Mitt’s VP Shocker

[charliebrown]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

The government needs to get out of the marraige business.

Around 1500 AD, marriages were announced and not pronounced. Meaning that all it took was mutal consent of the parties to be married. Their marriage did not have to be blessed by either the state or the church. In 1500 ... the church was reaching its apex of power and decided to make marriage a sacrament and thus gain power. As the church started losing power in 1700's and later we see the government jockying for power and taking control of marriage.

If it were not for the over-bearing of the state in matters of property law and taxation would it be so important for the state to bless a marriage? If the state were out of the game, then if you want to have an instutionally blessed marriage you can go to church or other organization that will bless your marriage.

If the gvt does release control of marriage the only thing I really care about is the welfare of children who will be innocent victims as their parents fight for or abandon control and children become cattle. The property issues can be settled in court.

From a personal perspective, I am glad I was married in a church and am deeply bound by the covenant I have between God, myself and my wife. It has gotten us through some tough times.

[shiny!]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

The government needs to get out of the marraige business.

Around 1500 AD, marriages were announced and not pronounced. Meaning that all it took was mutal consent of the parties to be married. Their marriage did not have to be blessed by either the state or the church. In 1500 ... the church was reaching its apex of power and decided to make marriage a sacrament and thus gain power. As the church started losing power in 1700's and later we see the government jockying for power and taking control of marriage.

If it were not for the over-bearing of the state in matters of property law and taxation would it be so important for the state to bless a marriage? If the state were out of the game, then if you want to have an instutionally blessed marriage you can go to church or other organization that will bless your marriage.

If the gvt does release control of marriage the only thing I really care about is the welfare of children who will be innocent victims as their parents fight for or abandon control and children become cattle. The property issues can be settled in court.

From a personal perspective, I am glad I was married in a church and am deeply bound by the covenant I have between God, myself and my wife. It has gotten us through some tough times.

Interesting to see how marriages have changed from being announced to being pronounced. In Texas you can be married without a ceremony before a priest or judge, but the state gov't. doesn't recognize gay marriages. When I was nineteen and living in Texas, my boyfriend and I decided that we were, for all intents and purposes, married. We had been living together for several years. Neither of us wanted a religious ceremony. Neither did it make sense that we should defer to a judge to state what we already knew, which was that we were married.

We went to the county clerk's office (IIRC) and filled out a certificate of informal marriage. The clerk asked us if we did things that married couples do, such as live under the same roof, get mail at the same address, have a joint bank account... We ran into a little resistance because I kept my maiden name. The clerk wouldn't believe we were married unless I took my husband's name (this was in the 70's). One call from my neighbor, an ACLU lawyer, straightened her out.

When we went our separate ways many years later, we had to go through a legal divorce. If we'd had children, custody arrangements would have been determined the same as in any other divorce.

When I remarried several years later, we had a Sikh wedding in a Gurdwara. Like you said, the vows we made helped us get through some tough times.

IMO, as long as a marriage is between consenting adults, the government should butt out. Some people have a fear that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, then they must also be allowed to adopt children, and that would be baaaaaad. Well, parenting skills have nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are plenty of heterosexuals, including my own parents, who should never be allowed around children. And there are plenty of homosexuals who are loving, stable, wonderful parents that any child would be lucky to have.

[c1ue]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

once again, please be careful how one uses life expectancy. life expectancy first of all changes each day of your life. It also has so many variables involved in it. For example at age 65 it is true that those in the lower half of income levels have a much lower life expectancy (81 vs 86) but this difference drops dramatially as the group ages, but it is also true that smoking levels vary greatly by income level. Smoking rates are less than 50% for upper level income levels compared with lower ones which is only one of the factors that effect life expectancy.

Agreed, but for every cause like smoking, I'd guess there are deaths due to airplane crashes to offset. It would be interesting to see what the life expectancy difference is with all smokers removed from the equation on both sides.

Any significant life expectancy gap between lower income and higher income divisions will affect who gets how much actuarial payout, especially if the 'retirement age' is set close to overall life expectancy.

Of course, again to be fair, the 65 age when Social Security was created was also right about life expectancy at the time.

The question then is whether the life expectancy delta due to income was similar.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Agreed, but for every cause like smoking, I'd guess there are deaths due to airplane crashes to offset. It would be interesting to see what the life expectancy difference is with all smokers removed from the equation on both sides.

Any significant life expectancy gap between lower income and higher income divisions will affect who gets how much actuarial payout, especially if the 'retirement age' is set close to overall life expectancy.

Of course, again to be fair, the 65 age when Social Security was created was also right about life expectancy at the time.

The question then is whether the life expectancy delta due to income was similar.

NO, C1ue, mortality from airplane crashes etc. do not offset the additional mortality from smoking. For example there is a 2004 study of males in England that shows a far greater percentage of mortality improvement over the past decades went to non smokers rather than smokers. Here is a link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15213107 Numerous other studies would show the same. Prior to the use of non smoking rates in life insurance, I created a special underwriting class that required you to excersise vigorously for 30 minutes at least 3 times a week. The rates were at least 30% lowere than our standard rates, however, almost all of the difference was that one of the requirements was that you had not smoked in the past 10 years. Smoking causes all kinds of mortality, not just lung cancer. In fact it is probably hardest on the heart and vascular system.

[vt]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Partial explanation of why poor have a lower life expectancy than the rich:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[jiimbergin]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Partial explanation of why poor have a lower life expectancy than the rich:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

That is of course true, but violent deaths do not really explain the poorer mortality after age65. Poor health habits earlier in life are the primary cause, especailly the much higher incidence of smoking.

[vt]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Many factors play into this, not just wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health_in_the_United_States

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Underl...ans&id=1132045

[jiimbergin]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Many factors play into this, not just wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health_in_the_United_States

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Underl...ans&id=1132045

VT, yes race is an important factor in mortality. Of course, I was never allowed to base insurance rates on this factor. However, I could use sex which is at least as important as race. BTW, I could not use sex in Montana of all places. They had unisex rates, although I know lately there has been talk of changing that. I spent 32 years of my life as a life/health/annuity actuary until I retired almost 15 years ago.

[c1ue]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

NO, C1ue, mortality from airplane crashes etc. do not offset the additional mortality from smoking. For example there is a 2004 study of males in England that shows a far greater percentage of mortality improvement over the past decades went to non smokers rather than smokers. Here is a link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15213107 Numerous other studies would show the same. Prior to the use of non smoking rates in life insurance, I created a special underwriting class that required you to excersise vigorously for 30 minutes at least 3 times a week. The rates were at least 30% lowere than our standard rates, however, almost all of the difference was that one of the requirements was that you had not smoked in the past 10 years. Smoking causes all kinds of mortality, not just lung cancer. In fact it is probably hardest on the heart and vascular system.

Out of curiosity, what is the actual difference? Keep in mind I refer to airplane crashes in the 1% vs. smoking in the 99%.

After all, what we care about is the life expectancy of each group as opposed to within each group - the latter for which I absolutely agree that smoking is a big problem.

Also curious as to what role alcohol and other drugs play - given that these are far less socio-economically restricted.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

here is an article from fox business speculating on possible Mitt choices to replace Bernanke

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-...hief-bernanke/

- Glenn Hubbard (former Bush CEA member, Fed economist, Treasury sub-official)
- Prof. John Taylor (Taylor rule)
- Greg Mankiw (Harvard)
- Marty Feldstein (Harvard, NBER)
- Jerome Powell (Fed - Carlyle)

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

here is an article from fox business speculating on possible Mitt choices to replace Bernanke

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-...hief-bernanke/

hey - if writing a book is all it takes (as per some politicians)
here's my vote (maybe for treasury or commerce):



Eric Janszen's new book will discuss the painful structural changes he says are coming to the U.S. economy.

based upon everything eye have seen, he's AT LEAST as qualified as any of the rest of em....

[EJ]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

hey - if writing a book is all it takes (as per some politicians)
here's my vote (maybe for treasury or commerce):



Eric Janszen's new book will discuss the painful structural changes he says are coming to the U.S. economy.

based upon everything eye have seen, he's AT LEAST as qualified as any of the rest of em....

Thank you, but:

The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.
William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
David Brin (1950 - )

[vt]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Definitely right, but we can still hope that a true, incorruptible leader could emerge that would lead us to a better nation.

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

....
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
David Brin (1950 - )

as i thot you'd say, Mr J.

but still, i cant think of anybody else that possesses the insight necessary to put forth the BOLD plans required to
FIX THE MESS THE BELTWAY HAS 'engineered'

in any case, with All Due Respect, Sir - i hope the mittster drafts you
(apologies - just delusional optimism fueled by hopium - the alternatives - on both sides - are beyond bleak...)