[SK in CV]

I don’t really know how people are spending all that money. I don’t know why either. I’m reasonably sure most don’t have to. I know I don’t.

Mine cost me nothing. (It’s a blackberry bold 9000. It isn’t top of the line, newest and greatest, but it is the one I wanted, because it has BIG keys and i have BIG fingers. And it does do most everything I want, other than take good photos.) It was refurbished, and free with a new 2 year contract, directly from AT&T. My daughters deal was even better. It cost $10 (a blackberry bold 9700) with a new 2 year contract, and it was through an outside vendor so there was an added bonus. AT&T never updated their records and she’s STILL eligible for deep discounts with a new contract.

And the total monthly cost isn’t anywhere near $100. For 5 phones, i pay around $200 a month with all the minutes we need and all the data we need for 3 phones. (2 aren’t smartphones.)

I do kinda have the hots for the new blackberry torch. I could get it now for $100 with a new contract from AT&T. I haven’t looked at outside vendors yet, but if and when it’s available for free that way, I’ll probably do it.

[SK in CV]

I don’t really know how people are spending all that money. I don’t know why either. I’m reasonably sure most don’t have to. I know I don’t.

Mine cost me nothing. (It’s a blackberry bold 9000. It isn’t top of the line, newest and greatest, but it is the one I wanted, because it has BIG keys and i have BIG fingers. And it does do most everything I want, other than take good photos.) It was refurbished, and free with a new 2 year contract, directly from AT&T. My daughters deal was even better. It cost $10 (a blackberry bold 9700) with a new 2 year contract, and it was through an outside vendor so there was an added bonus. AT&T never updated their records and she’s STILL eligible for deep discounts with a new contract.

And the total monthly cost isn’t anywhere near $100. For 5 phones, i pay around $200 a month with all the minutes we need and all the data we need for 3 phones. (2 aren’t smartphones.)

I do kinda have the hots for the new blackberry torch. I could get it now for $100 with a new contract from AT&T. I haven’t looked at outside vendors yet, but if and when it’s available for free that way, I’ll probably do it.

[SK in CV]

I don’t really know how people are spending all that money. I don’t know why either. I’m reasonably sure most don’t have to. I know I don’t.

Mine cost me nothing. (It’s a blackberry bold 9000. It isn’t top of the line, newest and greatest, but it is the one I wanted, because it has BIG keys and i have BIG fingers. And it does do most everything I want, other than take good photos.) It was refurbished, and free with a new 2 year contract, directly from AT&T. My daughters deal was even better. It cost $10 (a blackberry bold 9700) with a new 2 year contract, and it was through an outside vendor so there was an added bonus. AT&T never updated their records and she’s STILL eligible for deep discounts with a new contract.

And the total monthly cost isn’t anywhere near $100. For 5 phones, i pay around $200 a month with all the minutes we need and all the data we need for 3 phones. (2 aren’t smartphones.)

I do kinda have the hots for the new blackberry torch. I could get it now for $100 with a new contract from AT&T. I haven’t looked at outside vendors yet, but if and when it’s available for free that way, I’ll probably do it.

[SK in CV]

I don’t really know how people are spending all that money. I don’t know why either. I’m reasonably sure most don’t have to. I know I don’t.

Mine cost me nothing. (It’s a blackberry bold 9000. It isn’t top of the line, newest and greatest, but it is the one I wanted, because it has BIG keys and i have BIG fingers. And it does do most everything I want, other than take good photos.) It was refurbished, and free with a new 2 year contract, directly from AT&T. My daughters deal was even better. It cost $10 (a blackberry bold 9700) with a new 2 year contract, and it was through an outside vendor so there was an added bonus. AT&T never updated their records and she’s STILL eligible for deep discounts with a new contract.

And the total monthly cost isn’t anywhere near $100. For 5 phones, i pay around $200 a month with all the minutes we need and all the data we need for 3 phones. (2 aren’t smartphones.)

I do kinda have the hots for the new blackberry torch. I could get it now for $100 with a new contract from AT&T. I haven’t looked at outside vendors yet, but if and when it’s available for free that way, I’ll probably do it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

I don’t know if it’s going to happen in the next 12 months. I think it’s unlikely. But it’s been predicted so often by many different people “in the next 6 to 12 months” for at least 5 years. (do a google search on “israel will bomb iran” with a date range of 8/1/05 to 8/1/06 you get over a quarter million hits!) These predictions have become kind of a yawner.

[SK in CV]

I don’t know if it’s going to happen in the next 12 months. I think it’s unlikely. But it’s been predicted so often by many different people “in the next 6 to 12 months” for at least 5 years. (do a google search on “israel will bomb iran” with a date range of 8/1/05 to 8/1/06 you get over a quarter million hits!) These predictions have become kind of a yawner.

[SK in CV]

I don’t know if it’s going to happen in the next 12 months. I think it’s unlikely. But it’s been predicted so often by many different people “in the next 6 to 12 months” for at least 5 years. (do a google search on “israel will bomb iran” with a date range of 8/1/05 to 8/1/06 you get over a quarter million hits!) These predictions have become kind of a yawner.

[SK in CV]

I don’t know if it’s going to happen in the next 12 months. I think it’s unlikely. But it’s been predicted so often by many different people “in the next 6 to 12 months” for at least 5 years. (do a google search on “israel will bomb iran” with a date range of 8/1/05 to 8/1/06 you get over a quarter million hits!) These predictions have become kind of a yawner.

[SK in CV]

I don’t know if it’s going to happen in the next 12 months. I think it’s unlikely. But it’s been predicted so often by many different people “in the next 6 to 12 months” for at least 5 years. (do a google search on “israel will bomb iran” with a date range of 8/1/05 to 8/1/06 you get over a quarter million hits!) These predictions have become kind of a yawner.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[Author]

Posts