Harry Reid Shopped in Green Valley
in [Las Vegas]
|
From: tom ronson on 13 Aug 2010 12:21 jerry the jerk wrote: > I post something about moronson and when he replies, I can detect that he > is pissed and doing a slow boil. as usual you give yourself far too much credit -- which is not usual for you. > nice to see you get pissed moronson. does my heart good. If it leads to a massive heart attack on your part then good --- I'm glad to help. even if I have to fake the rage as long as you promise to keel over dead I'd be more than okay with that. I still think your popularity would skyrocket if you ate a 9mm round. why not give it a try and see? -- �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 12:39 And a couple of other things............ How quickly we forget that just a couple of years ago what was once considered a super safe "investment", money market funds, were on the verge of breaking the dollar and going kaput. If the Fed hadn't stepped in they were all at risk of suffering the equivalent of bank runs. Even if they never do break the dollar, how does one accumulate enough money while you earn less than one percent interest per year to ever retire? You don't. And what happens when you have a stroke at age 50 and have to retire? What if the Dow is at 6500 like it was a couple of years ago when you have to start taking money out to live on? What if the bond market goes in the tank for 5 years? What happens to the people who have little or nothing when they hit retirement age because the various markets have all seen steep multi-year declines in the years before they retire? Look, old people need a basic safety net they can count on so they all aren't wandering the streets in their bathrobes dumpster diving. Sure, most people risk some retirement money in the markets already, but they know they can at least buy food and pay rent on a cheap apartment if they lose that money because they can count on a SS check. Requiring them to give up that basic safety net and hand EVERYTHING over to Wall St money managers so they can gamble with it is just plain ridiculous. O
From: tom ronson on 13 Aug 2010 12:53 octoad wrote: > Requiring them to give up > that basic safety net and hand EVERYTHING over to Wall St money managers so > they can gamble with it is just plain ridiculous. speaking of ridiculous --- I saw Newt Gingrich the other day bemoaning the socialism that Obama / Reid / Pelosi are dragging us closer to every day. He then goes on about the ending of the Bush tax cuts --- and how that would be a disaster for everyone. He then suggested --- are you ready for this --- that we copy China's model of zero taxes capital gains --- because, after all, look at how well they're doing. So, Newt is pressing communism as an option to socialism? Funny part is that people listen to him and nod in agreement. I'd ask how time has absolved Newt of his egregious transgressions of the past but it's just not worth it. -- �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: Kurt Ullman on 13 Aug 2010 12:57 In article <i43r0a02v6(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "octoad" <davko58(a)sonic.net> wrote: > > 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. > There is something between. For instance, the Indiana Public Employees fund lets you pick between the guaranteed plan and one you run yourself. If you want to stay with the guarantee go for it, if not, then go for it. Also, most 401(k) or other plans usually have a limited number of things you can invest in through the plan. I don't see why SS couldn't be run the same way. > 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. You might have heard some bad things about even government bonds causing all sorts of problems in the 70s when Seniors were stuck with even government bonds that were yielding 3 and 4% while inflation was running above 14% or so. Even bonds have very distinct risks that can bankrupt you in the same as anything else if you are on the wrong side. There is no such thing as a completely safe investment. Even the mattress exposes you to risks. Most seniors are > qualified to judge which corporate issues are worth the risk? So seniors are too dumb to manage their own funds? 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. But the changes in the Fin Regs have taken all of that away. The Congress has promised us that. (g). > > 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? There has NEVER been a ten-year where the stock market has not made at least 8% annualized total return over that period. None. Nada. Zilch. Even using the period ending in 2008 or 2009. If the stock market goes down 50% and stays there for 35 years, then there is not going to be any money in the Treasury, either. > > 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. No one has said forcing anyone to buy anything. OPPORTUNITY if you want to. All of the Bush suggestions were set-up like the Indiana fund. If you wanted to opt for the current guarantee, that was the default position. It also was only talking about a part of your SS, to give a floor under your income, but also the opportunity (if and only if you so desired) to maybe make a little more. If the government defaults, it will be largely related to SS no matter how the system is set-up for payment. > > 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. Even the SS Trustees point out that from a return on investment standpoint, minorities are already getting a negative return (largely because they tend to die earlier) and most of the boomers will get 1 or 2% return at best. > > 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. But the flawed system should not, because of the flaws, be the default system. > > 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.... No, by necessity it would subject people who WANT to take the risks. > > Come up with a better idea that's actually better................... > > O -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist
From: Kurt Ullman on 13 Aug 2010 13:03
In article <i43s6u03er(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "octoad" <davko58(a)sonic.net> wrote: > > > And what happens when you have a stroke at age 50 and have to retire? What > if the Dow is at 6500 like it was a couple of years ago when you have to > start taking money out to live on? What if the bond market goes in the tank > for 5 years? What happens to the people who have little or nothing when > they hit retirement age because the various markets have all seen steep > multi-year declines in the years before they retire? If youhave a stroke and have to retire, you go on SS disability which is a whole other kettle of fish. You take out what you need while the market recovers over a few years. You don't all of a sudden take out all of your SS when you retire so why is this even a major argument for SS-personal? Probably the single dumbest argument, to my mind anyway. > Look, old people need a basic safety net they can count on so they all > aren't wandering the streets in their bathrobes dumpster diving. Sure, > most people risk some retirement money in the markets already, but they know > they can at least buy food and pay rent on a cheap apartment if they lose > that money because they can count on a SS check. Requiring them to give up > that basic safety net and hand EVERYTHING over to Wall St money managers so > they can gamble with it is just plain ridiculous. Of course, none of the suggestions that have actually made it to even marginal consideration do that. All that I have seen from the grown-ups all say they are voluntary, they only are to include a part of your SS. -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist |