Harry Reid Shopped in Green Valley
in [Las Vegas]
|
From: Kurt Ullman on 13 Aug 2010 14:54 In article <i442a606uu(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "octoad" <davko58(a)sonic.net> wrote: > > > If youhave a stroke and have to retire, you go on SS disability > > which is a whole other kettle of fish. > > Not if Social Security no longer exists, you don't. > Nobody, outside of a few fervored Dems who were trying to muddy the situation, ever said they were going to kill off SS. Nobody, period, suggested changes to SS disability. > > You take out what you need while the market recovers over a few > > years. > > In other words you drain your account prematurely, quite possibly leaving > you with little or nothing in the future. And what if the market doesn't > recover, or recovers 15 years later? You don't drain your account prematurely. There will be ups and downs throughout any retirement. But they generally cancel themselves out over the years and, at least since WWII, the stocks have been on an upwards tangent for all of those years. Besides if the market hasn't recovered in 35 years, then SS won't be around either. > > > 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. > > You CANT take out all your SS when you retire; you are guaranteed checks of > a certain amount every month until you die. But in this silly "privatized" > world, if the markets tank and your account is drastically shrunk, you may > have to take out what's left just to live on, and then what? You won't. Because you will have built up the money over the 40 years you have worked. I have had an IRA that I have put money in every year since they started in the 80s. At the bottom of the this last tough I still had more than 5 times what I had put in. And this is in my "fire and forget" investment made up entirely of index mutual funds. > > I remain amazed, after all that has happened in the last three years, after > all the stories, all the crimes, the shenanigans, the leverage, the > incredibly complex financial "innovations", the advent of high frequency > trading, the hedge fund manipulation, and the Great Recession which was > directly caused by Wall St firms failing or threatening to fail, that anyone > has more confidence in their integrity and ability to provide safe, steady > returns in the future than they do in the admittedly flawed Social Security > system. Because the SS will be bankrupt soon, too. -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist
From: Borked Psuedo Mailed on 13 Aug 2010 15:44 On 8/13/2010 1:46 PM, tom ronson wrote: > octoad wrote: > >> precious metals (even more risky) > > what? what are you saying? I was listening to Glen Bleck the other day > who was telling me about secure investing with a company called > Goldline. Are you telling me I may have screwed myself? I sure hope not. > That explains it. Explains why you're such a hateful puke. You listen to Glen Beck.
From: octoad on 13 Aug 2010 15:51 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OYidnSsrYbBWCfjRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > In article <i442a606uu(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "octoad" <davko58(a)sonic.net> > wrote: > >> >> > If youhave a stroke and have to retire, you go on SS disability >> > which is a whole other kettle of fish. >> >> Not if Social Security no longer exists, you don't. > Nobody, outside of a few fervored Dems who were trying to muddy the > situation, ever said they were going to kill off SS. Nobody, period, > suggested changes to SS disability. Sharron Angle said the program should go away. I was arguing with Walt, who suggested SS should go away. People need to think before they get on board with some wild idea. >> > You take out what you need while the market recovers over a few >> > years. >> >> In other words you drain your account prematurely, quite possibly leaving >> you with little or nothing in the future. And what if the market >> doesn't >> recover, or recovers 15 years later? > You don't drain your account prematurely. There will be ups and > downs throughout any retirement. No, there is no up or down whatsoever with a consistent SS check of the same amount that comes every month, year after year. You always have a basic safety net. Take that away, and ALL your retirement money is subject to ups and downs and it could be WAY down in the year you retire. > But they generally cancel themselves > out over the years and, at least since WWII, the stocks have been on an > upwards tangent for all of those years. Of course nothing has changed in the way markets work since WWII................ Ever heard of financial engineering? The intertwined global economy? High frequency trading? Dark pools? Etc etc etc? Its is SO complex and changes SO fast and is SO much more subject to a sneeze in in China or a bank collapse in Europe than it ever was before. And what happens when you pour money into a DOW index fund for decades, watching it rise to 14,000, then in the year you retire it slides to 6500 in a matter of a couple of weeks? The S&P 500 has made zero returns for the last ten years. People need at least SOME of their money in a safe consistent program that pays for their basic survival. >> > 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. >> You CANT take out all your SS when you retire; you are guaranteed checks >> of >> a certain amount every month until you die. But in this silly >> "privatized" >> world, if the markets tank and your account is drastically shrunk, you >> may >> have to take out what's left just to live on, and then what? > You won't. Because you will have built up the money over the 40 > years you have worked. I have had an IRA that I have put money in every > year since they started in the 80s. At the bottom of the this last > tough I still had more than 5 times what I had put in. And this is in > my "fire and forget" investment made up entirely of index mutual funds. Sorry, but your system depends on timing and on a market system that no longer exists. If someone had started 10 years ago with an S&P index fund they'd have exactly what they put in, not a penny more, nothing, no gain. You actually trust the crooks and thieves on Wall St to go back the old school system of valuing stocks based on profits and growth potential and dividends? BWAHAHA............... You ignore all the "advances" in the way these markets work, and ignore the inevitable next financial system collapse caused by Wall St "innovations" we haven't even heard of yet. The amount of trust you place in Wall St money managers is astounding. >> I remain amazed, after all that has happened in the last three years, >> after >> all the stories, all the crimes, the shenanigans, the leverage, the >> incredibly complex financial "innovations", the advent of high frequency >> trading, the hedge fund manipulation, and the Great Recession which was >> directly caused by Wall St firms failing or threatening to fail, that >> anyone >> has more confidence in their integrity and ability to provide safe, >> steady >> returns in the future than they do in the admittedly flawed Social >> Security >> system. > Because the SS will be bankrupt soon, too. No, actually it has 20 more years, and with a few tweaks like extending the retirement age (which reflects the reality of people living longer) it can last another 100. O
From: Kurt Ullman on 13 Aug 2010 16:13 In article <i447f80a3q(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "octoad" <davko58(a)sonic.net> wrote: > > > You don't drain your account prematurely. There will be ups and > > downs throughout any retirement. > > No, there is no up or down whatsoever with a consistent SS check of the same > amount that comes every month, year after year. Actually that is not true either. For instance, the age for SS is going up. There are talks about how we are going to have to change the way the inflation is figured (heck there was no inflation increase). And these are the best case scenarios. ANd if you want that fine, every one that has been floated has said you can keep with the same program if you want to. > > You always have a basic safety net. Take that away, and ALL your retirement > money is subject to ups and downs and it could be WAY down in the year you > retire. And it will be beside the point since you won't be clearing out your account in its entiretyl. > > > But they generally cancel themselves > > out over the years and, at least since WWII, the stocks have been on an > > upwards tangent for all of those years. > > Of course nothing has changed in the way markets work since > WWII................ You have any reason to think over the course of a 20 years (65 to life expectancy of 80 or 85) that it won't? Besides, that is every one since WWII. That includes the last years as well as the first years. Quite a bit of history to fall back on. > > Ever heard of financial engineering? The intertwined global economy? High > frequency trading? Dark pools? Etc etc etc? Its is SO complex and changes > SO fast and is SO much more subject to a sneeze in in China or a bank > collapse in Europe than it ever was before. Yep and according to the Dems those are all behind us. And there is no reason to think that they have any longer term impact than robber barons or any of the other boogey men of days gone by. > > And what happens when you pour money into a DOW index fund for decades, > watching it rise to 14,000, then in the year you retire it slides to 6500 in > a matter of a couple of weeks? The S&P 500 has made zero returns for the > last ten years. You really have to work hard to come up with these never happened before doomsday scenarios for you to argue with me? > > People need at least SOME of their money in a safe consistent program that > pays for their basic survival. Which would still be available under most real world scenarios. > > Sorry, but your system depends on timing and on a market system that no > longer exists. If someone had started 10 years ago with an S&P index fund > they'd have exactly what they put in, not a penny more, nothing, no gain. > You actually trust the crooks and thieves on Wall St to > go back the old school system of valuing stocks based on profits and growth > potential and dividends? BWAHAHA............... � It doesn't. It only requires patience and not working yourself up over every bump in the area. > > You ignore all the "advances" in the way these markets work, and ignore the > inevitable next financial system collapse caused by Wall St "innovations" we > haven't even heard of yet. The amount of trust you place in Wall St money > managers is astounding. > No more so than the amount you put in Congress, especially after all the talk about how they have gutted the "Trust fund"/ > > No, actually it has 20 more years, and with a few tweaks like extending the > retirement age (which reflects the reality of people living longer) it can > last another 100. > But if any of the economic scenarios you so breathlessly posit come together as a reason to not go viral, it won't. -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist
From: jerry the jerk on 13 Aug 2010 16:58
On Aug 13 2010 11:46 AM, tom ronson wrote: > octoad wrote: > > > precious metals (even more risky) > > what? what are you saying? I was listening to Glen Bleck the other day > who was telling me about secure investing with a company called > Goldline. Are you telling me I may have screwed myself? I sure hope not. > > -- > �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 keep listening to glen beck moronson. you might learn something. there is more intelligence in glen becks left earlobe than in your head. -----� : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com |