Asp Forum - Re: SOLUTION QUIZ 123 # Huffman Encoder

Daniel Martin

5/14/2007 9:06:00 PM

"Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@gmail.com> writes:

> Extending this to binary data will involve making an input stream
> class which reads the binary data and converts it into reasonably
> sized binary string representations, and an output stream which
> accumulates the string representation of the codes and writes them as
> binary as enough data is produced. The huffman.rb file contains these
> classes in an embrionic form.

Note that I did this with just a few methods, that yielded strings of
zeros and ones to other methods. The structure was like this:

encoding:
encode called encode_bits, passing in the input io stream
encode_bits would yield strings of 0s and 1s into a block
that was inside encode, which used pack to squish them into
binary bytes.

decoding:
decode called decode_bits, which yielded strings of 0s and 1s
that were read from the (binary) input - unpack was used to
make those strings.

I admit that I don't really like the separation of the logic here -
it's not really parallel between encoding and decoding, for instance -
but this works and didn't require that much code.

--
s=%q( Daniel Martin -- martin@snowplow.org
puts "s=%q(#{s})",s.to_a.last )
puts "s=%q(#{s})",s.to_a.last

20 Answers

Pastor Dave

2/6/2014 2:23:00 PM

On 2/6/2014 9:12 AM, mg wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:38:07 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2014 8:18 AM, mg wrote:
>>> Well, it looks like the CBO has now hopped on the blame Social
>>> Security bandwagon. And I guess it makes sense in a mind-bending,
>>> perverted sort of way. Suppose, for instance, that you had a rich
>>> relative who had been loaning you huge amounts of money for as long as
>>> you can remember. Then suppose that not only do you not have to make
>>> regular payments on the loan, you don't even have to make payments on
>>> the interest. Then one day your rich relative tells you that he wants
>>> you to start paying the money back, including interest.
>>>
>>> Now there's a catastrophic situation for you to think about. Not only
>>> are you not going to receive the free loans, anymore, you are also
>>> going to have to pay the money back! So, who would you blame in a
>>> situation like that? You blame your rich relative, right? Yes, you do,
>>> and that's what the CBO has done. Here's an excerpt from the CBO
>>> report:
>>>
>>> "In coming decades, the aging of the population, rising health care
>>> costs, and the expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance
>>> will put increasing pressure on the federal budget. At the same time,
>>> by 2020, if current laws generally remained in place, federal spending
>>> apart from that for Social Security and major health care programs
>>> would drop to its smallest percentage of total output in more than 70
>>> years, and federal revenues would be a larger percentage of output
>>> than they have been, on average, during the past 40 years. Still, the
>>> rising cost of Social Security and the major health care programs
>>> would lead to widening deficits, CBO projects. Under those
>>> projections, federal debt held by the public would rise substantially
>>> over the long term as a share of the economy?s annual output?from 72
>>> percent of output now to more than 100 percent of output 25 years from
>>> now?which would probably have significant negative consequences for
>>> the economy and reduce lawmakers? ability to respond to unexpected
>>> developments.
>>>
>>> Addressing that long-term challenge would require reducing future
>>> budget deficits. To accomplish that, lawmakers would need to increase
>>> revenues further relative to the size of the economy, decrease
>>> spending on Social Security or major health care programs from what
>>> would occur under current law, cut other federal spending to even
>>> lower levels by historical standards, or adopt some combination of
>>> those approaches. The amount of deficit reduction that would be needed
>>> would depend on lawmakers? objectives for federal debt. For example .
>>> . . ."
>>>
>>> http://ww...publica...
>>> http://ww...
>>>
>>> As the old saying goes, "If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fry".
>>> However, it does occur to me that it's possible that Obama could have
>>> fixed this deficit problem in approximately his first 3 days in office
>>> by simply getting a law passed that increased the tax rate for Social
>>> Security and/or removed the cap and then increased the tax rate on
>>> Medicare also, and perhaps even lowered the age for Medicare, for the
>>> unemployed to 55.
>>>
>>> Then, Obama could have spent the rest of his 8 years on the golf
>>> course and we would have been much better off than we are today.
>>>
>>> Then, if you really wanted to stretch the wish list further, on those
>>> first few days, he could have rescinded the Bush tax cuts, announced
>>> the end of the Afghanistan war in one or two years, and reduced
>>> military spending by 25% to 50%. The result: Poof! Say goodbye to the
>>> deficits and say hello to a better future for your children and
>>> grandchildren.
>>
>> If Obama had raised taxes on the middle class (Social Security,
>> Medicare, that portion of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class) he
>> could have hit the golf course as an ex-President in 4 years.
>
> Presidents, and presidential candidates, have to lead and not follow
> public opinion, just as Bush managed to increase approval for the Iraq
> war from the 40s to the 60s.

I missed that one. I thought approval started out high and then tanked.

> I believe that Medicare and Social
> Security are insurance programs and there's no such thing as a free
> lunch. I don't believe they should be considered to be taxes, even
> though that seems to be the consensus of opinion now days. I also
> don't believe in cutting taxes when those cuts create deficits because
> eventually that means your children will have to pay the bill and I
> think most Americans would agree, if a president, or presidential
> candidated explained that to them.
>
>> Doesn't your solution of raising Social Security taxes also blame Social
>> Security for causing huge deficits?
>
> There's no such thing as a free lunch. The public approves of those
> two insurance programs by a margin of about 70% or 80%, as I recall,
> and if they want to continue with those insurance programs, for their
> children and their grandchildren, without cuts, they will have to pay
> higher premiums. That reality can be spun in a variety of different
> ways, but I believe that is the reality.

Fair enough, but then why are you criticizing the CBO for blaming Social
Security for deficits when you are doing the same thing.

>> Also, wouldn't lowering the age for Medicare to 55 increase the deficit?
>
> It wouldn't if the insurance premiums are increased enough to make
> Medicare self funded.

mg

2/6/2014 3:33:00 PM

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:23:07 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 2/6/2014 9:12 AM, mg wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:38:07 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2014 8:18 AM, mg wrote:
>>>> Well, it looks like the CBO has now hopped on the blame Social
>>>> Security bandwagon. And I guess it makes sense in a mind-bending,
>>>> perverted sort of way. Suppose, for instance, that you had a rich
>>>> relative who had been loaning you huge amounts of money for as long as
>>>> you can remember. Then suppose that not only do you not have to make
>>>> regular payments on the loan, you don't even have to make payments on
>>>> the interest. Then one day your rich relative tells you that he wants
>>>> you to start paying the money back, including interest.
>>>>
>>>> Now there's a catastrophic situation for you to think about. Not only
>>>> are you not going to receive the free loans, anymore, you are also
>>>> going to have to pay the money back! So, who would you blame in a
>>>> situation like that? You blame your rich relative, right? Yes, you do,
>>>> and that's what the CBO has done. Here's an excerpt from the CBO
>>>> report:
>>>>
>>>> "In coming decades, the aging of the population, rising health care
>>>> costs, and the expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance
>>>> will put increasing pressure on the federal budget. At the same time,
>>>> by 2020, if current laws generally remained in place, federal spending
>>>> apart from that for Social Security and major health care programs
>>>> would drop to its smallest percentage of total output in more than 70
>>>> years, and federal revenues would be a larger percentage of output
>>>> than they have been, on average, during the past 40 years. Still, the
>>>> rising cost of Social Security and the major health care programs
>>>> would lead to widening deficits, CBO projects. Under those
>>>> projections, federal debt held by the public would rise substantially
>>>> over the long term as a share of the economy?s annual output?from 72
>>>> percent of output now to more than 100 percent of output 25 years from
>>>> now?which would probably have significant negative consequences for
>>>> the economy and reduce lawmakers? ability to respond to unexpected
>>>> developments.
>>>>
>>>> Addressing that long-term challenge would require reducing future
>>>> budget deficits. To accomplish that, lawmakers would need to increase
>>>> revenues further relative to the size of the economy, decrease
>>>> spending on Social Security or major health care programs from what
>>>> would occur under current law, cut other federal spending to even
>>>> lower levels by historical standards, or adopt some combination of
>>>> those approaches. The amount of deficit reduction that would be needed
>>>> would depend on lawmakers? objectives for federal debt. For example .
>>>> . . ."
>>>>
>>>> http://ww...publica...
>>>> http://ww...
>>>>
>>>> As the old saying goes, "If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fry".
>>>> However, it does occur to me that it's possible that Obama could have
>>>> fixed this deficit problem in approximately his first 3 days in office
>>>> by simply getting a law passed that increased the tax rate for Social
>>>> Security and/or removed the cap and then increased the tax rate on
>>>> Medicare also, and perhaps even lowered the age for Medicare, for the
>>>> unemployed to 55.
>>>>
>>>> Then, Obama could have spent the rest of his 8 years on the golf
>>>> course and we would have been much better off than we are today.
>>>>
>>>> Then, if you really wanted to stretch the wish list further, on those
>>>> first few days, he could have rescinded the Bush tax cuts, announced
>>>> the end of the Afghanistan war in one or two years, and reduced
>>>> military spending by 25% to 50%. The result: Poof! Say goodbye to the
>>>> deficits and say hello to a better future for your children and
>>>> grandchildren.
>>>
>>> If Obama had raised taxes on the middle class (Social Security,
>>> Medicare, that portion of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class) he
>>> could have hit the golf course as an ex-President in 4 years.
>>
>> Presidents, and presidential candidates, have to lead and not follow
>> public opinion, just as Bush managed to increase approval for the Iraq
>> war from the 40s to the 60s.
>
>I missed that one. I thought approval started out high and then tanked.
>
>> I believe that Medicare and Social
>> Security are insurance programs and there's no such thing as a free
>> lunch. I don't believe they should be considered to be taxes, even
>> though that seems to be the consensus of opinion now days. I also
>> don't believe in cutting taxes when those cuts create deficits because
>> eventually that means your children will have to pay the bill and I
>> think most Americans would agree, if a president, or presidential
>> candidated explained that to them.
>>
>>> Doesn't your solution of raising Social Security taxes also blame Social
>>> Security for causing huge deficits?
>>
>> There's no such thing as a free lunch. The public approves of those
>> two insurance programs by a margin of about 70% or 80%, as I recall,
>> and if they want to continue with those insurance programs, for their
>> children and their grandchildren, without cuts, they will have to pay
>> higher premiums. That reality can be spun in a variety of different
>> ways, but I believe that is the reality.
>
>Fair enough, but then why are you criticizing the CBO for blaming Social
>Security for deficits when you are doing the same thing.

The whole thing becomes a play on word definitions and "if"
statements. If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had
some ham. If my rich relative would keep giving me money, I could
balance my check book. If the credit union hadn't have loaned me the
money, I wouldn't have to pay it back.

If the government didn't have to repay Social Security, it could
reduce the deficit (but not the debt). Given the nature of accounting
systems, I believe that statement is mathematically true, but I don't
believe that its morally correct to blame Social Security for the
problem.

In the short run, though, we need to fix Social Security (by
increasing premiums) and that will kill two birds with one stone. In
the long run, I believe that we need to gradually bring the amount
that the government owes the fund down to a relatively small amount so
that we don't get in this situation again.

Read more: http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/10002#ixz...

>>> Also, wouldn't lowering the age for Medicare to 55 increase the deficit?
>>
>> It wouldn't if the insurance premiums are increased enough to make
>> Medicare self funded.

Pastor Dave

2/6/2014 3:55:00 PM

On 2/6/2014 10:33 AM, mg wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:23:07 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2014 9:12 AM, mg wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:38:07 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2014 8:18 AM, mg wrote:
>>>>> Well, it looks like the CBO has now hopped on the blame Social
>>>>> Security bandwagon. And I guess it makes sense in a mind-bending,
>>>>> perverted sort of way. Suppose, for instance, that you had a rich
>>>>> relative who had been loaning you huge amounts of money for as long as
>>>>> you can remember. Then suppose that not only do you not have to make
>>>>> regular payments on the loan, you don't even have to make payments on
>>>>> the interest. Then one day your rich relative tells you that he wants
>>>>> you to start paying the money back, including interest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now there's a catastrophic situation for you to think about. Not only
>>>>> are you not going to receive the free loans, anymore, you are also
>>>>> going to have to pay the money back! So, who would you blame in a
>>>>> situation like that? You blame your rich relative, right? Yes, you do,
>>>>> and that's what the CBO has done. Here's an excerpt from the CBO
>>>>> report:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In coming decades, the aging of the population, rising health care
>>>>> costs, and the expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance
>>>>> will put increasing pressure on the federal budget. At the same time,
>>>>> by 2020, if current laws generally remained in place, federal spending
>>>>> apart from that for Social Security and major health care programs
>>>>> would drop to its smallest percentage of total output in more than 70
>>>>> years, and federal revenues would be a larger percentage of output
>>>>> than they have been, on average, during the past 40 years. Still, the
>>>>> rising cost of Social Security and the major health care programs
>>>>> would lead to widening deficits, CBO projects. Under those
>>>>> projections, federal debt held by the public would rise substantially
>>>>> over the long term as a share of the economy?s annual output?from 72
>>>>> percent of output now to more than 100 percent of output 25 years from
>>>>> now?which would probably have significant negative consequences for
>>>>> the economy and reduce lawmakers? ability to respond to unexpected
>>>>> developments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Addressing that long-term challenge would require reducing future
>>>>> budget deficits. To accomplish that, lawmakers would need to increase
>>>>> revenues further relative to the size of the economy, decrease
>>>>> spending on Social Security or major health care programs from what
>>>>> would occur under current law, cut other federal spending to even
>>>>> lower levels by historical standards, or adopt some combination of
>>>>> those approaches. The amount of deficit reduction that would be needed
>>>>> would depend on lawmakers? objectives for federal debt. For example .
>>>>> . . ."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ww...publica...
>>>>> http://ww...
>>>>>
>>>>> As the old saying goes, "If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fry".
>>>>> However, it does occur to me that it's possible that Obama could have
>>>>> fixed this deficit problem in approximately his first 3 days in office
>>>>> by simply getting a law passed that increased the tax rate for Social
>>>>> Security and/or removed the cap and then increased the tax rate on
>>>>> Medicare also, and perhaps even lowered the age for Medicare, for the
>>>>> unemployed to 55.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, Obama could have spent the rest of his 8 years on the golf
>>>>> course and we would have been much better off than we are today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, if you really wanted to stretch the wish list further, on those
>>>>> first few days, he could have rescinded the Bush tax cuts, announced
>>>>> the end of the Afghanistan war in one or two years, and reduced
>>>>> military spending by 25% to 50%. The result: Poof! Say goodbye to the
>>>>> deficits and say hello to a better future for your children and
>>>>> grandchildren.
>>>>
>>>> If Obama had raised taxes on the middle class (Social Security,
>>>> Medicare, that portion of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class) he
>>>> could have hit the golf course as an ex-President in 4 years.
>>>
>>> Presidents, and presidential candidates, have to lead and not follow
>>> public opinion, just as Bush managed to increase approval for the Iraq
>>> war from the 40s to the 60s.
>>
>> I missed that one. I thought approval started out high and then tanked.
>>
>>> I believe that Medicare and Social
>>> Security are insurance programs and there's no such thing as a free
>>> lunch. I don't believe they should be considered to be taxes, even
>>> though that seems to be the consensus of opinion now days. I also
>>> don't believe in cutting taxes when those cuts create deficits because
>>> eventually that means your children will have to pay the bill and I
>>> think most Americans would agree, if a president, or presidential
>>> candidated explained that to them.
>>>
>>>> Doesn't your solution of raising Social Security taxes also blame Social
>>>> Security for causing huge deficits?
>>>
>>> There's no such thing as a free lunch. The public approves of those
>>> two insurance programs by a margin of about 70% or 80%, as I recall,
>>> and if they want to continue with those insurance programs, for their
>>> children and their grandchildren, without cuts, they will have to pay
>>> higher premiums. That reality can be spun in a variety of different
>>> ways, but I believe that is the reality.
>>
>> Fair enough, but then why are you criticizing the CBO for blaming Social
>> Security for deficits when you are doing the same thing.
>
> The whole thing becomes a play on word definitions and "if"
> statements. If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had
> some ham. If my rich relative would keep giving me money, I could
> balance my check book. If the credit union hadn't have loaned me the
> money, I wouldn't have to pay it back.
>
> If the government didn't have to repay Social Security, it could
> reduce the deficit (but not the debt). Given the nature of accounting
> systems, I believe that statement is mathematically true, but I don't
> believe that its morally correct to blame Social Security for the
> problem.

I didn't take the CBO as blaming Social Security. Rather I thought they
were making a mathematically true statement (the CBO is inclined to
stick to mathematical truths rather than ideology) as did you.

> In the short run, though, we need to fix Social Security (by
> increasing premiums) and that will kill two birds with one stone. In
> the long run, I believe that we need to gradually bring the amount
> that the government owes the fund down to a relatively small amount so
> that we don't get in this situation again.
>
>
>
> Read more: http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/10002#ixz...

Walt Hadley

2/6/2014 8:50:00 PM

On 2/6/2014 10:33 AM, mg wrote:
> The whole thing becomes a play on word definitions and "if"
> statements. If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had
> some ham. If my rich relative would keep giving me money, I could
> balance my check book. If the credit union hadn't have loaned me the
> money, I wouldn't have to pay it back.

> If the government didn't have to repay Social Security, it could
> reduce the deficit (but not the debt). Given the nature of accounting
> systems, I believe that statement is mathematically true, but I don't
> believe that its morally correct to blame Social Security for the
> problem.

> In the short run, though, we need to fix Social Security (by
> increasing premiums) and that will kill two birds with one stone. In
> the long run, I believe that we need to gradually bring the amount
> that the government owes the fund down to a relatively small amount so
> that we don't get in this situation again.

It is indeed a play on words tragedy, and the biggest problem is that so
many folks have been (intentionally or un) deceived into believing that
Social Security etc are "insurance" programs. To paraphrase that loony
raving libertarian lunatic Lew Rockwell, leadership begins with a
commitment to seeing things as they are, rather than how we wish they
were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the
system does not represent an old age pension, an ?insurance? program, or
even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer
payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no
Social Security trust fund, and you don?t have an ?account.?

"Contributions" to Social Security etc are just general taxes, no more
and no less. There is no such thing as "premiums". The Government,
starting with the initial Act in the Thirties, has deliberately obscured
the true nature of the programs by calling them "insurance". This became
clear when during Lyndon Johnson's term in office the accounting fiction
of the "unified budget" was passed into law and separate budgetary
accounting of FICA taxes was terminated.

The upshot is that it will do no political good to increase Social
Security taxes unless the accounting system is simultaneously fixed.

John Doe

2/6/2014 9:04:00 PM

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:50:27 -0500, Walt Hadley
<halmacprimo@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/6/2014 10:33 AM, mg wrote:
>> The whole thing becomes a play on word definitions and "if"
>> statements. If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had
>> some ham. If my rich relative would keep giving me money, I could
>> balance my check book. If the credit union hadn't have loaned me the
>> money, I wouldn't have to pay it back.
>
>> If the government didn't have to repay Social Security, it could
>> reduce the deficit (but not the debt). Given the nature of accounting
>> systems, I believe that statement is mathematically true, but I don't
>> believe that its morally correct to blame Social Security for the
>> problem.
>
>> In the short run, though, we need to fix Social Securitg of FICA taxes was terminated.

I vehemently disagree that FICA taxes were just general
taxes, because they were NOT proportionately paid. High
income people paid almost nothing into FICA compared to
their incomes. Social Security was acceptable to middle
class people only because the understanding was that
the money they were paying into it was to set up system
from which they could draw returns in their old age,
something like an insurance program in effect. To welsh
on that now would be violating that trust, retroactively
converting the money that people had paid into FICA,
(which has a very large surplus at present of money paid
mostly by the middle class, which was only "loaned" to
the government, not "given" to it) into a general tax
program from which the wealthy were almost entirely
excused from paying. That is atrocious, completely
dishonest, and should be grounds for revolution if it's
actually successfully perpetrated, in my very firm
opinion.

>
>The upshot is that it will do no political good to increase Social
>Security taxes unless the accounting system is simultaneously fixed.

Pastor Dave

2/6/2014 9:31:00 PM

On 2/6/2014 3:50 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
> On 2/6/2014 10:33 AM, mg wrote:
>> The whole thing becomes a play on word definitions and "if"
>> statements. If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had
>> some ham. If my rich relative would keep giving me money, I could
>> balance my check book. If the credit union hadn't have loaned me the
>> money, I wouldn't have to pay it back.
>
>> If the government didn't have to repay Social Security, it could
>> reduce the deficit (but not the debt). Given the nature of accounting
>> systems, I believe that statement is mathematically true, but I don't
>> believe that its morally correct to blame Social Security for the
>> problem.
>
>> In the short run, though, we need to fix Social Security (by
>> increasing premiums) and that will kill two birds with one stone. In
>> the long run, I believe that we need to gradually bring the amount
>> that the government owes the fund down to a relatively small amount so
>> that we don't get in this situation again.
>
> It is indeed a play on words tragedy, and the biggest problem is that so
> many folks have been (intentionally or un) deceived into believing that
> Social Security etc are "insurance" programs. To paraphrase that loony
> raving libertarian lunatic Lew Rockwell, leadership begins with a
> commitment to seeing things as they are, rather than how we wish they
> were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the
> system does not represent an old age pension, an ?insurance? program, or
> even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer
> payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no
> Social Security trust fund, and you don?t have an ?account.?
>
> "Contributions" to Social Security etc are just general taxes, no more
> and no less. There is no such thing as "premiums". The Government,
> starting with the initial Act in the Thirties, has deliberately obscured
> the true nature of the programs by calling them "insurance". This became
> clear when during Lyndon Johnson's term in office the accounting fiction
> of the "unified budget" was passed into law and separate budgetary
> accounting of FICA taxes was terminated.
>
> The upshot is that it will do no political good to increase Social
> Security taxes unless the accounting system is simultaneously fixed.

Social Security was placed back off-budget in large part in 1986 and
fully so in 1990.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTrea...

mg

2/6/2014 9:58:00 PM

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:54:36 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 2/6/2014 10:33 AM, mg wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:23:07 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2014 9:12 AM, mg wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:38:07 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/6/2014 8:18 AM, mg wrote:
>>>>>> Well, it looks like the CBO has now hopped on the blame Social
>>>>>> Security bandwagon. And I guess it makes sense in a mind-bending,
>>>>>> perverted sort of way. Suppose, for instance, that you had a rich
>>>>>> relative who had been loaning you huge amounts of money for as long as
>>>>>> you can remember. Then suppose that not only do you not have to make
>>>>>> regular payments on the loan, you don't even have to make payments on
>>>>>> the interest. Then one day your rich relative tells you that he wants
>>>>>> you to start paying the money back, including interest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now there's a catastrophic situation for you to think about. Not only
>>>>>> are you not going to receive the free loans, anymore, you are also
>>>>>> going to have to pay the money back! So, who would you blame in a
>>>>>> situation like that? You blame your rich relative, right? Yes, you do,
>>>>>> and that's what the CBO has done. Here's an excerpt from the CBO
>>>>>> report:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In coming decades, the aging of the population, rising health care
>>>>>> costs, and the expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance
>>>>>> will put increasing pressure on the federal budget. At the same time,
>>>>>> by 2020, if current laws generally remained in place, federal spending
>>>>>> apart from that for Social Security and major health care programs
>>>>>> would drop to its smallest percentage of total output in more than 70
>>>>>> years, and federal revenues would be a larger percentage of output
>>>>>> than they have been, on average, during the past 40 years. Still, the
>>>>>> rising cost of Social Security and the major health care programs
>>>>>> would lead to widening deficits, CBO projects. Under those
>>>>>> projections, federal debt held by the public would rise substantially
>>>>>> over the long term as a share of the economy?s annual output?from 72
>>>>>> percent of output now to more than 100 percent of output 25 years from
>>>>>> now?which would probably have significant negative consequences for
>>>>>> the economy and reduce lawmakers? ability to respond to unexpected
>>>>>> developments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Addressing that long-term challenge would require reducing future
>>>>>> budget deficits. To accomplish that, lawmakers would need to increase
>>>>>> revenues further relative to the size of the economy, decrease
>>>>>> spending on Social Security or major health care programs from what
>>>>>> would occur under current law, cut other federal spending to even
>>>>>> lower levels by historical standards, or adopt some combination of
>>>>>> those approaches. The amount of deficit reduction that would be needed
>>>>>> would depend on lawmakers? objectives for federal debt. For example .
>>>>>> . . ."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ww...publica...
>>>>>> http://ww...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As the old saying goes, "If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fry".
>>>>>> However, it does occur to me that it's possible that Obama could have
>>>>>> fixed this deficit problem in approximately his first 3 days in office
>>>>>> by simply getting a law passed that increased the tax rate for Social
>>>>>> Security and/or removed the cap and then increased the tax rate on
>>>>>> Medicare also, and perhaps even lowered the age for Medicare, for the
>>>>>> unemployed to 55.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, Obama could have spent the rest of his 8 years on the golf
>>>>>> course and we would have been much better off than we are today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, if you really wanted to stretch the wish list further, on those
>>>>>> first few days, he could have rescinded the Bush tax cuts, announced
>>>>>> the end of the Afghanistan war in one or two years, and reduced
>>>>>> military spending by 25% to 50%. The result: Poof! Say goodbye to the
>>>>>> deficits and say hello to a better future for your children and
>>>>>> grandchildren.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Obama had raised taxes on the middle class (Social Security,
>>>>> Medicare, that portion of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class) he
>>>>> could have hit the golf course as an ex-President in 4 years.
>>>>
>>>> Presidents, and presidential candidates, have to lead and not follow
>>>> public opinion, just as Bush managed to increase approval for the Iraq
>>>> war from the 40s to the 60s.
>>>
>>> I missed that one. I thought approval started out high and then tanked.
>>>
>>>> I believe that Medicare and Social
>>>> Security are insurance programs and there's no such thing as a free
>>>> lunch. I don't believe they should be considered to be taxes, even
>>>> though that seems to be the consensus of opinion now days. I also
>>>> don't believe in cutting taxes when those cuts create deficits because
>>>> eventually that means your children will have to pay the bill and I
>>>> think most Americans would agree, if a president, or presidential
>>>> candidated explained that to them.
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't your solution of raising Social Security taxes also blame Social
>>>>> Security for causing huge deficits?
>>>>
>>>> There's no such thing as a free lunch. The public approves of those
>>>> two insurance programs by a margin of about 70% or 80%, as I recall,
>>>> and if they want to continue with those insurance programs, for their
>>>> children and their grandchildren, without cuts, they will have to pay
>>>> higher premiums. That reality can be spun in a variety of different
>>>> ways, but I believe that is the reality.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, but then why are you criticizing the CBO for blaming Social
>>> Security for deficits when you are doing the same thing.
>>
>> The whole thing becomes a play on word definitions and "if"
>> statements. If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had
>> some ham. If my rich relative would keep giving me money, I could
>> balance my check book. If the credit union hadn't have loaned me the
>> money, I wouldn't have to pay it back.
>>
>> If the government didn't have to repay Social Security, it could
>> reduce the deficit (but not the debt). Given the nature of accounting
>> systems, I believe that statement is mathematically true, but I don't
>> believe that its morally correct to blame Social Security for the
>> problem.
>
>I didn't take the CBO as blaming Social Security. Rather I thought they
>were making a mathematically true statement (the CBO is inclined to
>stick to mathematical truths rather than ideology) as did you.

It's mathematically true based on an unwritten "if" statement that
says the government doesn't have to pay back the money it owes Social
Security. Here are some quotes from the CBO report:

"The rising cost of Social Security and the major health care programs
would lead to widening deficits, CBO projects."

"To accomplish that, lawmakers would need to increase revenues further
relative to the size of the economy, decrease spending on Social
Security or . . ."

"If current laws remained unchanged, Social Security and the federal
government?s major health care programs would absorb a much larger
share of the economy?s total output in the future than they have in
the past . . ."

As I recall, the U.S. government currently owes the Social Security
fund approximately $3 trillion. So, I think the obvious question is if
this is a legal debt, by law or not? Can the president simply refuse
to pay the money back, and if he did could he be impeached? I believe
the answer to both those questions is yes. So, if we were to change
the above statements to read in a way that indicates that the CBO
realizes this is a legal debt, I believe those statement would read
something like this:

"The rising cost of paying our debts will lead to widening deficits .
.. ."

"To accomplish that, lawmakers would need to increase revenues further
relative to the size of the economy and decrease the amount we spend
on paying existing bills."

"If current laws remained unchanged and we repay what we owe to our
creditors, those payments would absorb a much larger share of the
economy?s total output in the future than they have in the past . . ."
So, obviously the CBO's statements don't make sense if the money owed
to the SS fund is legally due and payable. Afterall, even the lowest,
most retarded, right-wing knuckle dragger knows that people have to
pay their bills. So, how does one explain the CBO's odd and obviously
misleading statements indicating that Social Security is just spending
and not debt repayment?

Well, a beginning explanation might be that the right-wing,
knuckle-draggers have been right all along when they said that the
Social Security fund is nothing but a cabinet full of worthless IOUs.
Then, if the right-wingers were correct, doesn't that also mean that
the left-wing, belly-button staring intellectuals, who have been
saying those debts are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the
federal government, full of crap? Afterall, what good does it do if
they're backed by the full faith and credit of the government, if the
government doesn't intend to pay the money back and perhaps never
will?

>
>> In the short run, though, we need to fix Social Security (by
>> increasing premiums) and that will kill two birds with one stone. In
>> the long run, I believe that we need to gradually bring the amount
>> that the government owes the fund down to a relatively small amount so
>> that we don't get in this situation again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Read more: http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/10002#ixz...

Pastor Dave

2/6/2014 10:14:00 PM

On 2/6/2014 4:58 PM, mg wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:54:36 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Doesn't your solution of raising Social Security taxes also blame Social
>>>>>> Security for causing huge deficits?
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no such thing as a free lunch. The public approves of those
>>>>> two insurance programs by a margin of about 70% or 80%, as I recall,
>>>>> and if they want to continue with those insurance programs, for their
>>>>> children and their grandchildren, without cuts, they will have to pay
>>>>> higher premiums. That reality can be spun in a variety of different
>>>>> ways, but I believe that is the reality.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough, but then why are you criticizing the CBO for blaming Social
>>>> Security for deficits when you are doing the same thing.
>>>
>>> If the government didn't have to repay Social Security, it could
>>> reduce the deficit (but not the debt). Given the nature of accounting
>>> systems, I believe that statement is mathematically true, but I don't
>>> believe that its morally correct to blame Social Security for the
>>> problem.
>>
>> I didn't take the CBO as blaming Social Security. Rather I thought they
>> were making a mathematically true statement (the CBO is inclined to
>> stick to mathematical truths rather than ideology) as did you.
>
> It's mathematically true based on an unwritten "if" statement that
> says the government doesn't have to pay back the money it owes Social
> Security. Here are some quotes from the CBO report:

The same unwritten "if" applies to your plan to increase Social Security
taxes. In fact, the math as it relates to the deficit, debt and Trust
Fund is exactly the same whether there is a $1 increase in SS taxes or a
$1 decrease in SS benefits.

> As I recall, the U.S. government currently owes the Social Security
> fund approximately $3 trillion. So, I think the obvious question is if
> this is a legal debt, by law or not?

It is.

> Can the president simply refuse to pay the money back

He cannot refuse to pay back a maturing bond held by the Trust Fund.
But, by raising SS taxes (your idea) or reducing SS benefits (the CBO
idea), what will instead happen is the maturing bond will be replaced by
another bond, the net effect being the money is never paid back (and
quite legally so).

> Well, a beginning explanation might be that the right-wing,
> knuckle-draggers have been right all along when they said that the
> Social Security fund is nothing but a cabinet full of worthless IOUs.
> Then, if the right-wingers were correct, doesn't that also mean that
> the left-wing, belly-button staring intellectuals, who have been
> saying those debts are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the
> federal government, full of crap? Afterall, what good does it do if
> they're backed by the full faith and credit of the government, if the
> government doesn't intend to pay the money back and perhaps never
> will?

I guess you must be one of those left-wing, belly-button staring
intellectuals since your plan to raise SS taxes results in the money
never being paid back to the Trust Fund.

Werner

2/6/2014 10:47:00 PM

Why would you expect The Wealthy pay into a "middle class insurance" thingy? Why would you expect The Rich to pay for your stuff? Why would The Poor expect everyone to pay for their stuff?

Walt Hadley

2/7/2014 6:02:00 AM

On 2/6/2014 4:31 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>> On 2/6/2014 3:50 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:

>>> On 2/6/2014 10:33 AM, mg wrote:
>>> The whole thing becomes a play on word definitions and "if"
>>> statements. If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had
>>> some ham. If my rich relative would keep giving me money, I could
>>> balance my check book. If the credit union hadn't have loaned me the
>>> money, I wouldn't have to pay it back.
>>> If the government didn't have to repay Social Security, it could
>>> reduce the deficit (but not the debt). Given the nature of accounting
>>> systems, I believe that statement is mathematically true, but I don't
>>> believe that its morally correct to blame Social Security for the
>>> problem.
>>> In the short run, though, we need to fix Social Security (by
>>> increasing premiums) and that will kill two birds with one stone. In
>>> the long run, I believe that we need to gradually bring the amount
>>> that the government owes the fund down to a relatively small amount so
>>> that we don't get in this situation again.

>> It is indeed a play on words tragedy, and the biggest problem is that so
>> many folks have been (intentionally or un) deceived into believing that
>> Social Security etc are "insurance" programs. To paraphrase that loony
>> raving libertarian lunatic Lew Rockwell, leadership begins with a
>> commitment to seeing things as they are, rather than how we wish they
>> were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the
>> system does not represent an old age pension, an ?insurance? program, or
>> even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer
>> payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no
>> Social Security trust fund, and you don?t have an ?account.?
>> "Contributions" to Social Security etc are just general taxes, no more
>> and no less. There is no such thing as "premiums". The Government,
>> starting with the initial Act in the Thirties, has deliberately obscured
>> the true nature of the programs by calling them "insurance". This became
>> clear when during Lyndon Johnson's term in office the accounting fiction
>> of the "unified budget" was passed into law and separate budgetary
>> accounting of FICA taxes was terminated.

>> The upshot is that it will do no political good to increase Social
>> Security taxes unless the accounting system is simultaneously fixed.

> Social Security was placed back off-budget in large part in 1986 and
> fully so in 1990.
> http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTrea...

Taking Social Security off-budget doesn?t change the finances of the
program by a single penny. Per the U.S. Social Security Administration,
?whether the Trust Funds are ?on-budget? or ?off-budget? is primarily a
question of accounting practices?it has no effect on the actual
operations of the Trust Fund itself.?

This is because the finances of the Social Security program have always
been legally separated from the rest of the federal budget. By law,
Social Security surpluses must be loaned to the federal government,
which is a requirement that was established in the original Social
Security Act. Federal law also requires the government to pay back this
money to the Social Security program with interest. The amount that the
federal government owes to Social Security is the so-called Trust Fund.

comp.lang.ruby

Re: SOLUTION QUIZ 123 # Huffman Encoder

Daniel Martin

Pastor Dave

mg

Pastor Dave

Walt Hadley

John Doe

Pastor Dave

mg

Pastor Dave

Werner

Walt Hadley

x Login to ForumsZone