|
Post by hatboromike on Aug 31, 2009 7:26:40 GMT -8
Yea, "planning". I knew a guy with a 10th grade education back home who made a comfortable living as a union laborer in a metal alloy plant. $20+ an hour and full bennies to drive a forklift. His wife also had a pretty moderate job, and together they lived very well.... nice house, two new cars, snow-cat etc. and a baby on the way. Then a buddy at work got him interested in the Stock Market (late 1990s, market going crazy, everyone making money). Before long he was "up" almost $200,000, because his wife took care of most of the bills and he had alot of money to "play around with". He quit his solid bedrock job to be an "investor" full time, and bought a bar in the process. Long story short, he got obliterated in the crash of 2000, turned into an alcoholic and lost the bar, then his wife, house and kid. Today he is a recovering crack addict who at the age of 44 is living with his aged mother in her 2 bedroom apartment and can't get a job because of his jail history, even though it was a short stint for driving into a house while rampaging on crack. (No one hurt). Lesson to be learned here? The stock market turned this previous family man with good job contributing to the economy and paying taxes into a hopeless welfare case. You let people invest their SS payments into the Stock Market as they wish? At least half the time you get outcomes like this, and yes I am saying the average American is way too dumb to understand "the Market". Joe Stupid is as stupid does. There's not one facet of that story that has ANYTHING to do with Social Security or the use of private accounts to give the retirement saver the greatest flexibility with THEIR money. You're starting to sound like the Al Sharpton of Social InSecurity.
|
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Aug 31, 2009 12:33:23 GMT -8
And it died on the vine, as it should have. Sure, Max "let Wall Street invest "some" of that money . They would have had a field day stealing it. Joe Could you be any more obtuse or disingenuous, joe?!? This was the proposal as I remember it, Mike. Read max's response in this thread..... he remembers it as if you were under 30, you could opt out. All those young workers opt out (which they would have) and SS dies on the spot. Joe
|
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Aug 31, 2009 12:38:26 GMT -8
Yea, "planning". I knew a guy with a 10th grade education back home who made a comfortable living as a union laborer in a metal alloy plant. $20+ an hour and full bennies to drive a forklift. His wife also had a pretty moderate job, and together they lived very well.... nice house, two new cars, snow-cat etc. and a baby on the way. Then a buddy at work got him interested in the Stock Market (late 1990s, market going crazy, everyone making money). Before long he was "up" almost $200,000, because his wife took care of most of the bills and he had alot of money to "play around with". He quit his solid bedrock job to be an "investor" full time, and bought a bar in the process. Long story short, he got obliterated in the crash of 2000, turned into an alcoholic and lost the bar, then his wife, house and kid. Today he is a recovering crack addict who at the age of 44 is living with his aged mother in her 2 bedroom apartment and can't get a job because of his jail history, even though it was a short stint for driving into a house while rampaging on crack. (No one hurt). Lesson to be learned here? The stock market turned this previous family man with good job contributing to the economy and paying taxes into a hopeless welfare case. You let people invest their SS payments into the Stock Market as they wish? At least half the time you get outcomes like this, and yes I am saying the average American is way too dumb to understand "the Market". Joe Stupid is as stupid does. There's not one facet of that story that has ANYTHING to do with Social Security or the use of private accounts to give the retirement saver the greatest flexibility with THEIR money. You're starting to sound like the Al Sharpton of Social InSecurity. The story of my bone-headed friend has everything to do with Social Security and GWB's effort to kill it. Instead of taking a nominal amount out of your paycheck for 40 years to provide at least a basic safety net when you get old or injured and can't work, he proposed that the dough be invested in Wall Street. Whether by you picking or choosing your own stocks, or picking a "I", "J" or "S" Fund. We saw in the Crash of 2008 how that can turn out. Joe
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Sept 5, 2009 7:49:26 GMT -8
Yea, "planning". I knew a guy with a 10th grade education back home who made a comfortable living as a union laborer in a metal alloy plant. $20+ an hour and full bennies to drive a forklift. His wife also had a pretty moderate job, and together they lived very well.... nice house, two new cars, snow-cat etc. and a baby on the way. Then a buddy at work got him interested in the Stock Market (late 1990s, market going crazy, everyone making money). Before long he was "up" almost $200,000, because his wife took care of most of the bills and he had alot of money to "play around with". He quit his solid bedrock job to be an "investor" full time, and bought a bar in the process. Long story short, he got obliterated in the crash of 2000, turned into an alcoholic and lost the bar, then his wife, house and kid. Today he is a recovering crack addict who at the age of 44 is living with his aged mother in her 2 bedroom apartment and can't get a job because of his jail history, even though it was a short stint for driving into a house while rampaging on crack. (No one hurt). Lesson to be learned here? The stock market turned this previous family man with good job contributing to the economy and paying taxes into a hopeless welfare case. You let people invest their SS payments into the Stock Market as they wish? At least half the time you get outcomes like this, and yes I am saying the average American is way too dumb to understand "the Market". Joe All you've proved, joe, is that you know a man who made bad choices. Doesn't have a thing to do with Social Security, private accounts or anyone else...just one man that you know
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Sept 5, 2009 18:43:05 GMT -8
The story of my bone-headed friend has everything to do with Social Security and GWB's effort to kill it. Instead of taking a nominal amount out of your paycheck for 40 years to provide at least a basic safety net when you get old or injured and can't work, he proposed that the dough be invested in Wall Street. Whether by you picking or choosing your own stocks, or picking a "I", "J" or "S" Fund. We saw in the Crash of 2008 how that can turn out. Joe Nobody lost any money from their IRA-type if they didn't panic and cash it out. If you were planning on "staying in" because your retirement date is way off in the future, you didn't lose a cent. No one expects the market to stay up all the time, so by suggesting that the market is not safe is silly. BTW ... What's your retirement fund value linked to, Joe??? Is it somehting OTHER THAN the financial markets???
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Sept 7, 2009 19:39:51 GMT -8
That's a real tearjerker, Joe. I remember thinking the same thing during the Bush Administration. He got whatever he wanted during his 8 years. Massive, unprecendented tax cuts for the wealthiest .5% of Americans, an unprovoked, aggressive War of Conquest that drags on to this day, a rubber-stamp Congress (until at least 2006). Luckily, his hopes to dismantle Social Security were derailed. Joe another misconception about dismanteling SS
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Sept 7, 2009 19:42:48 GMT -8
And it died on the vine, as it should have. Sure, Max "let Wall Street invest "some" of that money . They would have had a field day stealing it. Joe is that the same Wall street that gave 35 million to Baracks election campaign?
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Sept 7, 2009 19:47:44 GMT -8
Stupid is as stupid does. There's not one facet of that story that has ANYTHING to do with Social Security or the use of private accounts to give the retirement saver the greatest flexibility with THEIR money. You're starting to sound like the Al Sharpton of Social InSecurity. The story of my bone-headed friend has everything to do with Social Security and GWB's effort to kill it. Instead of taking a nominal amount out of your paycheck for 40 years to provide at least a basic safety net when you get old or injured and can't work, he proposed that the dough be invested in Wall Street. Whether by you picking or choosing your own stocks, or picking a "I", "J" or "S" Fund. We saw in the Crash of 2008 how that can turn out. Joe It was only half the money and it would be optional to invest it. the same fund the governmet uses now im up about 3-5 thousand even with my 2008 losses but as a libereral you probably want everyone to be unsuccessfull
|
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Sept 16, 2009 13:07:25 GMT -8
The story of my bone-headed friend has everything to do with Social Security and GWB's effort to kill it. Instead of taking a nominal amount out of your paycheck for 40 years to provide at least a basic safety net when you get old or injured and can't work, he proposed that the dough be invested in Wall Street. Whether by you picking or choosing your own stocks, or picking a "I", "J" or "S" Fund. We saw in the Crash of 2008 how that can turn out. Joe It was only half the money and it would be optional to invest it. the same fund the governmet uses now im up about 3-5 thousand even with my 2008 losses but as a libereral you probably want everyone to be unsuccessfull Wrong, as usual. I want everyone to pay their fair share, especially that .5% that got the massive tax cuts during war time (first time in American history). That's all. Bubba was running surpluses before Bush got in, Bush slashes taxes for the .5% of people who can most afford it, and now we are in deep poop. I don't remember the .5% of people screaming for tax cuts in 2000, but they sure as hell got them once Bush got in. That's the difference between "Liberals" and "Conservatives"; you people are indoctrinated to always work against your own best interests, we know better. Joe
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Sept 16, 2009 15:13:27 GMT -8
It was only half the money and it would be optional to invest it. the same fund the governmet uses now im up about 3-5 thousand even with my 2008 losses but as a libereral you probably want everyone to be unsuccessfull Wrong, as usual. I want everyone to pay their fair share, especially that .5% that got the massive tax cuts during war time (first time in American history). That's all. Bubba was running surpluses before Bush got in, Bush slashes taxes for the .5% of people who can most afford it, and now we are in deep poop. I don't remember the .5% of people screaming for tax cuts in 2000, but they sure as hell got them once Bush got in. That's the difference between "Liberals" and "Conservatives"; you people are indoctrinated to always work against your own best interests, we know better. Joe Correct me if I am wrong, but would not a "fair" tax cut, say one percent, across the board give back more to the people who have pay more into it? And yet, still let the same "rich" people also be paying more in taxes then you or me? But if we look at the other end, "poor" people, if you give back one percent of what they have paid in taxes, if any, would they not received less? And yet, the tax cut even allowed people who paid no income tax to received a refund. How strange is that?
|
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Sept 20, 2009 15:49:11 GMT -8
Who said anything about poor people? Poor people in this nation do not pay taxes, they eat taxes. I am talking about the shrinking middle-class who are told to get happy when they save $700 a year in taxes while the billionaire saves $20 million.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Sept 21, 2009 1:58:27 GMT -8
And yet, the reason he saves $20 million on a stright across the board tax cut is because he pays so much more into it. So, if you made as much money as they did, you could save $20 million also. And then it would be your choice to invest it into the area you live in. And not have it sent overseas to do who knows what. One of the reasons we have a shrinking middle-class, is because the government is supporting programs that people (many of them rich or middle class) would give to. So when the government raises taxes, the people give less. Then the government will raise your taxes and start new programs to support the poor in your name, Causing you to again give less, causing another raise in taxes. I know around here many charities are making the news because of less donations. In some cases the government has stepped in. Sorry, I do not see it as the federal governments job to support the people.
|
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Sept 21, 2009 11:50:19 GMT -8
And not have it sent overseas to do who knows what.
originally posted by maxflex ________________________________________
Like starting an aggressive, unprovoked war of conquest in March, 2003? This stuff goes both ways, max.
Joe
|
|