Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-28-2010, 11:17 AM   #41 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
"These are not the droids you are looking for." - The Social Security Administration

Hasn't the average Federal salary risen to about 163% of the average private sector salary? You must have to pay big to find people smart enough to manage a program that will only pay me 74% of what they said they would.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Last edited by Cimarron29414; 10-28-2010 at 11:19 AM..
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 10-28-2010, 12:55 PM   #42 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimaron29414
How is "Ponzi scheme" a conservative framing?
It's consistently employed by Conservatives for framing. It's an aspersion rather analysis. It's use as 'analysis' is nonexistent. Social Security is of such social utility that we need to fix it rather than let it die, but we can't increase the amount of money we're putting into it, afterall, it's a PONZI scheme. It allows you to rationalize the feelings that lead into statements like:
Quote:
Hasn't the average Federal salary risen to about 163% of the average private sector salary? You must have to pay big to find people smart enough to manage a program that will only pay me 74% of what they said they would
It's utility is in the feelings, in the manipulation of saliency in view of subsequent judgment. Framing. It derails everything into the land of feelings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
I see you are uncomfortable that the venerated entitlement program parallels a popular fraud
It derails everything into the land of feelings. That's the utility. How is a program's failure to cope with demographic trends, and then letting everyone know 'we're having trouble coping with demographic trends, here are long projections' something that is best viewed through the lense of a scam? It's a totally useless perspective. SS needs to adapt to demographic trends. How is it at all reasonable to understand that in terms of a scam? SS and the schemes you cite have different functions and trajectories.

I'm having trouble thinking through why you think comparing it to a PONZI scheme is relevant to anything but I more or less concluded it's an emotional thing. Why do you think it's bears mentioning?
Radd McCool is offline  
Old 10-28-2010, 07:24 PM   #43 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 View Post
How is "Ponzi scheme" a conservative framing? It's named after Charles Ponzi, the guy who took investors' money and used it to pay off previous investors. Will not social security use the money of current investors to pay off previous investors? Yes. Did SS know that the amount being taken from investors was not adequate based on their expected retirement draw to properly finance the plan - and that they would have to use other people's money to make good on their promise? Yes. Does the perpetrator of the plan benefit from its creation. Yes. If we can use cognitive framing of corporate personhood on one argument it's perfectly fair to have government personhood to explain the motivation (acquiring power) in creating entitlement programs.

I see you are uncomfortable that the venerated entitlement program parallels a popular fraud, but it is the very definition, not a cognitive framing.
For one, social security is not an investment. It is meant to, as the name might suggest, provide social security. It forces working Americans to sock away some of their earnings to provide for themselves when they retire. The reason it was created is because, for various reasons, a significant percentage of people do not manage to save enough during their working lives to provide for themselves after they retire.

Second, a Ponzi scheme requires a ever-increasing investor pool, since previous investors are paid out more than what they put in to get the 'incredible' returns on investment. Social security does not require an increasing pool of workers, but, in it's current form, can only support a limited contraction of the labor pool.

So, if the SSA projections are accurate, in about 25 years, if nothing is done to change the SS system, the trust fund will start to run out of money. Ok, fine, something should be done about that. But it isn't the emergency or proof of the failure of social security that conservatives like to pretend it is.

If conservatives would make honest arguments against things like this, I'd have a lot more respect for them and conservatism as a movement. It's fine to say "I don't think the government should force people to save for their retirement." Fine. Talk about that. Not this ponzi scheme BS or faux concern over the long term solvency of SS.

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 View Post
"These are not the droids you are looking for." - The Social Security Administration

Hasn't the average Federal salary risen to about 163% of the average private sector salary? You must have to pay big to find people smart enough to manage a program that will only pay me 74% of what they said they would.
Cite?

No?

You are getting your facts from liars.

Here's an article that debunks this lie pretty well:

Correcting Myths About Federal Pay
robot_parade is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 01:33 AM   #44 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
SS Maybe not be a true Ponzi Scheme but it certainly has elements that are similar so I can understand conservatives making that comparison. The part I don't get it is it's trouble and needs to be fixed. The only thing I hear coming from the right is "get rid of it" and "privatize it." SS has helped a lot of people over the years. A lot of low income folks and disabled folks would have nothing without it. I certainly favor fixing it over getting rid of it.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 03:58 AM   #45 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
personally i think alot of the conservative whining about social security is about protecting military spending by directing attention away from it. but its that sector which eats the largest proportion of any other....to make of social security etc something larger, conservatives have to add things together. and so far as i am concerned, no conservative who talks about deficits as a problem and doesn't talk about slashing military spending is worth taking seriously.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 05:36 AM   #46 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
I'll say it again for at least the fifth time on here: Military spending should be cut dramatically. We should only enter conflict if we declare war on a nation. Having said that, all international aid should be cut until we are debt free as a nation. Even then, the federal government should not be giving money to foreign lands as aid, that's what charity is for and Americans are the most charitable people in the world.

...and no, Radd McCool, it should not be fixed. It should be phased out. Put on your big boy pants, save your 3.5% yourself in a Roth IRA and retire a millionaire....and for the record, until this thread, I have never called SS a Ponzi Scheme. I believe its existence to be outside of the responsibilities of the Federal government. I believe it is a program which denies Americans the opportunity to grow wealth, so that the government can maintain control over an element of their lives. I believe it is a wedge issue which politicians balloon to maintain or exchange control of the government.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Last edited by Cimarron29414; 10-29-2010 at 05:57 AM..
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 05:56 AM   #47 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
and that, cimmaron, is entirely fantastical insofar as "foreign aid" is concerned.
you cannot possibly understand the first thing about what they call "globalizing capitalism" and how it operates and maintain that position as anything more than a pipe dream.

and understanding that as "charity" simply compounds the error.
but there's always time for a moment of self-congratulations. it's amazing how wonderful every last american is. no wonder everyone everywhere loves us so much. only bad people think bad things about the united states.

for example, i am quite sure that pinochet in chile was just misunderstood.

but the military--absolutely it can be cut and cut very substantially.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 06:03 AM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Iliftrocks's Avatar
 
Location: Near Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 View Post
Sorry, roach, not playing. Hektore, you believe whomever you want.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------



Yeah, Rekna, wouldn't it be just AWFUL if Hektore set aside a meagre 3.5% of his earnings in a private IRA and was a millionaire in 40 years? What a fucking prick I am for ruining this nation by giving that sort of advice!

Hookers and blow, Hektore. That Blackhawk helicoptor is just waiting to drop a metric shit-ton of cash on your lawn come retirement day.
You guarantee that in 40 years he'd be a millionaire? Wow, I was putting money away in an IRA for 10 years, and had less, at the end of that, than I had put into the damned thing. So if I stuck it out for another 30 years of that it would magically be millions? Nice.
__________________
bill hicks - "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out."
Iliftrocks is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 06:24 AM   #49 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
If 3.5% is 10 bucks, then no - you will not be a millionaire.

Find me any 40 year period in the market, and you take your contributions and the annual return. I think you will find your coming out just fine. Here's a quick one:

3.5% of $50K salary is $1750. Divided in months is $145.83/month Put into the market at a 10% rate of return will give you $929K in 40 years. Since any good advisor says you need to keep back 15% for retirement, you can see how it goes...

For the love of God, don't come back with "Well, that's a $50K salary!" You can go find an investment calculator, put in your salary, and calculate whatever you want. The point is, it isn't that hard to earn wealth through investments - unless you are "investing" in the SS program.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 07:32 AM   #50 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 View Post
...and no, Radd McCool, it should not be fixed. It should be phased out.
I'll take your dropping the 'framing issue' as conceding that yes, it's totally up-front framing.
Quote:
Put on your big boy pants, save your 3.5% yourself in a Roth IRA and retire a millionaire...
You're telling that to the guy who's tightening up his budget every month trying to hit 10%. (And Ad hom is really bad form. It also sucks.)
Quote:
and for the record, until this thread, I have never called SS a Ponzi Scheme.
Why'd you point this out?
Quote:
I believe its existence to be outside of the responsibilities of the Federal government.
So it's ideologically out of synch. Got it.
Quote:
I believe it is a program which denies Americans the opportunity to grow wealth
Turns out I can't do something as simple as embedding graphs until I have 15 posts. Or even linking to the graphs. But I was going to post a bunch about how people are going into more and more debt, spending down their savings, seeing trouble with real wages, etc. Government has to play to not only the behavior of the population, but their economic environment. Something like Social Security does that in a way which is beneficial to the whole of society. Utility/Practically > Ideology
Quote:
so that the government can maintain control over an element of their lives. I believe it is a wedge issue which politicians balloon to maintain or exchange control of the government.
I am 90% certain that you are saying this for the same reason you called it a PONZI scheme. It's like a prop or something. I mean, can you explain that? The first part is basically meaningless, the second party seems to play a broader context which is simply you conflating different contexts and not seeing a problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
all international aid should be cut until we are debt free as a nation. Even then, the federal government should not be giving money to foreign lands as aid, that's what charity is for and Americans are the most charitable people in the world.
Foreign aid lubricates soft power. The notion that it's charity is propaganda. Foreign Aid as goodCharity or badCharity both are propaganda. Take a look at the Gulf of Guinea. We're going to be getting tons of oil and natural gas from them and you know what got us in the ground floor? Foreign Aid, amongst other things. And now we're going to enjoy being first at the table for some totally bitching resource flows. This is part and parcel to what it takes to keep up first world standards of living and foreign aid is a tiny, tiny part of our budget and we get lots of cool stuff for it.
Radd McCool is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 08:36 AM   #51 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
No, I'm not dropping the framing, because I didn't create the framing - Dan Johnson did.

Good for you, trying to get to 10%. Just imagine if the government gave you your 3.5% back from their shit-ass program, how easy it would be for you to get there.

I point out that I never called it a Ponzi scheme since you "frame" it as generally a "conservative tactic". Or, did you use framing? It's hard to say. I mean, am I defending the Ponzi scheme analogy or whether it's only conservatives who say it. I'm just so confused - all this framing and such.

You can embed 1,000,000 graphs and it won't make a difference. People spend their money on their unlimited texting, their 250 channel TV contract, their over-priced brand new "identity" car, etc. long before they worry about eating dogfood in their 80's. I'm not playing the game of "Source???", so you can ignore me if you think I'm being deceitful.

Utility is not greater than Ideology. You lack character if you sacrifice your core values. Sorry.

I didn't call it a Ponzi scheme, Dan Johnson did. I'm not going to argue with you over the strings attached to government entitlement programs. You are a fool if you deny them.

I'm not going to argue with you over foreign aid.

I'm breaking my rule of getting dragged too deep into these political threads. I apologize for leaving when you are on a roll, but I've determined it is a waste of time. Do what you want, vote for who you think is best, good luck to you.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 09:04 AM   #52 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 View Post
Do what you want, vote for who you think is best, good luck to you.
I know this is a weird thing to say but I am literally getting the impression that you're a bit depressed and worn down.
Radd McCool is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 09:40 AM   #53 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
Not at all. As those who have been here a while can attest, I have been less and less involved in the politics section of the board. Primarily, because it is truly a waste of time. There's no chance "you" will pull the lever "my" way, or vice versa. I suppose one could argue that our words might end up influencing others, thus making it worthwhile - but there's no guarantee there either. I'm not perfect and have clearly fallen back into the trap in this thread.

If you hang out here and find it fruitful to debate with Ace, knock yourself out. Roach and Baraka have got your back. I like all three of them and enjoy watching the fireworks, as I'll enjoy your contributions.

But as for my industry, my energies are better spent "fixing my own house", that's all.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 01:13 PM   #54 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars View Post
SS Maybe not be a true Ponzi Scheme but it certainly has elements that are similar so I can understand conservatives making that comparison. The part I don't get it is it's trouble and needs to be fixed. The only thing I hear coming from the right is "get rid of it" and "privatize it." SS has helped a lot of people over the years. A lot of low income folks and disabled folks would have nothing without it. I certainly favor fixing it over getting rid of it.
Social Security should be privatized. I've been contributing to my 401K for the last 15 years or so. My 401K alone is on track to match at age 62 what my Social Security payment will be at age 62 where I've been paying into Social Security for 36 years. That's following a pretty conservative investment strategy of investing in diversified stock market funds and bonds to reduce the risk of a single stock crashing.

Besides which, I get to pass on any 401K balance as an inheritance, which I don't get to do with Social Security.

It's not the government's job to save me from myself. It's not your responsibility to provide me food and shelter and it's not my responsibility to provide you with food or shelter.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
personally i think alot of the conservative whining about social security is about protecting military spending by directing attention away from it. but its that sector which eats the largest proportion of any other....to make of social security etc something larger, conservatives have to add things together. and so far as i am concerned, no conservative who talks about deficits as a problem and doesn't talk about slashing military spending is worth taking seriously.
I think there are items in the military budget that can be cut. We can start with military bases in Europe and Asia which are not strategic to US defense interests. Let Europe and Asia fund their military to the extent they think necessary.

Also, identify military programs which are redundant without good reason and merge them.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 02:14 PM   #55 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
I know your position. You've got yours and screw everyone who doesn't. I disagree with that thinking.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 08:55 PM   #56 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
Social Security should be privatized. I've been contributing to my 401K for the last 15 years or so. My 401K alone is on track to match at age 62 what my Social Security payment will be at age 62 where I've been paying into Social Security for 36 years. That's following a pretty conservative investment strategy of investing in diversified stock market funds and bonds to reduce the risk of a single stock crashing.

Besides which, I get to pass on any 401K balance as an inheritance, which I don't get to do with Social Security.

It's not the government's job to save me from myself. It's not your responsibility to provide me food and shelter and it's not my responsibility to provide you with food or shelter.
That's a fair point of view. So, you just got elected King, and got rid of social security. Now, what do you, as King, do about the many people who bet on the market wrong, or for whatever reason didn't save up enough for their own retirement? That was the situation before social security. Humanity has gotten no wiser since then, so that will be the situation afterwards. Will you wash your hands of them? Put them on the government dole?
robot_parade is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 09:00 PM   #57 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot_parade View Post
That's a fair point of view. So, you just got elected King, and got rid of social security. Now, what do you, as King, do about the many people who bet on the market wrong, or for whatever reason didn't save up enough for their own retirement? That was the situation before social security. Humanity has gotten no wiser since then, so that will be the situation afterwards. Will you wash your hands of them? Put them on the government dole?
Let them eat cake.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 09:04 PM   #58 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Let them eat cake.
Mmmm...caaaake.
robot_parade is offline  
Old 10-30-2010, 01:32 AM   #59 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot_parade View Post
That's a fair point of view. So, you just got elected King, and got rid of social security. Now, what do you, as King, do about the many people who bet on the market wrong, or for whatever reason didn't save up enough for their own retirement? That was the situation before social security. Humanity has gotten no wiser since then, so that will be the situation afterwards. Will you wash your hands of them? Put them on the government dole?
You start with financial education and money management in school, something which is very much lacking anyway. You teach people they are responsible for themselves, and that Joe down the street isn't responsible for them. Maybe restrict the eligible investments into a set of funds which are regarded as safe investments by a broad base group of economists. Maybe start new hires with a default savings plan, which individuals can change if they wish. That's what my company does. Prohibit people from early withdrawals or borrowing against their 401K.

No system is perfect. In the current system, if I die a year after starting retirement, the money I paid into my retirement fund is lost. How is the government confiscating approximately 12% of my income fair?
dogzilla is offline  
Old 10-30-2010, 09:31 AM   #60 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
You start with financial education and money management in school, something which is very much lacking anyway. You teach people they are responsible for themselves, and that Joe down the street isn't responsible for them. Maybe restrict the eligible investments into a set of funds which are regarded as safe investments by a broad base group of economists. Maybe start new hires with a default savings plan, which individuals can change if they wish. That's what my company does. Prohibit people from early withdrawals or borrowing against their 401K.
Ok, so what do you, as king, do with those people who, through bad luck, stupidity, or whatever, *still* don't save up enough to provide for their own retirement?

"Let them starve." is a perfectly reasonable answer. If I agreed with your view of government, that's the one I'd give. If it isn't the governments responsibility, then that's all there is to it. They can rely on private charity, family, or simply starve (or die of exposure to the elements).

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
No system is perfect. In the current system, if I die a year after starting retirement, the money I paid into my retirement fund is lost. How is the government confiscating approximately 12% of my income fair?
It's a tax. Government's levy taxes. Taxing is pretty much they're reason for existing in the first place. :-)

This one is a regressive tax on income from labor, and part of the deal is that, instead of using it for something nice and useful, like killing foreigners, the government will give some of this money back when you're ready to retire (yes, assuming you live that long). If you're lucky and/or wise enough to have put away enough money for your own retirement, the SS money will just be a nice extra. If not, it should give you enough to survive on.

If you ever make enough money to be truly rich, the social security tax will drop to a very small portion of your total tax burden...the SS tax is capped at something like $100k, and most wealthy people derive a fairly large percentage of their income from investments anyway, and that income isn't taxed under SS.

Incidentally, one of the many ways to fix the 'about to collapse' social security system would be to raise that cap a bit.
robot_parade is offline  
Old 10-30-2010, 05:54 PM   #61 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot_parade View Post
Ok, so what do you, as king, do with those people who, through bad luck, stupidity, or whatever, *still* don't save up enough to provide for their own retirement?

"Let them starve." is a perfectly reasonable answer. If I agreed with your view of government, that's the one I'd give. If it isn't the governments responsibility, then that's all there is to it. They can rely on private charity, family, or simply starve (or die of exposure to the elements).
If you could prove that it was bad luck and family or charity won't help you out, then I'd go along with some minimal level of government assistance. Otherwise you are on your own. Government should be the last place you get assistance, not the first. And if you won't assume responsibility for yourself, then why should anyone else be forced to assume responsibility for you?
dogzilla is offline  
Old 10-31-2010, 10:04 AM   #62 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
that's assuming that everyone who is poor/in a bad financial situation is in that situation because of a lack of personal responsibility. that's an awfully big (and often false) assumption
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 10-31-2010, 10:54 AM   #63 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
The issue about the privatization of social security that most people ignore is that to privatize it would mean that the money that is being paid into social security would be diverted to the private sector. Which would mean that people currently receiving social security would either have to have their benefits eliminated or the government would have to run a much larger deficit in the mean time.

Finally, the actual redistribution that the American federal government does is very modest by most standards. Which makes the whole "I don't want mah money going to them poor folk" a bit ridiculous (as it comes from people who have certainly used public schools, public roads, the massive government subsidy called "mortgage interest deduction" on the federal taxes, federally protected bank accounts and federally subsidized students loans, things that the poor have limited or no access to).
dippin is offline  
 

Tags
day, election, false, prior, public, things, “knows”


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:51 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360