OK.. and?
The MAXIMUM SS would take 44 years ago was NOT $1000. It was $324
You stated if you had invested SS taxes you would have made a certain amount. Your $1000 scenario is FALSE since SS didn't collect $1000 44 years ago. No one paid that much into SS 44 years ago.
No one could have paid $1000 into SS until 1974 if they paid the max.
@Cycloptichorn,
Not all " old people" believe as Okie and water man. I was tollerating and friends with gays and other minorities when you were just a gleam in your daddys eye.
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Not all " old people" believe as Okie and water man. I was tollerating and friends with gays and other minorities when you were just a gleam in your daddys eye.
Yeah, I don't mean to paint everyone with a broad brush.
Cheers
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
However, it has been my long personal experience that lots of folks think they know a lot about history, because they happen to have read a book or two about it. This isn't usually born out when you question them in depth on issues that lie beneath the surface, or when you ask them for greater anlaysis than existed in the book or article they happened to read.
For example; Okie thinks he knows a lot about the Nazi party and Germany because he read a few Time/Life books on the subject. Do you honestly think that compares to someone who was trained to look at primary sources and utilizes a variety of different methods and metrics to determine a more objective view of the situation?
It does not. Let us take another example that you may agree with - driving a big-rig. I know how to drive in general, I've been doing it my whole life. But if I jumped in your rig, I'd probably flip the thing or kill someone within just a few miles. Because a little bit of knowledge ain't the same thing as being trained to engage in an activity.Cycloptichorn
Knowing what Hitler and the Nazis believed and did is not at all comparable to driving a truck, cyclops. History is a matter of record and it is not the exclusive property of liberals and their views about it. That is where you are off base. Just as we have varying opinions about what a policy might be in today's world, whether it is liberal or leftist, or whether it is conservative, there are varying opinions about Hitler and the Nazis.
There is something very important to recognize here. Since Hitler and his legacy were so terrible and evil, there are virtually no political views or politicians today that wish to claim he was on their end of the political spectrum. The only thing we can do is to honestly assess them in comparison to what liberalism and conservatism stand for today, and that is what I have done very forthrightly and honestly. I believe it is clear that Fascism and Nazism more closely resemble facets of liberalism than they do anything conservative. It is interesting how liberals have written books, teach in the universities, and continue to attempt to twist the record enough to paint Hitler and Nazis as right wing extremists, but it simply does not stand up under the scrutiny of facts. That is my opinion, for which I have given more than enough evidence here on this forum. You have a right to disagree, but you need to offer more evidence than you have in the past, which is virtually none.
I realize this has been mentioned oft already, but do not ignore the very important fact that Winston Churchill recognized Hitler was certainly not on his end of the spectrum at all. Nothing has changed the truth of how correct Churchill was early on in the game. Churchill recognized how left Stalin was as well, but he came to the conclusion that Hitler was the worst of the worst.
@ican711nm,
ican, How are you making your determinations on taxation (FICA/social security) without using IRS tables? You are using your imagination, and nothing else, so your computations are all bogus. Interest rates do not stay fixed for any period of time; rates and balance during every period beginning with personal investments makes a difference on ending balance. Investments must follow maximums allowed by the IRS.
You fly? Maybe that thin air up there has damaged your brains.
@okie,
Quote:
Knowing what Hitler and the Nazis believed and did is not at all comparable to driving a truck, cyclops. History is a matter of record and it is not the exclusive property of liberals and their views about it. That is where you are off base. Just as we have varying opinions about what a policy might be in today's world, whether it is liberal or leftist, or whether it is conservative, there are varying opinions about Hitler and the Nazis.
Okay, great! So tell me: how do you decide which opinion about Hitler was true, Okie? Just kind of see which one sounds right?
Answer that question, and you'll see what History and the study of it is all about.
Quote:
There is something very important to recognize here. Since Hitler and his legacy were so terrible and evil, there are virtually no political views or politicians today that wish to claim he was on their end of the political spectrum. The only thing we can do is to honestly assess them in comparison to what liberalism and conservatism stand for today, and that is what I have done very forthrightly and honestly. I believe it is clear that Fascism and Nazism more closely resemble facets of liberalism than they do anything conservative. It is interesting how liberals have written books, teach in the universities, and continue to attempt to twist the record enough to paint Hitler and Nazis as right wing extremists, but it simply does not stand up under the scrutiny of facts. That is my opinion, for which I have given more than enough evidence here on this forum. You have a right to disagree, but you need to offer more evidence than you have in the past, which is virtually none.
I studied WW2 and the nazi party quite a bit in school, and I was not taught they were a group of right-wing extremists. Not at all. I was taught they were fascists, interested in grabbing and holding power.
Part of the reason that the Nazis get associated with the right-wing in America, okie, is that they were very militaristic. And if there's a militaristic section of our country, it resides on the right-wing of our spectrum.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:Okay, great! So tell me: how do you decide which opinion about Hitler was true, Okie? Just kind of see which one sounds right?
Answer that question, and you'll see what History and the study of it is all about.
I decide based upon what logically is leftward versus what is on the right. For example, confiscation of private property for the common good is a left leaning philosophy That is but one of many policies and beliefs of Hitler and the Nazis that I have repeated here many many times. To say again, Common Good was a central theme of the Nazis, which is direct opposition of individual good and individual freedom as espoused by conservatives.
Quote: I studied WW2 and the nazi party quite a bit in school, and I was not taught they were a group of right-wing extremists. Not at all. I was taught they were fascists, interested in grabbing and holding power.
But you would have us believe Fascists are right wing extremists, cyclops. Sure they were interested in grabbing and holding power, but that is not right wing by definition, obviously. Left wing extremists are very much into grabbing and holding power, as demonstrated by almost all left wing dictators around the world. That argument that they were motivated by power, therefore they are right wing, is beside the point, hollow and meaningless.
Quote:Part of the reason that the Nazis get associated with the right-wing in America, okie, is that they were very militaristic. And if there's a militaristic section of our country, it resides on the right-wing of our spectrum.
Cycloptichorn
That is another "strawman" as you love to use the term. So are a large number of left wing regimes militaristic. Have you not witnessed Mayday parades in Moscow, or the North Korean dictator rattling his sabers? What about the military buildup in China and threats of taking back Taiwan, etc.?
We have discussed this subject how many times? Yet, you come up short every single time.
This is not a copout, but I will be out of pocket the next week or so. I will check out what you've had to say upon return.
@okie,
Ah, but, the Christian right wants its life-style to be approved of. Unlike the gays, who simply want to be left alone, the Christian right wants to impose its life-style on everyone else . . . in the name of small government.
@okie,
Actually, oh, isolated one, more and more people accept the existence of gays each year.
@ican711nm,
Listen, for the past 30 years, 80% of the AMerican work force has seen their buying power remain flat. That's why people can not save.
@ican711nm,
Were you ever to make a point, we would all catch it. You are simple and your points would be simplistic.
@ican711nm,
Three men were the first guests to arrive at a party. The hostess was just beginning to put the food out, so she put her guests in the dining room and set on plate on which a dozen large cookies were arrayed on the table before them.
The men were a CEO, a member of the Tea Party and a union organizer.
The CEO immediately grabbed 11 of the 12 cookies.
He then leaned over and whispered in the ear of the Tea Partier. "You had better watch that guy. I think he wants a piece of your cookie."
@plainoldme,
I've heard that story several times in the last couple weeks. I think its really a very good analogy.
@snood,
I do, too. My younger son introduced it to me as "the best joke you have ever heard because it is so true."
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
I was tollerating and friends with gays and other minorities when you were just a gleam in your daddys eye.
How long have you been tolerating and friends with liberal progressive democrats?
As I no longer can afford to subscribe to The New Republic, I receive "teasers" in my inbox and not full stories.
Yesterday, perhaps, on this thread, perhaps, on another, okie let forth with his Hitler obsession once again. I just wish there were things that okie understood. So far, I haven't seen a glimmer of understanding, but . . .
I thought that this teaser would be a good follow on to okie's obsessive rant. It deals with some of the 20th C.'s leading theologians. okie will follow with some inane comment to me about what I should read or know or have the common sense to understand. However, the inanity is just that.
From TNR:
Early in January 1939, the precocious German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, age thirty-two, learned that all males in his age cohort had been ordered to register with the military. A dedicated opponent of the Nazi regime, he might have responded by declaring himself a conscientious objector, but there were two problems with such a course of action. The first was that Bonhoeffer, although pacifist by inclination, was not opposed to violence under all conditions; and he would later play an active role in the conspiracy led by German generals to assassinate Hitler. The second was that his fame in the Confessing Church { POM's note: this was developed in the original review } might encourage other religious leaders critical of the regime to do the same, thereby bringing them under greater suspicion and undermining their efforts to prove that Nazi policies, and especially their rapidly intensifying Jew-hatred, were contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The solution was provided by America’s most illustrious theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr. Nine years earlier, Bonhoeffer had spent a year in the United States as a free-floating exchange student at Union Theological Seminary, arriving not long after Niebuhr had moved there from Detroit. He had made such a positive impression on Union’s faculty that Niebuhr jumped at the opportunity to bring him back. If we fail to offer him a job, he told Union’s president, Henry Sloane Coffin, Bonhoeffer will wind up in a concentration camp. This was not the stuff of run-of-the-mill letters of recommendation. Union extended the offer. Grateful to have a way out of his dilemma, Bonhoeffer booked passage, and in June 1939 found himself safe in America.
Safe, but unhappy. Bonhoeffer’s second visit to the United States lasted only twenty-six days. The reason was in part theological. Union was committed to a form of religious liberalism fully at odds with the fundamentalist versions of Protestant faith growing in places such as Oklahoma and Georgia; but if Niebuhr and his colleagues thought that in welcoming Bonhoeffer they were adding another liberal modernist, they were quite mistaken. Bonhoeffer simply could not abide the liberalism he found at Union.
On his earlier trip to New York, he had written home that “there is no theology here.... They talk a blue streak without the slightest substantive foundation and with no evidence of any criteria.” The only church that had moved him in New York was the black church, and in particular Abyssinian Baptist, where Adam Clayton Powell Sr. was the pastor. Once he discovered Abyssinian, Bonhoeffer spent every remaining Sunday of his youthful sojourn in Harlem teaching Sunday school and absorbing the living presence of Christ in its midst. Upon his return to Germany, he brought with him records of black gospel music that he played to his European friends every time he could.
@plainoldme,
The irony of it all; people move in mysterious ways.
