deedsker

59

Minnesota wins a cluster. I honestly didn’t think I was that high on them.

32 minutes ago, caveman99 said:

Man there were some DUDES on that Blackshirt unit. Dejon Gomes, Prince, Crick, Suh, etc. Still brings a tear to my eye to watch their highlights.

Going to the game was one of the best/worst things I got to be a part of. That defense was just insane. I remember the Oklahoma game saying, "Just keep punting, our defense will win the game." They ended up doing just that. Insane.

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

I'm surprised he didn't read "smile" off the teleprompter.

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

As I stated earlier, some people apparently don’t like good things.  

I liked the part where he downplayed a global pandemic and made it political so more people could suffer and die. Those were some really good things.

I don't know what Barrett Sallee is drinking this morning, but maybe we should check his cup. Purdue lost what is looking like a possible starter quality NFL QB and head coach that built the program from scraps. Not a good sign he is the only one high on us.

7 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Not necessarily as you could be a car.   Cool snark though.  

 

There is no such thing as “his money only”.  That’s not the way it works.   It’s his/her money plus the employer portion.   So I pick the scenario that includes ALL the SS tax inputs not just half

 

 

Just glad to see your happy that SS works as a method of keeping a majority of people out of intense poverty due to outside forces or personal choices. It really is a remarkable program.

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

But you are both stating a scenario I never talked about.  Why is it that SS is automatically taken out, but a replacement option wouldn’t be?  

Don't know about replacements. I am fine with SS as is and wish the funds couldn't be appropriated by other functions of government so as to avoid fake funding issues. Without extra blockades, the program is quite remarkable.

21 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You are stating that if SS wasn't there, these people could invest that money for a better return.  I'm saying they wouldn't be doing that.

And that is why the program was needed in the first place. It is a service to the many at the expense of many. If allowed to function properly without interference and additional made up rules/problems, it does serve it purpose well enough.

58 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes as I told you, to give a less rosy input number than the tweeter did to appease the masses here and also give a slightly more realistic investment return number (still not the 11% last forty year historical figure). 

Once again, that isn't speaking to the theory laid out in the original post. If I got 50% returns a year I would be a billionaire and if I had wheels I would be a bike.

58 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

At a $160,000 cap, each year he/she would have $19,840 put in (12.4%) each year  times 40 years (assumption being the threshold never changes above $160,000 for 40 years which is unrealistic) equals $793,600 which is  $193,600 above the number you are disputing.  So no, not 60.5 years if my math serves me correctly.  And please let me know if it’s wrong and I will gladly apologize and concede.  But if my math is correct, wouldn’t it seem odd that you are railing on a tweet for being incorrect by using incorrect data/math yourself?  

 Back to my #2 that you changed and BRB showed your flaw on. If you want "on my behalf" as employer contribution my original analysis is good if you want his money only the 60 years stands. I stated that out individually for you. Pick which awesome scenario this guy should be in.

58 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 If you were an investment advisor for someone making $40,000 a year, would you advise them to put the $4,960 a year in SS portion of FICA tax into the SS system or a private investment account for the next 40 years?  Which way would this rich person be better off? 

Depends on who I am talking to. My brother, yes. Warren Buffet, no. Is the program good for the general public, yes. Are rich people trying to dismantle it by making up rules to make the system hard, yes.

10 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

1) first, if you thought this was real persons actual scenario, that would be kinda funny 

2) he said “by the time”,  not “I’ve worked 40 years”. So your historical numbers wouldn’t apply.   But since you are missing the actual entire point, let’s use $350,000 (less than even you say but we will use a 7% rate of return with actual real life rate of return over the past 40 years of 11.6%).  If math is correct, please double check, ending balance would be $1.8 million.  $1.8 million divided by $37k is 48 years of math is correct.  
3) he stated on his behalf, not what he put in because of the employer contribution component also.  
4) so the joke is……Social Security provides a terrible return as an investment vehicle for retirement.  
5) just an fyi….many more college graduates than you think will be making starting compensation first year out of school of $80,000 per year.  Even if one starts there, gets to $100,000 in 10 years and stays there for 30 more without a single raise (far less than the max contribution) , they would contribute roughly $450,000 and a historical portfolio of over $2,000,000 if privately invested on a go forward basis.  Doubling the social security payout to $74,000 40 years from now would make it about 30 years (97 years old) as a break even point.  And that’s not even a break even point because it doesn’t account for the $80,000 in interest earned each year while retired.  

1) "By the time I..." implies it is real or realistic.

2) I laid that out in my post. The person must clearly be earlier in their career because they could have work 60 years without meeting the numbers state. Thus, it is mostly likely they are on the younger side doing futuristic calculations. Not enough data is provided, but conclusions can still be made in broad strokes.

You just changed all the math. That is actually completely incorrect based on the post.

3) So they are even younger than I could potentially given them in their original post. At $160,000 cap, starting this year, they plan on working for 60.5 years. So they are 6 or 7.

4)Terrible returns if you make a lot. It is a social safety net and not a investment vehicle for the rich. It provides great returns for the less fortunate. 

5) Cool. Do that and social security will just be a nice gift to have to help out others in your life at the end. Sounds good.

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Thanks for putting the thought and calculation into this that entitled pricks fishing with click bait avoid. 

Already had the spreadsheets. I kinda thought I would have to go into the general idea of the program and not just a blatant worst case scenario from a pure numbers with no context scenario.

39 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I hear ya!!!!

 

 

Funny.

When you actually check into some data you find out:

Total max taxable wages for the last 40 years is $3.54 million dollars. At 12.4% for both employer/employee this would only represent under $440 thousand dollars. This means he is likely talking $600 thousand (inflation adjusted dollars) and not gross. That being said, the owner of this account is likely young and is taking a swag at a lot of future earnings based on income now. Historically, the indexed value of the last 40 years is around 4.3%. So the assumption laid out with only a year or two of earnings would be someone making $121 thousand dollars a year. This would put them in near the top quartile of all household earners and about 170% of the median household. (He also states that this would be on "his behalf" so his household earnings could be easily twice as high).

https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/

So the joke seems to be:

"Look at me, I make too much money on my W2. Social security, am I right?"

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Disqualification.

 

 

Who let Vermin Supreme get on TV? So this guy is just another GOP masquerading Putin enthusiast. We seem to be getting those in full force in the last decade or so.

It has been 8 years since we beat undefeated MSU under Riley. Truly low the last decade has been.

1 hour ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

No wonder Belichick was so successful, he time traveled so he could call the games on the rewind.  Lol

Tapegate!

Brain drain happens when you are a place young people don’t want to be because of the general political and economic outlook provided in your area. Generally speaking, it speaks to problems within and how to change moving forward.

1 hour ago, Undone said:

I also assume that some or all of the tight ends will be cross trained as fullbacks for the small amount of 'I' formation stuff we do? Also wonder if we'll be setting them in the pistol and things like that as well for run blocking.

Probably looking for "H" back type players that can be motioned in and out of FB, in-line TE, and motion counter type alignments. Not sure how that lines up with the talent/size of high caliber TE's we brought in under Frost. I "feel" like we have more receiving threat/oversized WR body types at the moment.

13 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

Can't get off on the wrong foot if you only have one

But your wrong foot might already be off. 

20 hours ago, Scarlet said:

He'll probably start off on the wrong foot

He will be all right. 
 

45 minutes ago, BlackHillsHusker said:

Don't worry.   A mock NFL draft  for 2024 have Sims as a top #75 player.

This one has Sims 284 (QB #24) and Thompson 725 (QB #69):

https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/mock-draft-simulator

This one has Sims 84 (QB #11) and Thompson NA of 434 (QB #NA of 38):

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/mockdraft/

This one has Sims NA of 402 (QB #NA of 23) and Thompson NA of 402 (QB #NA of 23):

https://fanspeak.com/ontheclock-nfl-mock-draft-simulator/preview.php?board_id=3

This one has Sims NA of 376 (QB #NA of 29) and Thompson NA of 376 (QB #NA of 29):

https://fanspeak.com/ontheclock-nfl-mock-draft-simulator/preview.php?board_id=0

I only found him that high in one of the four I have used. 

Can't wait for Ty Robinson or Wynn Jr. wearing number 4 or 7. 

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Serious question, not aimed at you.  If the GOP is successful at undermining pretty much every federal institution and replacing it with private enterprise, how would the unregulated financial sector handle a bank failure? 

Total market collapse. That's who would handle it.

9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Sure he did.  But, it’s idiotic of Elon to not know about the agreement. It really doesn’t matter what the guy was actually doing. 
 

 

Pretty sure Elon is idiotic for not knowing, what I can only assume, one of the most well compensated employee does/is.

Objective complete! 
 

Now we need even more of you comrades to bind together to take back the motherland!

All you weirdos lurking around here can help us out. We can eliminate the Buffaloes from this wretched map.