Harry Reid Shopped in Green Valley
in [Las Vegas]
|
From: Zag on 13 Aug 2010 09:02 On Aug 12, 11:00 pm, "dr. Baf" <slaza...(a)stargate.net> wrote: > > > "Walt" <n...(a)none.void> wrote in message > > > Speaking of monetizing the debt, it seems the federal government is now overtly > > bailing out states with budget deficits. They are in effect adding these state > > operating deficits to the federal deficit and financing those deficits by borrowing > > or printing money, something the states are not allowed to do on their own. We slide > > yet further down the slippery slope.- Hide quoted text - > > People don't realize China doesn't want to buy our debt > anymore, so guess what, the Federal Reserve is now > buying it from the Treasury with funny money. > > dr. Baf *All* monetary systems not backed by something tangible and theoretically finite (i.e., gold) are essentially funny money. As long as everyone plays by the rules.. And no i'm not advocating moving back to gold or any other metal. Is it December yet?
From: BOB on 13 Aug 2010 09:09 On Aug 13, 7:00 am, Zag <zagc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 9:11 pm, "octoad" <davk...(a)sonic.net> wrote: > > > > > "Walt" <n...(a)none.void> wrote in message > > >news:none-9CC7BE.20500012082010(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > > In article > > > <3d0c2303-875f-4d79-aad1-46bcfe4d3...(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Double Down Now!" <double.down....(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Doesn't Nevada have a LOT of retirees on Social Security? > > > >>http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/nevada-wonk/2010/aug/12/sharron-angl.... > > >> ze-meant/ > > > > Social Security in its current form will eventually collapse under the > > > sheer weight > > > of retiring Baby Boomers. It's a Ponzi scheme. Payments to current > > > retirees come > > > from SS taxes paid by current workers. > > > No plan is perfect, but anything's better than what we have now. > > > Yes, current retirees depending on Social Security would surely be doing far > > better than they are now (receiving regular monthly checks of the same > > amount) if the plan had been "privatized" a few years ago and was subject to > > the big stock market crash, flash crashes, and wild market fluctuations that > > have happened since then. > > > Since the vast majority of retirees have vast and extensive knowledge of > > stock market manipulations by hedge funds, the 70% of stock trading that > > occurs in unregulated and secret dark pools, and the majority of on-exchange > > trading that occurs within nanoseconds (known as flash trading), surely they > > would be well equipped to get in there and play the market and receive > > better results for themselves than the 0% increase in value seen in the S&P > > 500 in the last 10 years. > > > And since the long term future of the US economy is so bright, now that > > China and other Asian economies are on the decline, with the huge increase > > in manufacturing seen in this country over the last 30 years, and because of > > our stellar educational system that no other country can match, its an > > absolute gimme that telling seniors to invest every single retirement penny > > in the stock market is the right thing to do. > > > No one can doubt that they could do better going that route than depending > > on a program that invests its money in steady, dull old Treasury bills. > > Just ask Bernie Madoff's clients. > > > The only segment of society more corrupt, more complex, less efficient, less > > productive, and less understandable to the average senior citizen than > > government is Wall St. Anyone who thinks Wall St is more trustworthy or > > more reliable is out of their minds. > > > O > > Co-sign Tangent
From: tom ronson on 13 Aug 2010 11:57 octoad wrote: > with the huge increase in manufacturing seen in this country over the last 30 years that's what'll save us, for sure. > and because of our stellar educational system that no other country can match they've gone with teaching what's needed these days --- "want fries with that?" and "If you go with the synthetic your car will last longer". -- �We wanted them (the media) to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it reported.� -- NV senatorial candidate, Sharon Angle. --tr
From: tom ronson on 13 Aug 2010 11:58 Walt wrote: > Hell no, we'll just keep playing the same Republican vs. Democrat > game until the lights go out. why change what works so well? -- �We wanted them (the media) to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it reported.� -- NV senatorial candidate, Sharon Angle. --tr
From: octoad on 13 Aug 2010 12:18
"Walt" <none(a)none.void> wrote in message news:none-15E3DC.23451012082010(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <i429d5029gq(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "octoad" <davko58(a)sonic.net> > wrote: > >> "Walt" <none(a)none.void> wrote in message >> news:none-9CC7BE.20500012082010(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> > In article >> > <3d0c2303-875f-4d79-aad1-46bcfe4d372f(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, >> > "Double Down Now!" <double.down.now(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Doesn't Nevada have a LOT of retirees on Social Security? >> >> >> >> http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/nevada-wonk/2010/aug/12/sharron-angle-priv >> >> ati >> >> ze-meant/ >> > >> > Social Security in its current form will eventually collapse under the >> > sheer weight >> > of retiring Baby Boomers. It's a Ponzi scheme. Payments to current >> > retirees come >> > from SS taxes paid by current workers. >> >> > No plan is perfect, but anything's better than what we have now. >> >> Yes, current retirees depending on Social Security would surely be doing >> far >> better than they are now (receiving regular monthly checks of the same >> amount) if the plan had been "privatized" a few years ago and was subject >> to >> the big stock market crash, flash crashes, and wild market fluctuations >> that >> have happened since then. >> >> Since the vast majority of retirees have vast and extensive knowledge of >> stock market manipulations by hedge funds, the 70% of stock trading that >> occurs in unregulated and secret dark pools, and the majority of >> on-exchange >> trading that occurs within nanoseconds (known as flash trading), surely >> they >> would be well equipped to get in there and play the market and receive >> better results for themselves than the 0% increase in value seen in the >> S&P >> 500 in the last 10 years. >> >> And since the long term future of the US economy is so bright, now that >> China and other Asian economies are on the decline, with the huge >> increase >> in manufacturing seen in this country over the last 30 years, and because >> of >> our stellar educational system that no other country can match, its an >> absolute gimme that telling seniors to invest every single retirement >> penny >> in the stock market is the right thing to do. >> >> No one can doubt that they could do better going that route than >> depending >> on a program that invests its money in steady, dull old Treasury bills. >> Just ask Bernie Madoff's clients. >> >> The only segment of society more corrupt, more complex, less efficient, >> less >> productive, and less understandable to the average senior citizen than >> government is Wall St. Anyone who thinks Wall St is more trustworthy or >> more reliable is out of their minds. > I expect better from you than to delete what I actually said, which is... > > "It's possible there's still time to avoid total > calamity by weaning us off the current system and toward a plan that > actually saved > each individual's SS taxes (plus the employer's share) in his or her own > separate > retirement account, where it could be invested in relatively safe things > like bonds > or whatever. No plan is perfect, but anything's better than what we have > now." > > I said it could be "invested in relatively safe things". I said nothing > about > "playing the market". You want to "privatize" the system, and then prohibit people from doing what they want with their money? You want to force them to invest in things like Treasury bills? Uh, that's what the current system does. As for other bonds, they're safe? LOL. You might have heard some negative news surrounding some mortgage backed bonds a while back (a trillion dollar loss of value that destroyed the world economy), and while I happen to own several local and municipal issues that are doing fine, many issues are on the verge of failure because the governments are broke. Most seniors are qualified to judge which corporate issues are worth the risk? How does one pick which type of bond to buy when one of the biggest scandals of the recent Wall St crisis was the fact that the bond ratings agencies were paid by the issuers to rate them, so they made up good ratings out of thin air to get the business? That hasn't changed either; bonds are subject to Wall St. shenanigans just as much as stocks are. And of course bonds also go down in value all the time, even good ones. There is nothing inherently safe about a bond. > If all the SS taxes I paid over the past 35+ years, plus my employer's > share, had > been invested in a *diversified* portfolio of bonds, stocks, precious > metals, etc., > they would have provided a pretty nice nest egg for retirement. Really? I don't see any evidence of that in your post, but assuming that was the case, you know it will continue to be the case for the next 35 years? Gee, if the market goes down 50% in the next 35 years, what happens to the retiree money? Think it might disappear? Then who pays to house and feed all the broke retirees? You want to "privatize" a system, and then force everyone to buy bonds they know nothing about (bonds which are subject to the rampant lies of the ratings agencies). Or do you want to further restrict this "privatized" system by forcing people to buy only federal government Treasury bills? They're the safest, but of course the US government carries a massive deficit and at some point it isn't inconceivable that the government itself could default. Then as you make this "safe" bond argument (never met a safe one yet besides T-bills), you claim, without any evidence, that if you had bought stocks, bonds, insanely dangerous things like gold and silver and of course the wildly profitable "etc", you'd be better off than getting monthly checks that within 5 years would have paid you more money than you put in during a lifetime of taxpaying. Its just a lot of hot air. But you're right, the current system is unsustainable over the long term unless more workers pay into the system, unless their taxes are increased, or unless benefits are cut. But because there are problems with this system does NOT mean that another system, like forcing people into stock or bond picking, is necessarily better. People can criticize a flawed system all they want, but they better think long and hard about what would replace it. By necessity, your "privatized" system, if it included portolios of stocks and/or bonds, would subject people who are completely ignorant of the realities, risks, and dangers of markets to the whims and sinister motives of billionaire Wall St CEO's and high frequency traders. Who would manage all this money? Wall St fund managers, that's who. My god, what a can of worms.... Come up with a better idea that's actually better................... O |