PDA

View Full Version : Would privatizing SS have been bad?



sack316
10-28-2009, 04:08 PM
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

Galveston County says no.

Sack

pooltchr
10-28-2009, 04:43 PM
If we had the <u>choice</u> that Bush was advocating, I certainly have to like the returns of the private plan over that of Social Security.

Steve

llotter
10-28-2009, 05:11 PM
Social Security, along with all entitlements, should be phased out to come back into compliance with the Constitution. Until we face this elephant in the room, we are doomed.

Kerbouchard
10-28-2009, 10:10 PM
Heck, if I could opt out now, and forfeit everything I have paid in, already, I would still do so.

Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi Scheme and I would have no part of it if I had any choice in the matter.

llotter
10-29-2009, 05:36 AM
You are right, of course. The Left has no problem using the jackboot of the state to force their utopian schemes onto their fellow citizens. I have come to believe that the excuse of 'good intentions' does not explain their continued support of policies that everyone knows will not work in the long run. The bankruptcy the country is in fact their method of bringing down capitalism and implementing socialism/communism. The ends justify ANY means.

LWW
10-29-2009, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Social Security, along with all entitlements, should be phased out to come back into compliance with the Constitution. Until we face this elephant in the room, we are doomed. </div></div>

The SCOTUS has already ruled that SS payments are not an entitlement guaranteed by the COTUS.

LWW

llotter
10-29-2009, 08:56 AM
To what case are you referring? Might white of them to put the stamp of the COTUS on the collection of the tax but no where can they find any obligation to pay it back. When that case passed there were a bunch of penny pinching Jews on the court.

Qtec
10-29-2009, 09:03 AM
Yes.

Then again, ask Bernie M, he would probably agree with you.



Q

LWW
10-29-2009, 09:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To what case are you referring? Might white of them to put the stamp of the COTUS on the collection of the tax but no where can they find any obligation to pay it back. When that case passed there were a bunch of penny pinching Jews on the court. </div></div>
Dagnabbit ... I was waiting for an esteemed intellectual leftist giant such as wolfie or Q or Dick to be puppet mastered into challenging that statement:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the court held that Social Security was not an insurance program, saying: <span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>"The proceeds of both (employee and employer) taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way."</u></span></span></div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a later decision, Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the court said: <span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>"To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands..."</u></span></span> That flexibility and boldness mean Congress can constitutionally cut benefits, raise retirement age, raise Social Security taxes and do anything it wishes, including eliminating payments. In other words, you MUST pay into the system, yet you have absolutely no legal right to the money you put into it.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.bbhq.com/socsec4.htm)

OH MY! (http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm)

GOOD LORD! (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=363&invol=603)

It's true, it's true, it's DMANED TRUE! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor)

It's like a nightmare ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis)

... it just keeps getting worse and worse. (http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/09/02/washingtons_lies)

Gayle and wolfie ... that's how you prove a point.

This is where one of you explains that just because the claim is the truth doesn't mean the claim is the truth.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 09:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

Galveston County says no.

Sack </div></div>

Oh. Galveston, eh, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif well that settles it then.

LMAO!

Chopstick
10-29-2009, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes.

Then again, ask Bernie M, he would probably agree with you.



Q </div></div>

And you think Barney is more honest than Bernie? Barney has cost more people more money than Bernie ever did.

wolfdancer
10-29-2009, 10:37 AM
When I think about investing in the market as a self directed alternative to SS...I'm reminded of a friend, a Physcologist who invested wisely in R.E., but who's broker managed to lose him a buck and a half, then he decided to invest on his own, and lost another two bucks, for a total of around $350k.
It's bad enough that they let dummies like me, buy stocks....but think of the hundreds of thousands more, like me buying into Enron, Global Crossing, Washington Mutual....
We'd, be back to selling apples on the street corner, to the folks that sold us those losers.
Just look at the recent mess,GM, bank failures,etc
Even GWB's old company where he was CEO, went belly up....and if a smart man like that can lose money, what chance do the rest of us have?......Wait, hold it....GWB is so smart he sold all his stock, just days before it tanked permantently. If I only had the
same insider's info that he had, I might have sold mine.

Deeman3
10-29-2009, 10:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes.
</div></div>

And you think Barney is more honest than Bernie? Barney has cost more people more money than Bernie ever did. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Barney, Barney? wasn't that the guy who fought so hard for "No Child's Behind Left?" </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Didn't he say the the 25 MPH school zone speed was the perfect speed to cruise them?

Is that the Barney we all know and some love? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
10-29-2009, 11:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes.

Then again, ask Bernie M, he would probably agree with you.

Q </div></div>

Begin funding with contributors. Use funds from later contributors to pay earlier contributors. Repeat as long as possible until the wheels fall off.

The description fits two out of the three of the following: Ponzi Scheme (Bernie M), Social Security, Galveston Plan. I'll let you pick which one doesn't belong.

Sack

sack316
10-29-2009, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

Galveston County says no.

Sack </div></div>

Oh. Galveston, eh, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif well that settles it then.

LMAO!
</div></div>

It doesn't "settle" anything, nor did I claim for it to. But it does show a viable alternative option that has shown success over a long period of time, that could be worth exploring.

Sack

Kerbouchard
10-29-2009, 05:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I think about investing in the market as a self directed alternative to SS...I'm reminded of a friend, a Physcologist who invested wisely in R.E., but who's broker managed to lose him a buck and a half, then he decided to invest on his own, and lost another two bucks, for a total of around $350k.
It's bad enough that they let dummies like me, buy stocks....but think of the hundreds of thousands more, like me buying into Enron, Global Crossing, Washington Mutual....
We'd, be back to selling apples on the street corner, to the folks that sold us those losers.

</div></div>

Are you really saying that the government should invest your money for you because you are too stupid to do it yourself? Seriously?

pooltchr
10-29-2009, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I think about investing in the market as a self directed alternative to SS...I'm reminded of a friend, a Physcologist who invested wisely in R.E., but who's broker managed to lose him a buck and a half, then he decided to invest on his own, and lost another two bucks, for a total of around $350k.
It's bad enough that they let dummies like me, buy stocks....but think of the hundreds of thousands more, like me buying into Enron, Global Crossing, Washington Mutual....
We'd, be back to selling apples on the street corner, to the folks that sold us those losers.

</div></div>

Are you really saying that the government should invest your money for you because you are too stupid to do it yourself? Seriously? </div></div>

I believe that is exactly what he said.

Steve

Qtec
10-29-2009, 11:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we had the <u>choice</u> that Bush was advocating, I certainly have to like the returns of the private plan over that of Social Security.

Steve </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> * The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan. The Galveston plan does not have <u>voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions.</u> In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system.[2]
* Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan. Under the Galveston Plan, initial retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”</span> The SSA study also noted that “there are no additional spousal or dependent benefits… benefits are not portable to future employers;<span style='font-size: 14pt'> benefits are not adjusted for inflation;</span> and, in general, benefits are lower for those with lower earnings and/or with a greater number of dependents who qualify for Social Security.”[3]
* Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole. The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries .

<u>In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees.</u> The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.

The remainder of this brief analysis explains in more detail why the experience in Galveston has little relevance to the current national Social Security debate and why claims that the Galveston experience shows that we should move to private accounts are erroneous. </div></div> not Fox or WND (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1974)

Q

DickLeonard
10-29-2009, 11:44 PM
Wolfdancer that SS scheme was a brainchild of Jack Abramoff and Company. Those wacky right wingers are still pushing that. If that program had been put forward there isn't enuff paper to print the money needed to overcome the damage of that Bill.


GWB should have been arrested for insider Trading for selling that stock a month before it went belly up. Isn't strange He bankrupted that Company and then the United States. He is two for three he didn't sink Texas.####

DickLeonard
10-30-2009, 09:57 AM
I left Yet out. ####

Bobbyrx
10-30-2009, 10:48 AM
interesting..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">* The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan. The Galveston plan does not have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory </div></div>

So this article says, contrary to what some have said on this board, that Bush's plan DID have VOLUNTARY private accounts,i.e., a choice.

pooltchr
10-30-2009, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">interesting..


So this article says, contrary to what some have said on this board, that Bush's plan DID have VOLUNTARY private accounts,i.e., a choice. </div></div>

There you are, bring up those pesky little <u>facts</u> again!

Steve

wolfdancer
10-30-2009, 12:09 PM
nice "twist"

wolfdancer
10-30-2009, 12:09 PM
of course you would

Chopstick
10-30-2009, 12:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes.
</div></div>

And you think Barney is more honest than Bernie? Barney has cost more people more money than Bernie ever did. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Barney, Barney? wasn't that the guy who fought so hard for "No Child's Behind Left?" </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Didn't he say the the 25 MPH school zone speed was the perfect speed to cruise them?

Is that the Barney we all know and some love? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Yep. The same Barney who took the TARP money that has been repaid, and kept it for himself saying that the tax payers don't need this back even thought the law requires it. Now he's got Geithner running cover for him.

Deeman3
10-30-2009, 01:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes.
</div></div>

And you think Barney is more honest than Bernie? Barney has cost more people more money than Bernie ever did. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Barney, Barney? wasn't that the guy who fought so hard for "No Child's Behind Left?" </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Didn't he say the the 25 MPH school zone speed was the perfect speed to cruise them?

Is that the Barney we all know and some love? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Yep. The same Barney who took the TARP money that has been repaid, and kept it for himself saying that the tax payers don't need this back even thought the law requires it. Now he's got Geithner running cover for him. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> </span> Don't you find it funny that none of the left even finds this disturbing? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

pooltchr
10-30-2009, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="color: #FF0000"> </span> Don't you find it funny that none of the left even finds this disturbing? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif </div></div>

No more so that the fact that Barney seems to think it is perfectly alright.
They live in a different reality.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

wolfdancer
10-30-2009, 03:41 PM
Dick, and let's not forget brother Neil and his Silverado savings and loans scandal, or brother Jeb and the Medicare fraud....and I just found a new
"player", cousin Jonathon:
"President Bush’s first cousin Jonathan Bush is CEO of Athena Health in Watertown, Massachusetts, the developer of Novation’s “CodeRyte” software program that “runs on an algorithm built into the system,” which “can read the data entry, find any required associations and automatically contact on-staff coders who can read the work and determine the appropriate code.”
Medicare was bilked of billions, not just millions.....but as Daddy Warbucks, George Sr. once said "You can't criticize the boys for trying to earn a few bucks"
The whole family should be deported to Dubai.....or lined up and shot, charging their heirs for the bullets, as they once did in communist China.

Kerbouchard
10-30-2009, 04:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">nice "twist"</div></div>

Twist? I didn't twist anything. I simply summarized what I gathered from what you wrote. If I was mistaken in any way, please clarify, but it seemed pretty straight forward to me.

You said you were too dumb to take care of yourself or plan for your retirement therefore you needed the government to do so for you. That if they didn't you would wind up selling apples on a street corner.

To tell you the truth, I thought it was fairly refreshing to see a lefty take an honest assessment of himself and publicly admit the truth about why he wants more government involvement in his life.

wolfdancer
11-01-2009, 01:16 AM
Typical jerkoff reply...
Maybe you should read up on the crash of '29...you might figure out what I was saying ...but I doubt it from the idiocy of your post....
This will be the last time I waste my time with a **** like yourself
By the way...I didn't say a f**king thing about the government taking care of me....I've been investing in the market for many years now.....I've had my bad trades, but have a profit for the last three now....So see if you can spin that around *****
Any fool can twist something around in an attempt to belittle people....who are you trying to impress...lww, Steve ????

wolfdancer
11-01-2009, 01:27 AM
Here's the thing...I could give a f**k less whatever you two mentally challenged folks believe. You might be trying hard to be a smartass...you just lack the smart part.
I was trying to point out that that being smart is not a guarantee, that you will make it in the market....or maybe you think B. Madoff only scammed stupid folks?
I know you believe that YOU are too smart to buy a bad stock, or make a bad investment.....

wolfdancer
11-01-2009, 02:52 AM
You can add in your own idiotic take,it might impress Steve...but it means sh*t to me

Kerbouchard
11-01-2009, 09:51 AM
Well, here is my idiotic take on it. The market is a dangerous place to invest. It has become even more so with the government privatizing companies, forcing executive level decisions upon them, and generally choosing which companies succeed and which fail.

As such, I have 0 dollars in the stock market. I will be the first to admit I don't fully understand everything that takes place on Wall Street. I know there are people who make money when stocks go down, when they go up, and can manipulate those prices almost at will. I also know that regardless of insider trading laws, they have inside information.

In any case, I recognize from the get go that somebody like me is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to gambling my future on the market.

Because of those issues, at first my investments were towards getting out of debt. After that, I took a slight detour because of Obama's stance on an assault weapons ban, and invested in reloading equipment and firearms, which have done very well.

Recently, thanks to our media and politicians telling everybody our houses aren't worth anything, I have invested in real estate.

Everything I have invested is something I can see, something I can actually judge the value on myself. I can't do that with the stock market so I choose not to partake. I can't do that with Social Security, either, but the government forces me to participate anyway.

There is almost no possibility of anybody under 40 ever seeing Social Security, so don't expect me to pretend I am happy about the government stealing my money to finance commitments they made before I was born which everybody knows cannot be sustained.

Gayle in MD
11-01-2009, 02:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I think about investing in the market as a self directed alternative to SS...I'm reminded of a friend, a Physcologist who invested wisely in R.E., but who's broker managed to lose him a buck and a half, then he decided to invest on his own, and lost another two bucks, for a total of around $350k.
It's bad enough that they let dummies like me, buy stocks....but think of the hundreds of thousands more, like me buying into Enron, Global Crossing, Washington Mutual....
We'd, be back to selling apples on the street corner, to the folks that sold us those losers.
Just look at the recent mess,GM, bank failures,etc
Even GWB's old company where he was CEO, went belly up....and if a smart man like that can lose money, what chance do the rest of us have?......Wait, hold it....GWB is so smart he sold all his stock, just days before it tanked permantently. If I only had the
same insider's info that he had, I might have sold mine.
</div></div>

Bush, Greenspan, paulson, they all knew the market was going to crash. they just sat back and let it happen, because it was good for their politics, they thought they'd be able to manage it until they were out of power.

The market is nothing but a Los Vegas style scam.

Real Estate is the safest investment, but you have to buy when it's down, not up.

Income producing Real Estate is a sweet deal, because when people lose their homes in a bad economy, more of them are out there looking to rent.

The stock market is nothing but a huge Ponzi scheme. If I'm going to invest, it's going to be in something that is tangible.

G.

wolfdancer
11-01-2009, 02:57 PM
In the past SS had surpluses...until they dipped into it and funded some other project. Now it is under funded, and I wonder if it can be saved. For many generations before me, SS was their total retirement income.
When citing the crash of '29, I forgot about the crash of '89.
That wiped out a lot of people's wealth, as well.
I was in the home repair business at the time....and I still can't believe we did this...but using all kinds of jacks, we managed to move a two story house back onto it's foundation, after the earthquake caused it to move. Talking to the City Inspector, he said how much safer a wooden house is during an earthquake...the wood will give, split, etc but that house will remain standing probably as the brick house next door collapses.
(But I digress) the LL was telling me that on "Black Friday" he was betting against the market index, and his broker kept calling and asking what do you want to do....He was selling off piecemeal, but figured out later, he could have made a half mil more had he left it alone until near closing.
You claim that I wrote that I want the government to take care of me because I am too stupid.
I admit that I am no Madoff in the stock market, having been caught holding Enron, Global Crossing, a company that was going to be the next "Yahoo", but for business people....Chris Noth was their spokesman and if you can't trust a Tv cop....recently, I lost on Washington Mutual....
So I ain't a market maven, but as for the Government supporting me....I paid into SS from age 15 on, and believe that it is SS insurance, based on actuarial tables and I am just collecting on my policy....I once read the avg person collects 18 checks.....
You and your gang here, may harbor a grudge believing that it is unfair that retirees are living as you imagine, off of your earnings deductions....I think that SS has kept millions from living in homeless encampments.....
I'll say a small prayer for you, when I cash my monthly check...

pooltchr
11-01-2009, 03:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know you believe that YOU are too smart to buy a bad stock, or make a bad investment..... </div></div>

I'm smart enough to know that if I do make a bad investment, it was my choice. Nobody made the decision for me.
Stupid people give control of their lives to others. The smart ones accept personal responsibility.

Steve

Sev
11-01-2009, 03:49 PM
Ahhh Dem Jews.
Its just jealously.

I've seen em pinch a quarter so hard the eagle screams.

To bad the government wouldn't operate that tightly.

LWW
11-01-2009, 05:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the past SS had surpluses...until they dipped into it and funded some other project.</div></div>

Which started immediately under FDR.

LWW

wolfdancer
11-02-2009, 01:05 AM
So now it's the left that has forced this Utopian scheme of SS upon the hard working right citizens???

I found an interesting site...sort of a history of SS, from the ancient Greeks to today.
"Although the need for economic security affects all ages and classes of society, one particularly acute aspect of this need is the problem of old age and the possibility of retirement after a long life of labor. Retirement, a feature of life we now take so much for granted, was not always readily available, and it was a struggle to develop adequate systems of retirement.

One of the first people to propose a scheme for retirement security that is recognizable as a forerunner of modern social insurance was Revolutionary War figure Thomas Paine. His last great pamphlet, published in the winter of 1795, was a controversial call for the establishment of a public system of economic security for the new nation. Entitled, Agrarian Justice
And then there was Teddy Roosevelt:
As a third-party candidate in 1912 he was the first to propose that America adopt social insurance, and his Progressive Party (aka the "Bull Moose" party) adopted the proposal in its platform. The Progressive Party platform can be seen as the forerunner of the Social Security program that TR's cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, would successfully push through Congress in 1935."
So it seems that the idea has been kicking around for a long time, even way before you decided that it was the left's idea to install communism in this country......
You really do come across as a fanatic, and given your admiration for Kopp, and your idea that the "left" is the root of all evil in this country....makes me wonder if you have any plans to "take out" the President????

LWW
11-02-2009, 04:26 AM
You poor clueless man.

Teddy was libertarian.

Frankie was a fascist.

LWW

Kerbouchard
11-02-2009, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I think about investing in the market as a self directed alternative to SS...I'm reminded of a friend, a Physcologist who invested wisely in R.E., but who's broker managed to lose him a buck and a half, then he decided to invest on his own, and lost another two bucks, for a total of around $350k.
It's bad enough that they let dummies like me, buy stocks....but think of the hundreds of thousands more, like me buying into Enron, Global Crossing, Washington Mutual....
We'd, be back to selling apples on the street corner, to the folks that sold us those losers.
Just look at the recent mess,GM, bank failures,etc
Even GWB's old company where he was CEO, went belly up....and if a smart man like that can lose money, what chance do the rest of us have?......Wait, hold it....GWB is so smart he sold all his stock, just days before it tanked permantently. If I only had the
same insider's info that he had, I might have sold mine.
</div></div>

Bush, Greenspan, paulson, they all knew the market was going to crash. they just sat back and let it happen, because it was good for their politics, they thought they'd be able to manage it until they were out of power.

The market is nothing but a Los Vegas style scam.

Real Estate is the safest investment, but you have to buy when it's down, not up.

Income producing Real Estate is a sweet deal, because when people lose their homes in a bad economy, more of them are out there looking to rent.

The stock market is nothing but a huge Ponzi scheme. If I'm going to invest, it's going to be in something that is tangible.

G.

</div></div>

The world must be ending, I actually agree with something Gayle said, well, with the exception fo the blame Bush part.

Gayle in MD
11-03-2009, 08:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

Galveston County says no.

Sack </div></div>

Oh. Galveston, eh, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif well that settles it then.

LMAO!
</div></div>

It doesn't "settle" anything, nor did I claim for it to. But it does show a viable alternative option that has shown success over a long period of time, that could be worth exploring.

Sack </div></div>

It's not a viable option. Investing in anything that is not tangible, is never a viable option.

Anytime your investments are subject to psychological emotions, fear, greed, panic, you're being a fool, IMO.

Now, retiring on income producing properties, is a very viable solution, as long as you don't owe money on them.

Real Estate will always be the safet investment, as long as one knows what they're doing, and understands the principles and practices of Real Estate, IOW, get a license, first. And get to know the areas in which you invest, and the people who work in the zoning offices.

G.

Deeman3
11-03-2009, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=sack316][quote=Gayle in MD][quote=sack316]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514


Now, retiring on income producing properties, is a very viable solution, as long as you don't owe money on them.

Real Estate will always be the safet investment, as long as one knows what they're doing, and understands the principles and practices of Real Estate, IOW, get a license, first. And get to know the areas in which you invest, and the people who work in the zoning offices.

G. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"> A very correct and thoughtful statement. The key, of course, if not oweing large amounts in an overpriced market and, as you said, knowing the zoning regulations as well as having a good handle on the possible future uses of the property.

I have slowly, during this recent bust, transferred some funds to what I feel is pretty solid real estate and feel much better about it than the fickle market. I think you should always keep some stocks as a hedge against inflation along with small amounts of metals, gold, silver and lead. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

Chopstick
11-03-2009, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="color: #FF0000">
I think you should always keep some stocks as a hedge against inflation along with small amounts of metals, gold, silver and lead. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span> </div></div>

LOL. Oh yes. We mustn't forget the lead. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Chopstick
11-03-2009, 10:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Bush, Greenspan, paulson, they all knew the market was going to crash. they just sat back and let it happen, because it was good for their politics, they thought they'd be able to manage it until they were out of power.

<span style="color: #3333FF">No, they didn't. No one knows what the market is going to do. That statement is just plain silly.</span>

The market is nothing but a Los Vegas style scam.

<span style="color: #3333FF">Please explain the correlation. I am interested to hear it.</span>

Real Estate is the safest investment, but you have to buy when it's down, not up.

<span style="color: #3333FF">No, it's not. U.S. Treasuries are.</span>

Income producing Real Estate is a sweet deal, because when people lose their homes in a bad economy, more of them are out there looking to rent.

<span style="color: #3333FF">There is no such thing as a risk less investment. There are many risks involved with real estate.</span>

The stock market is nothing but a huge Ponzi scheme.

<span style="color: #3333FF">It does not resemble any Ponzi scheme I ever heard of. Please explain.</span>

If I'm going to invest, it's going to be in something that is tangible.

<span style="color: #3333FF">Stocks and bonds are tangible assets. The bank accepts them as collateral for a loan. If that's not tangible I don't know what is. Privatizing SS into AAA investment grade securities would have been the best thing that ever happened to this country. It would have cut our unfunded debt by tens of trillions. The liquidity that it would have provided would have prevented the recent meltdown in the markets. Upon that foundation we could have fixed medicare. Where would we be now if SS and medicare were no longer a problem? How about zero SS and medicare tax? What do you think would happen then?</span>

G.

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
11-03-2009, 10:39 AM
[quote=Chopstick][quote=Gayle in MD]
Bush, Greenspan, paulson, they all knew the market was going to crash. they just sat back and let it happen, because it was good for their politics, they thought they'd be able to manage it until they were out of power.

<span style="color: #3333FF">No, they didn't. No one knows what the market is going to do. That statement is just plain silly.</span>

The market is nothing but a Los Vegas style scam.


<span style="color: #990000">LMAO! You are just plain silly. there were plenty of people who saw this thing coming....</span>


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/


<span style="color: #3333FF">Please explain the correlation. I am interested to hear it.</span>


<span style="color: #990000">Believe me, you wouldn't get it, if you don't get it by now. </span>

Real Estate is the safest investment, but you have to buy when it's down, not up.

<span style="color: #3333FF">No, it's not. U.S. Treasuries are.</span>

<span style="color: #000066">LOL... </span>

Income producing Real Estate is a sweet deal, because when people lose their homes in a bad economy, more of them are out there looking to rent.

<span style="color: #3333FF">There is no such thing as a risk less investment. There are many risks involved with real estate.</span>


<span style="color: #990000">There would be if you were making the decisions. I've never lost a dime in my Real Estate Investments. </span>

The stock market is nothing but a huge Ponzi scheme.

<span style="color: #3333FF">It does not resemble any Ponzi scheme I ever heard of. Please explain.</span>


<span style="color: #990000">LMAO, you just get funnier by the minute, don't you? </span>

If I'm going to invest, it's going to be in something that is tangible.

<span style="color: #3333FF">Stocks and bonds are tangible assets.

<span style="color: #990000">No they aren't, they're pieces of paper, which are subject to becomming worthless. </span>



The bank accepts them as collateral for a loan. If that's not tangible I don't know what is.

<span style="color: #990000">Yes, we've already established that much. </span>
Privatizing SS into AAA investment grade securities would have been the best thing that ever happened to this country.

<span style="color: #990000">OMG! Listen to the man! </span>



It would have cut our unfunded debt by tens of trillions.

<span style="color: #990000">No it wouldn't. The only thing that would have cut our unfunded debt by the trillions is if Bush had never crashed into the W.H., and Greenspan, had never been the Fed, and the neocons had never come up with their "New World Order" and Reagan had never been president. </span>



The liquidity that it would have provided would have prevented the recent meltdown in the markets.

<span style="color: #990000"> No it wouldn't have. The value of both are intertwined.</span>

Upon that foundation we could have fixed medicare. Where would we be now if SS and medicare were no longer a problem? How about zero SS and medicare tax? What do you think would happen then?</span>

G.

<span style="color: #990000">Without SS and Medicare, our seniors would have been living on the streets for the last seventy years, that's what would have happened. </span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


<span style="color: #990000">Whatever YOU do, don't invest in Real Estate. </span>

sack316
11-03-2009, 09:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It's not a viable option. Investing in anything that is not tangible, is never a viable option.</div></div>

So then social security is not a viable option either. It is not tangible. I pay into it, in return I get a statement with what my projected earnings will be, based on the assumption that when in my elder years it will A) still be around and B) there are others like me that will be paying into it at that time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, retiring on income producing properties, is a very viable solution, as long as you don't owe money on them.

Real Estate will always be the safet investment, as long as one knows what they're doing, and understands the principles and practices of Real Estate, IOW, get a license, first. And get to know the areas in which you invest, and the people who work in the zoning offices.

G. </div></div>

That I completely agree with, and has always been a longstanding hope of mine that someday I will be able to do so.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-04-2009, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It's not a viable option. Investing in anything that is not tangible, is never a viable option.</div></div>

So then social security is not a viable option either. It is not tangible. I pay into it, in return I get a statement with what my projected earnings will be, based on the assumption that when in my elder years it will A) still be around and B) there are others like me that will be paying into it at that time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, retiring on income producing properties, is a very viable solution, as long as you don't owe money on them.

Real Estate will always be the safet investment, as long as one knows what they're doing, and understands the principles and practices of Real Estate, IOW, get a license, first. And get to know the areas in which you invest, and the people who work in the zoning offices.

G. </div></div>

That I completely agree with, and has always been a longstanding hope of mine that someday I will be able to do so.

Sack </div></div>

Social Security isn't an investment, it's more like a social retirement insurance program. I'm glad we have it, because our country would look a good deal worse than it does, without it.

Every whining, ignorant little nitty on this forum will be cashing in their SS checks, and using medicare, too, when the time comes.

Some, in fact, one of the worst critics of socialism on this forum, is already on a socialized medical program, right now.

BTW, did you know the truck drivers are a huge segment of Limpballs' devote's

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

pooltchr
11-04-2009, 01:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Social Security isn't an investment, it's more like a social retirement insurance program.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Actually SS is just a forced savings plan. The government takes your money all your working life, and then doles it out at their own pace when you are finished working. </span>
Every whining, ignorant little nitty on this forum will be cashing in their SS checks, <span style="color: #FF0000"> Damn right! After all, it is my money, not the governments. They have been taking it from me for years, and I do want it back!!!</span> and using medicare, too, when the time comes. <span style="color: #FF0000"> Again, this is not a hand out. We pay for it.</span>

Some, in fact, one of the worst critics of socialism on this forum, is already on a socialized medical program, right now.
<span style="color: #FF0000">It might be interesting to learn how you come to know such "facts" about the personal lives of other posters. Based on your description of this particular person, I doubt that you have a personal relationship with them. </span>

BTW, did you know the truck drivers are a huge segment of Limpballs' devote's
<span style="color: #FF0000"> And just what do we have against truck drivers? Are they another segment of society that you have found to look down your nose at?
You elitist snob!!!!!!!!!!!!!

</span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif


</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Your posts are becoming more and more a waste of time.
Steve </span>

Chopstick
11-04-2009, 03:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Chopstick][quote=Gayle in MD]
Bush, Greenspan, paulson, they all knew the market was going to crash. they just sat back and let it happen, because it was good for their politics, they thought they'd be able to manage it until they were out of power.

<span style="color: #3333FF">No, they didn't. No one knows what the market is going to do. That statement is just plain silly.</span>

The market is nothing but a Los Vegas style scam.


<span style="color: #990000">LMAO! You are just plain silly. there were plenty of people who saw this thing coming....</span>


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

<span style="color: #000099">Very interesting show. However, it has nothing to do with the recent crash in the housing and stock market. It happened in 1998 and in her own words "We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market." Neither Ms Born or anybody else had the slightest idea was was about to happen. It wasn't even an OTC derivative that set off the cascade. It was a hedge fund at LTCM. They were doing computerized quant pair trading in international bonds among other things. 18 Aug 1998 Russia declared a moratorium on it's treasury debt (meaning they defaulted). Everybody bailed on Russian bonds and flooded into short term US Treasuries.

Now if you were in a pair trade where you were long Russian treasuries and short US treasuries when that happened you would get a pair divergence big enough to push the moon through. In a pair trade convergence is good. Divergence is bad and in the case of an international event such as this, very very bad.

Using computerized trading on the monetary scale they were doing it those pairs could have been hundreds or thousands of layers deep. You can't just turn it off. Those people were not idiots. They had PHDs in mathematics and finance. They got hammered and everybody who was in there with them got hammered too.

I am familiar with the regulations she was trying to change. The funny thing is that it would not have affected the above incident. What it would have exposed was the connection between the banks and the people who were cooking the paper over at Fannie and Freddie. No wonder they told her to shutup. It was the Clinton crew that would have had their necks in a noose over it.

What happened is called a black swan event. A black swan event is by definition completely unpredictable and in retrospect makes perfect sense and gives the appearance that it could have been known. This is false. For a thousand years or more, it was common knowledge throughout the world that all swans were white. No one even thought to question this and it was accepted by all to be fact. That is until someone found a black one. When they discovered Australia they found a whole bunch of them. Then the whole world had to go through an adjustment in their belief system.

A turkey that is fed at 3 oclock every day of it's life until that Wednesday before Thanksgiving goes through an adjustment to it's belief system. There is always something out there that is beyond current knowledge and experience. No one knows what is going to happen with the markets or anything else. Anyone who thinks they do is just asking for that black swan to drop in and give them an adjustment. </span>

</div></div>

sack316
11-04-2009, 05:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Social Security isn't an investment, it's more like a social retirement insurance program. I'm glad we have it, because our country would look a good deal worse than it does, without it.</div></div>

Well I imagine there's probably a good chance I'll find out what that looks like in my lifetime. In the mean time, I'd earn more in CD's.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every whining, ignorant little nitty on this forum will be cashing in their SS checks, and using medicare, too, when the time comes.</div></div>

Heck yeah I will. I paid into it. My money is in there, and I would like it back with interest.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, did you know the truck drivers are a huge segment of Limpballs' devote's
</div></div>

Think that one went over my head. What does that have to do with anything?

I hope you don't misunderstand my post here originally. I'm not saying Social Security is a bad thing. On the contrary, I actually think it is a good thing. I'm grateful that my Grandmother, who doesn't really need it, does have it as a means of some income should anything tragic happen to her finances as a safety net. I'm grateful my Dad, still working in his mid 60's will have that revenue when he does stop working. Same with my Mom. Same with anyone and everyone here or elsewhere. I think a little extra "insurance" (as you better put it than I) is a necessary thing for our society.

But fact remains, the system itself is in trouble. That's not my opinion, that's on my own SS statement from the SSA I hold in my hand right now. What's so bad about seeking out possibilities of more effective and efficient ways to operate the program?

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-04-2009, 08:05 PM
If you are suggesting that Fannie and Freddie were the crux of this collapse, you are completely misinformed.

No one knows exactly what the market is going to do, but they do knoew when things are gong in a dangerous direction... many knew that a complete collapse was coming. They knew it well before it happened, too. They actually fueled it, with poor judgement, then chose to allow it, rather than take responsibililty for it.

Fannie and Freddie were minor players in the whole scheme of what occured. Fannie and Freddi got out of the sub prime market in 03...and their mortgages actually had a low default rate compared to the predatory lenders who took over after they got out.

It was the derivitives, and the credit default swaps, and CDO's, predatory lenders, the slicing and dicing, putting distance between the unsurance, and the risk, 40 to 1 margins, and colossal greed, that caused this mess, not Fannie and Freddie. What brought the market down, happened on Wall Street, inflamed by Greenspan's unrealistically low interest rates, and greedy loan insurance rating agencies, not Fannie and Freddie.

G.

Gayle in MD
11-04-2009, 08:10 PM
I don't happen to think that encouraging people to put money, and all retirement insurance, into the stock market, for the purpose of retirement, is a good idea.

After what we are seeing right now, one wouldn't think one would be up against an arguement about that, but alas, why would I expect anyone who thought Bush had a good idea, would see that.

I'd like to give you a list of the retirement savings my friends have lost during this last year, which was supposed to be insurance, for their retirement.

Most of them are ruined.

I, OTOH, am collecting money and cashing checks. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif Rentals up up in the Wash/metro suburbs, particularly near the Bay....

You can invest in the stock market, I'll put my money in income producing Real Estate, any day!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
11-04-2009, 09:03 PM
Gayle, the stock market is a minefield, and for every fortune made, another is lost. As the old saying goes there's a winner and a loser on every trade You hear the great stories, Microsoft, WalMart, Google, Apple( a real roller coaster ride) ...but there are Enron, Washington Mutual, Bank of America, Krispy Kreme,Sears, K-Mart,Tandy (Radio Shack) and 7/11
Buy or sell at the wrong time on the latter ones and you would lose big time. Winnebago was once trading at $11 a share, and their employees gobbed it up with their stock options....it took off and hit $1100 a share and you had millionaires still working on the assembly line....and then the 70's fuel crisis hit.
The market is not for the faint at heart...you are competing against pros and crooks like Ken Lay, Bernie Madoff, and junk bond salesman like Micheal Milkin (he's now legit) There was a guy back in the 70's that threw a big party at the Hyatt Regency for his investors, had $400k worth of Artwork on the walls of his office....but it was a pyramid scheme that bankrupted people, and took away their life savings
And then there is timing....get your money out in 1928, or 1988 and you are in good shape. It's kind of like a 20 handicapper, trying to play golf on the pro circuit. One friend of mine lost $400k.....I've read storied about Doctors that lost everything...they might have an MD, but in the market the are grade school students. Now some jerk here tried to make my market comments into something like I want the government to feed, clothes, and house me....no, but I wouldn't mind if HE wiped my ass for me....it's the least he could do to apologize, don't you think? For his information I still invest, have two accounts and have made $$ for the last few years now.....but this year, I might end up in debtor's prison....I've got real losses in the market, but don't owe a dime on any CC
Without SS though, I'd be selling apples or washing car windows on the off ramps

sack316
11-05-2009, 12:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't happen to think that encouraging people to put money, and all retirement insurance, into the stock market, for the purpose of retirement, is a good idea.</div></div>

I didn't say anything about the stock market, though I suppose it could be an option as well. But IMO that is too risky for such a purpose as I am talking about here. But if MY money that I earn over time goes into a fixed-rate guaranteed annuity that is MINE, when I retire I have my money. It doesn't depend on ups and downs of the market. It doesn't depend on others paying into a stretched out system. It's mine, that I built. Over the course of my working life, even at a conservative 6-7% RR, my account would be pretty good when the time comes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After what we are seeing right now, one wouldn't think one would be up against an arguement about that</div></div>

I don't think you are in an argument about what you think you are arguing about.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but alas, why would I expect anyone who thought Bush had a good idea, would see that.</div></div>

Where did I say anything about a Bush plan?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to give you a list of the retirement savings my friends have lost during this last year, which was supposed to be insurance, for their retirement.

Most of them are ruined.</div></div>

And I hate to hear that, for anybody. I myself lost a bundle in the last recession. Of course "lost" is a relative term. Mine was a small $4000 original investment. It grew over some years to around 20K. Disaster struck, and I eventually cashed it out for about 10K. I had lost half of my money! I lost ten grand! or did I earn 6 grand without really doing anything except let Prudential hold my money for a while?

I, of course, realize that may be apples to oranges depending on individual circumstances. But the general idea is the same across the board. I had a choice of what I did with my money. I cheered when I did well, I got upset when I didn't. I could have done safer investing in low or risk-free avenues. In the end, it was my choice and my outcome and my responsibility win or lose. At least in was in my hands.

On the other hand, my SS is just taken out. It may be there, it may not in 35-40 years. I can't control it. In the mean time I can just hope, and continue paying 600% more into it than was originally intended, and climbing.

I figure, and this is just my opinion, that a mutual fund and my SS account have just about even odds on being bust by the time I am a senior.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I, OTOH, am collecting money and cashing checks. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif Rentals up up in the Wash/metro suburbs, particularly near the Bay....</div></div>

I'm glad for you! Kudos! That is one type of investment I will definitely be doing when the opportunity presents itself, as I've said previously.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can invest in the stock market, I'll put my money in income producing Real Estate, any day!</div></div>

I will be doing that as well. Been studying up on it hard, doing a few "experiments", doing a lot of research, doled out some "theoretical advice" (as I like to call it) to friends and family of what I would do (successful so far-knock on wood- at finding recession-proof methods of staying alive in the market), etc. I'm figuring within the next 5 years, as I continue my focus on lifelong trends and see what legislation may shake out, I'm confident I will have devised a solid investment methodology that can maintain solid RR under any scenario. Just gonna take more time and data to verify, re-verify, re-re-verify etc these findings. Here's hoping anyway /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-05-2009, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't happen to think that encouraging people to put money, and all retirement insurance, into the stock market, for the purpose of retirement, is a good idea.</div></div>

I didn't say anything about the stock market, though I suppose it could be an option as well. But IMO that is too risky for such a purpose as I am talking about here. But if MY money that I earn over time goes into a fixed-rate guaranteed annuity that is MINE, when I retire I have my money. It doesn't depend on ups and downs of the market. It doesn't depend on others paying into a stretched out system. It's mine, that I built. Over the course of my working life, even at a conservative 6-7% RR, my account would be pretty good when the time comes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After what we are seeing right now, one wouldn't think one would be up against an arguement about that</div></div>

I don't think you are in an argument about what you think you are arguing about.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but alas, why would I expect anyone who thought Bush had a good idea, would see that.</div></div>

Where did I say anything about a Bush plan?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to give you a list of the retirement savings my friends have lost during this last year, which was supposed to be insurance, for their retirement.

Most of them are ruined.</div></div>

And I hate to hear that, for anybody. I myself lost a bundle in the last recession. Of course "lost" is a relative term. Mine was a small $4000 original investment. It grew over some years to around 20K. Disaster struck, and I eventually cashed it out for about 10K. I had lost half of my money! I lost ten grand! or did I earn 6 grand without really doing anything except let Prudential hold my money for a while?

I, of course, realize that may be apples to oranges depending on individual circumstances. But the general idea is the same across the board. I had a choice of what I did with my money. I cheered when I did well, I got upset when I didn't. I could have done safer investing in low or risk-free avenues. In the end, it was my choice and my outcome and my responsibility win or lose. At least in was in my hands.

On the other hand, my SS is just taken out. It may be there, it may not in 35-40 years. I can't control it. In the mean time I can just hope, and continue paying 600% more into it than was originally intended, and climbing.

I figure, and this is just my opinion, that a mutual fund and my SS account have just about even odds on being bust by the time I am a senior.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I, OTOH, am collecting money and cashing checks. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif Rentals up up in the Wash/metro suburbs, particularly near the Bay....</div></div>

I'm glad for you! Kudos! That is one type of investment I will definitely be doing when the opportunity presents itself, as I've said previously.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can invest in the stock market, I'll put my money in income producing Real Estate, any day!</div></div>

I will be doing that as well. Been studying up on it hard, doing a few "experiments", doing a lot of research, doled out some "theoretical advice" (as I like to call it) to friends and family of what I would do (successful so far-knock on wood- at finding recession-proof methods of staying alive in the market), etc. I'm figuring within the next 5 years, as I continue my focus on lifelong trends and see what legislation may shake out, I'm confident I will have devised a solid investment methodology that can maintain solid RR under any scenario. Just gonna take more time and data to verify, re-verify, re-re-verify etc these findings. Here's hoping anyway /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Good luck, friend. There is nothing I like more than hearing that people are doing well, financially, and otherwise.

G. </span>

sack316
11-05-2009, 01:28 PM
Thanks G! Still a long way to go before the "financially" part becomes well for me. But on my way, have goals in my sights and am at least pretty sure I'm heading the right direction and taking positive steps towards it.

Sack

pooltchr
11-05-2009, 02:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ <span style="color: #000066">Good luck, friend. There is nothing I like more than hearing that people are doing well, financially, and otherwise.

G. </span> </div></div>

That's funny, coming from someone who has gone out of their way to attack someone's livliehood right here on this forum!

Steve