Pitiful portrait

[mikegideon]

I hear this a lot from your generation. Your generation has also had their entire lives to reform the system, but instead you have spent the money in the general budget for your own benefit and have passed the buck to the next generation, expecting others to pay for your failure. Instead of funding your own retirement, you expect others to fund it for you. Others that were not even born to voice their opposition to your generation's irresponsible policies, yet are now expected to pay for them while you spend 15-20 years in leisure. How very convenient for you.

My failure? Leisure?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Is Social Security a ponzi scheme of epic proportions? You tell me:

The first Social Security recipient was Ida May Fuller. She retired after paying the payroll tax for 3 years for a total of $24.75. Her first check was for $22.54 and after her second check she had already received more than she payed it. She collected a total of $22,888.92!

I hear this a lot from your generation. Your generation has also had their entire lives to reform the system, but instead you have spent the money in the general budget for your own benefit and have passed the buck to the next generation, expecting others to pay for your failure. Instead of funding your own retirement, you expect others to fund it for you. Others that were not even born to voice their opposition to your generation's irresponsible policies, yet are now expected to pay for them while you spend 15-20 years in leisure. How very convenient for you.

Hi Overtaker

Sure it is a ponzi scheme. What else is new?

So the blue slice is the one you want to default on first?

Why not default on the Savings Bonds first? Or maybe default on the Mutual Funds first? God knows we could never default on the ferriners first.

[mikegideon]

Don't matter, Lester. They are not going to be allowed to default anyway.

[Guest Overtaker]

My failure? Leisure?

"Your" being plural, referring to your generation. Is it your position that your generation has successfully reformed Social Security, or have they passed the buck?

But since you want to make it about you, please share with us your efforts to reform Social Security (anything from writing your representatives re Social Security to running for office).

As for leisure, is that not what retired individuals partake in?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

A couple of years ago was entertaining the fantasy of retiring, but recently have about got used to the notion of working as long as possible before dropping dead. If enough of those selfish moms and dads are thinking the same way, then maybe it will limit the damage.

[mikegideon]

"Your" being plural, referring to your generation. Is it your position that your generation has successfully reformed Social Security, or have they passed the buck?

But since you want to make it about you, please share with us your efforts to reform Social Security (anything from writing your representatives re Social Security to running for office).

As for leisure, is that not what retired individuals partake in?

Let's see what YOU are able to reform at the end of the day. Nobody can reform our government, even the ones that are in it. And no, it's not abut me. It's about an entire generation... one that wouldn't throw their parents out into the streets, BTW.

[Guest Overtaker]

It's about an entire generation... one that wouldn't throw their parents out into the streets, BTW.

I agree that the government cannot renege on commitments made to those already retired and those substantially near retirement. A very large part of the blame falls on the government's shoulders if they have not saved a sufficient amount to retire on.

[mikegideon]

I don't even know how I feel about the basic concept of SS, but I know how I feel about the government' mismanagement of it. I'm sitting here looking at my statement. I have some serious money in it, and that's without any adjustment for inflation. I have always viewed SS as forced savings. I'm pretty sure that was the idea when they passed it.

As long as I've been observing those idiots in washington, they have been talking about fixing the budget. Nobody LETS them do what they do. Best case, we throw a bunch of them out and get some new idiots. They need to figure this out, and fix it.

[RobertNashville]

Is Social Security a ponzi scheme of epic proportions? You tell me:

Yes...and I don't think anyone here has said otherwise have they?

I hear this a lot from your generation.

Really??? Who, exactly...name some names.

Your generation has also had their entire lives to reform the system, but instead you have spent the money in the general budget for your own benefit and have passed the buck to the next generation, expecting others to pay for your failure.

I've never missed voting in an election even while deployed...I've written Congressmen even when we had to write a real letter and put some effort into it rather than just "send an email". I've been a volunteer in many different campaigns from county commissioners to mayors to governors to presidents...I've traveled to D.C. many, many times and had face time with sitting senators and representatives.

So where do you get off blaming multiple generations as if everyone but you are guilty?

Better questions, what the hell have YOU done??? Maybe you think posting about it on an internet forum is actually doing something. ROTFLMAO

Instead of funding your own retirement, you expect others to fund it for you. Others that were not even born to voice their opposition to your generation's irresponsible policies, yet are now expected to pay for them while you spend 15-20 years in leisure. How very convenient for you.

Many of us have saved for our own retirement because most of us don't want to live on the dog food SS can provide us even though the U.S. as a whole has a pathetic personal savings rate; why do you assume no one has?

How much are YOU saving for retirement? If you aren't socking away at least 15% of your gross pay/salary every pay period then good luck to you but don't come crying to my generation's grand or great grand children to bail your lazy self out of your financial problems.

It would have been a hell of a lot easier to save for my retirement if the government wasn't taking 15% of my pay for FICA and another 30-40% in all the other taxes and fees I have to pay at the point of a gun. If I had been able to save just what FICA has stolen from me for my entire working life I could EASILY Have in excess of $1M in the bank right now...money that would not only fund my retirement but could be passed onto my family or charity once I'm gone. Instead, that money was taken from me and if I die a month after I have to quit work my family sees nothing after all I've put into the system.

Then I have to put up with *******s who think I should feel guilty for expecting to receive something back after having paid in for the last 40 years.

If your generation has so much wealth, why do you insist on generational wealth transfers?

The only thing most people are asking for is to be treated fairly...perhaps that's too much to ask in the opinion of some.

Edited March 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest Overtaker]

RobertNashville, you are obviously a responsible citizen and I commend you for it. If more Americans followed your example we would be a much stronger nation.

Yes, it's a crime that you've had to pay a 15% employment tax and I'm not at all saying you should lose all your entitlements. And for the doubters here, that 7.5% your employer pays is 7.5% that cannot be spent on your wages. That is not to say that it would be spent on wages. It might also be spent to grow the business, thereby growing the economy and providing more jobs. The 7.5% your employer pays increases the cost of labor, thereby decreasing demand for labor and causing unemployment. Either way it does harm.

Then I have to put up with *******s who think I should feel guilty for expecting to receive something back after having paid in for the last 40 years.

I completely understand why you feel this way. Unfortunately the only winners in a Ponzi scheme are the early investors, who have now either passed or are unable to re-enter the labor force. Fortunately I believe it is within our means to support the late investors while righting the system.

If I had been able to save just what FICA has stolen from me for my entire working life I could EASILY Have in excess of $1M in the bank right now...money that would not only fund my retirement but could be passed onto my family or charity once I'm gone. Instead, that money was taken from me and if I die a month after I have to quit work my family sees nothing after all I've put into the system.

I don't doubt it at all. Here's the real kicker: imagine the economic growth we are forgoing by not having all that money invested (as you would have). In 2008 FICA + SECA tax receipts were $873 billion.

Social Security is terribly inefficient. Galveston, TX managed to opt out of social security before doing so was prohibited in 1983. The results have been better for all income levels:

And the disability is better (60% of salary), plus survivorship is $75,000 - $215,000.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I respect your pluck. Even so, how many interviews have you had where the total compensation package (expressed as a number) was discussed, rather than simply salary/wage? From my experience, you have to be pretty far up the corporate ladder before this becomes a point of negotiation. For the most part, this information is not even available, and even when it is, we'd be naive to think the numbers hadn't been massaged at least a little in the employer's favor. An employee goes to work for a company because his/her salary is $50k/year, not because the total compensation package may be in the ballpark of $70k. It's as simple as that.

My pluck dates back to 1973, one year out of

high school and my first full time job at Winn-

Dixie. SSI was mentioned as a part of my benefits.

It was a high paying job/ $2.14/ hour since you all

want to talk in real dollars. How old were you then?

Maybe not everyone addresses benefits the same,

but they did back then. Saint Thomas Hospital did in

1979, also.

Now, back to the thread. Enjoying this too much.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest mosinon]

Thanks for the education on price setting...I can't imagine why I wasted all those years in college - now I know the companies I've worked and work for have been so foolish and wrongheaded when setting their prices...I can't wait to go into work on Monday and tell everyone we've been doing it wrong all these years.

Even better, you just solved our $1.X Trillion dollar deficit and $14.X Trillion dollar debt - all we have to do is raise taxes on business...we;ll make them pay taxes and everybody else can go back to watching TV...Problem Solved!!!

Whatever you think is right is okay by me. But you won't make it up by raising taxes on businesses.

Okay, go to work on Monday and tell them they are charging too much. Tell them it only costs X to make Y and that they should be charging X+X*.10. See how that works for you.

There is some imaginary thing where companies price products according to their tax liabilities but that is the purest of BS. It is simplistic. Companies actually have accountants and stuff, people to watch where the money goes. Companies tend to maximize profit and that is it.

Maximizing profit might mean outsourcing to China, it might mean moving the corporate headquarters offshore. It might mean a lot of bad things for America and for the tax base but what it positively does not necessarily mean is taxes are passed on to consumers.

Look at it this way, you're a CEO. You desire a return on your investment of 10%. Alcoa actually demands 11% from their factories from what I hear but you are easy, 10% is your goal. You talk to accounting. Sadly you realize that market price for your rice will only yield 9% return.

You've got options:

Learn to live with 9% (but you want ten)

Raise prices and hope that you have loyal customers to make up for the friggin taxes (won't work)

Move production to China

If you choose C, move production to China your tax burden is not changed but your cost is lessened. You still pay on the profits of your company but your price stays the same for your customers.

I'm not trying to intimate that taxes don't matter, they certainly do. And you can chase a lot of businesses away with taxes bit the idea that every penny of business tax is reflected in the price of a product is crazy. You'll note the price of iPods is stable even though the price of shipping is not. If, as you maintain, every cost was passed on to the consumer, we'd expect to see iPod price fluctuations.

[Guest Overtaker]

Taxes do get passed on to consumers. If demand is elastic, then the majority of the cost of the tax will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. If demand is inelastic, the producer will be unable to raise prices and thus the producer will eat the tax.

And in the end business taxes are really payed by the shareholders in the form of lower dividends.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

In the past some USA electronic manufacturers (and likely other engineering-dominated niches) worked on a "cost plus" system.

Given a potential new product-- Calculate cost of manufacturing. Estimate how many devices might realistically be sold. Calculate wholesale price according to cost + required profit + estimated demand. In that scheme tax would just be one of the cost items and would directly affect the asking price.

Then marketing brinksmanship became a new fad. Try to grow the market beyond all reasonable bounds by selling at a loss for starters. Then try to make it up on the back end. That also supposedly would "corner the market" against competitors. When staid company Nonlinear Systems renamed to Kaypro Computers, that is the strategy they adopted. Commodore computers was another one.

Maybe it worked fabulously for some companies, but at least in the aforementioned two cases it was a flash in the pan followed by eventual ruin. OTOH survivors such as IBM, Microsoft and Apple never got down in the gutter with price wars.

Perhaps the old engineering pricing strategy of "cost plus" could be called "make as many units as the market will bear" rather than "charge what the market will bear"?

[RobertNashville]

Whatever you think is right is okay by me. But you won't make it up by raising taxes on businesses.

Of course it will; if businesses pay taxes (as you have said) then all we have to do is increase the tax burden on them and collect all the tax revenue we need - the entire population as well as government is off the hook (you need to call the dalai-bama right away; he'll be happy to hear the news).

Likewise; no more need for this thread since you've solved the spending and debt problem for everyone.

Edited March 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

Let's see what YOU are able to reform at the end of the day. Nobody can reform our government, even the ones that are in it. And no, it's not abut me. It's about an entire generation... one that wouldn't throw their parents out into the streets, BTW.

But as you've said, we can't reform the government because the baby boomers who make up nearly 50% of the voting population refuse to allow it... Trust me, if you poll my generation and the generations coming up behind me, a large majority are for cutting taxes and entitlements now.

[JayC]

I agree that the government cannot renege on commitments made to those already retired and those substantially near retirement. A very large part of the blame falls on the government's shoulders if they have not saved a sufficient amount to retire on.

If that is true, then we're done for... expect an increase in taxes between 25-30% to pay for the entitlements of the baby boomers... or we can go even farther into debt... We can not meet the current obligations any other way... raise taxes, or increase the debt, or some mixture of the two...

[mikegideon]

But as you've said, we can't reform the government because the baby boomers who make up nearly 50% of the voting population refuse to allow it... Trust me, if you poll my generation and the generations coming up behind me, a large majority are for cutting taxes and entitlements now.

It's not just generational. I don't know any liberals that want to just dump it either, no matter when they were born.

[RobertNashville]

But as you've said, we can't reform the government because the baby boomers who make up nearly 50% of the voting population refuse to allow it... Trust me, if you poll my generation and the generations coming up behind me, a large majority are for cutting taxes and entitlements now.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what YOUR solution is?

I've suggested a transition to a privatized system but you seem to reject that...you've said many times that the money is gone...there is not money...your taxes needed to keep paying would turn you into a slave, etc, etc.

It sounds SO non-threatening; so benign to say you want to "cut entitlements" but what you are really saying is that you are willing to let a lot of people die of hunger and/or exposure and/or lack of medicine/medical care as there are thousands upon thousands of elderly who are either completely or almost completely dependent on SS/medicare for their meager existence and thousands close to that point...many are simply too old/too frail to work and generate an income themselves and there are only so many Wal-Mart greater positions even for those who can work so tell me, is your solution to just kill grandma and grandpa?

It would be more humane to give them all a fast-acting poison than to do what you seem to be suggesting (without actually saying what you are suggesting).

I know there's no GD money but it sure isn't because I haven't been paying through the nose (and other orifices) in taxes...all of you need to get off your self-righteous high-horse and stop trying to blame the baby-boomers for this problem. Virtually no one alive today had ANYTHING to do with starting these programs and there hasn't been more than a handful of politicians of either party in the last 70 years with the guts to solve this problem - the few that have tried have been quashed by everybody else and that includes EVERYBODY of VOTING AGE no matter what generation they are part of.

If you are alive today and of voting age then YOU are the problem as much as anyone else so get over yourself already; stop trying to blame someone and come up with a SOLUTION that doesn't equate to mass murder.

Edited March 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

But as you've said, we can't reform the government because the baby boomers who make up nearly 50% of the voting population refuse to allow it... Trust me, if you poll my generation and the generations coming up behind me, a large majority are for cutting taxes and entitlements now.

Hi JayC

It has always been the case that the older generation wielded political clout, because each generation of geezers always seemed more likely to vote than youngsters.

There were things that the majority of young boomers could never get voted in because the previous generation had too much clout and out-voted the boomers in elections.

That was probably the case 100 years ago too.

Some ideas never get political critical mass because only young people tend to advocate them. Even if the next generation of young still advocates the same idea, the previous young generation has got old and changed its mind on a lot of things.

Anyway, even you have already grown to old to be "trusted" by youngsters. The boomer motto was "don't trust anyone over 30".

Edited March 6, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Guest mosinon]

Of course it will; if businesses pay taxes (as you have said) then all we have to do is increase the tax burden on them and collect all the tax revenue we need - the entire population as well as government is off the hook (you need to call the dalai-bama right away; he'll be happy to hear the news).

Likewise; no more need for this thread since you've solved the spending and debt problem for everyone.

Well, I guess you win. I spelled something wrong. I apologize. Perhaps the world is econ 101, perhaps all products are based on price, maybe everything is cost based. It could be that all costs are automatically passed on to the consumer.

Or maybe it is a little more complicated than that, Profit maximization and so forth.

But I'm not a big shot with some fancy college degree so you'll have to lead me along and educate me about just how this stuff works.

[JayC]

The truth is grandma wasn't dieing in the streets before we had SS and Medicare, families and charities took care of the aged, and poor... So don't make it out like if we pulled the plug on SS and Medicare that we'd have thousands of homeless grandma living in the streets... We as a people would come together and take care of the vasty majority privately.

I've given my solution...

Reduce SS to just above the poverty line, say poverty plus 10%, or about $12,000 per year in TN, obviously allowing for inflation... Pass a constitutional amendment limiting the size of the federal governments budget to 7% of GDP, and the size of state governments to 3% their state GDPs, also include a requirement to balance the budget in that amendment. Pass a law requiring that any corporation operating within the US must be majority owned by US Citizens, and only US citizens and US companies may own land or buildings within the US.

Then create a true medicare trust fund by selling off Federal government land and assets over the course of 10-15 years via public auction.

That is a good start, it would take us less than 20 years to completely pay off the national debt, we'd have a long term self growing trust fund, which would help reduce the size of the Federal government in the process.

Then cut off SS for all new workers, allow all current workers to choose whether to stay in the system or leave it, no matter their age. Create a true trust fund, where FICA tax, goes which can not be touched by congress, and supplement the trust fund with selling of assets similar to the Medicare trust fund.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what YOUR solution is?

I've suggested a transition to a privatized system but you seem to reject that...you've said many times that the money is gone...there is not money...your taxes needed to keep paying would turn you into a slave, etc, etc.

It sounds SO non-threatening; so benign to say you want to "cut entitlements" but what you are really saying is that you are willing to let a lot of people die of hunger and/or exposure and/or lack of medicine/medical care as there are thousands upon thousands of elderly who are either completely or almost completely dependent on SS/medicare for their meager existence and thousands close to that point...many are simply too old/too frail to work and generate an income themselves and there are only so many Wal-Mart greater positions even for those who can work so tell me, is your solution to just kill grandma and grandpa?

It would be more humane to give them all a fast-acting poison than to do what you seem to be suggesting (without actually saying what you are suggesting).

I know there's no GD money but it sure isn't because I haven't been paying through the nose (and other orifices) in taxes...all of you need to get off your self-righteous high-horse and stop trying to blame the baby-boomers for this problem. Virtually no one alive today had ANYTHING to do with starting these programs and there hasn't been more than a handful of politicians of either party in the last 70 years with the guts to solve this problem - the few that have tried have been quashed by everybody else and that includes EVERYBODY of VOTING AGE no matter what generation they are part of.

If you are alive today and of voting age then YOU are the problem as much as anyone else so get over yourself already; stop trying to blame someone and come up with a SOLUTION that doesn't equate to mass murder.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Those are good thoughts, JayC

I don't think the limitation on Social Security payout will help as much as you expect, but could be mistaken. For instance I have contributed about a quarter million bucks inflation adjusted and if I retire at 62 the gooberment claims it will pay me $14,580 per year, pretty close to your $12,000 figure. If I retire at age 70 the gooberment claims it will pay about double that, but in that case I would have "contributed" at least another $80,000 or $100,000 into the system, and the govt wouldn't have to pay me as long before I croak, so they dang well ought to pay more!

Just sayin, SS ain't currently paying that much more than you propose they should pay. My income is about in the median. People below the median already get lower payments than the figures quoted above.

====

Another piece of the laundry list is Federal Reserve reform. It may not be feasible or desirable to eliminate the Fed (dunno), but its mission might be modified.

I don't have time to find you references, but two missions of the Fed are to adjust monetary policy to: 1. Minimize Unemployment 2. Stabilize the dollar.

Mission 1 has had higher priority than mission 2. It may be better (if we keep the Fed in existence) to make dollar stability the Fed's the primary mission.

Though inflation can happen "in the wild" without government manipulation, the Fed has repeatedly caused inflation in the attempt to stimulate the economy and attain "full employment". Many believe that approx 3 to 5 percent unemployment is about as low as you can get it in practicality, simply because a lot of people are unemployable regardless of how good the economy is doing.

Inflation seems a big contributor to the SS squeeze. If there were zero inflation, then it would be practical to "store wealth" merely by keeping stacks of greenbacks in a safe. Each dollar when you reach retirement and take it out of the safe, would buy the same as when you stored it away 40 years ago. It greatly simplifies rudimentary wealth storage.

A social security tax bill of $1000 was just as painful to the taxpayer in 1970 as is a social security tax bill of $5,676 in 2011. Assuming that the future decade of inflation is no worse than the previous decade, today's SS tax bill of $5,676 will be $7,058 in 2021.

So you can't just put the money in a Social Security lock box. It has to grow along with inflation.

If there were no inflation, it ought to be easier.

Long-term wealth storage is not a trivial problem. It is a very difficult problem even for the gooberment.

They basically put all those SS payments in govt bonds because they couldn't think of any better way to "invest" them. The money of the SS bonds is just as "gone forever" as is the money paid for savings bonds and the money borrowed from the Chinese and Arabs and domestic "financial wizards".

Individuals might make better return from the stock market. The stock market is not a zero-sum game, however for every guy that makes a profit on a transaction, there is probably some other guy who will take a loss on it.

If the gooberment dumps that massive amount of money automatically in the market, then everybody ain't gonna be winners. The gooberment would quickly "own" all the private corporations via voting stock and essentially control all USA corporations. Government Motors. Government Oil. Government Textiles. Government Agriculture. Government Telecom. Government Walmart and Government Sears.

And of course political insider financial chronies who make Bernie Madoff look more honest than Abe Lincoln, will steal that money by the boat load.

You can't just put all that money in warehouses of cash or gold. That would drag the economy by withdrawing too much capital from the economy.

I'm not against a well-managed trust fund. It is just a problem of what the heck IS a well-managed trust fund? Long term wealth storage is a similar problem as long term electrical storage, long term gasoline storage, long term food storage. It isn't a trivial problem.

However, long term stability of the value of a dollar might make it a slightly easier problem.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Lester Weevils
spelling and grammar as usual

[RobertNashville]

The truth is grandma wasn't dieing in the streets before we had SS and Medicare, families and charities took care of the aged, and poor... So don't make it out like if we pulled the plug on SS and Medicare that we'd have thousands of homeless grandma living in the streets... We as a people would come together and take care of the vasty majority privately.

No, grandma wasn't then but killing grandma, while something of a dramatic exaggeration, isn't far from the truth or what you are doing once you've made people dependent on the government for their retirement income and their medical insurance and then you pull the plug. There is a hell of a difference between never having had those systems (which by their absence, forces people to find their own solutions) and creating those systems and then suddenly cutting them off.

I've given my solution...

Reduce SS to just above the poverty line, say poverty plus 10%, or about $12,000 per year in TN, obviously allowing for inflation...

The average SS benefit check at the beginning of 2011 was approximately $1,177/month ($14,000/year) which is already not much above the poverty line; even in Tennessee which is a relatively low-cost area of the country...there is little to no savings to be had that way.

Aside from the lack or real savings, such a plan does exactly the opposite of what our nation stands for (or is supposed to stand for)...the opposite of capitalism because it effectively rewardsthose who have done the least to prepare for retirement and punishes those who have done the most to prepare. If I live in a modest home so that I can save for my retirement, why the hell should my taxes be spent to support someone who has likely spent every penny they ever earned and saved little or nothing???

Pass a constitutional amendment limiting the size of the federal governments budget to 7% of GDP, and the size of state governments to 3% their state GDPs, also include a requirement to balance the budget in that amendment. Pass a law requiring that any corporation operating within the US must be majority owned by US Citizens, and only US citizens and US companies may own land or buildings within the US.

I'm all for limiting the size of government but I don't know that 7% or 3% are the "right" numbers...also, the federal government has no business telling the states how large their state budgets can be and I suspect you would have a real Constitutional issue there.

The rest of your plan sounds patriotic but flies in the face of rights even more basic than those enumerated in the Constitution - no government entity has any right to tell a business who is allowed to own it or property owners who they are allowed to sell their property to....it looks to me like a light form of tyranny in the guise of patriotism.

Then create a true medicare trust fund by selling off Federal government land and assets over the course of 10-15 years via public auction.

That is a good start, it would take us less than 20 years to completely pay off the national debt, we'd have a long term self growing trust fund, which would help reduce the size of the Federal government in the process.

Then cut off SS for all new workers, allow all current workers to choose whether to stay in the system or leave it, no matter their age. Create a true trust fund, where FICA tax, goes which can not be touched by congress, and supplement the trust fund with selling of assets similar to the Medicare trust fund.

Good intentions but the wrong direction...it's still mostly based on government programs and we don't need a solution that preserves government supplied retirement or medical insurance; we need to move to a truly private system where people must prepare for their own retirement and medical needs...that may entail the government mandating a certain percentage of savings but most or the responsibility needs to shift back to the people (where it should always have been in the first place). That is not something that can be done overnight but that is the direction we must be headed in.

I think your plan is well intentioned and I give you kudos for trying but I think, good intentions aside, that your plan is still keeping us headed in the wrong direction.

Edited March 7, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

...But I'm not a big shot with some fancy college degree so you'll have to lead me along and educate me about just how this stuff works.

No thanks; I leave education to educational institutions; that's what we have them for. Another great, free resource is your public library.

Whether one has degrees or not, if an adult isn't reading at least one non-fiction book every month or two, you are setting yourself up for failure.

Edited March 7, 2011 by RobertNashville