Hope lingers to save U.S. autos from econ crisis

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Whoa WHOA WHOA... It absolutely WAS going to allowable to invest your retirement in the stock market in a Bush retirement scheme world.

Was it EVER said that you could only take your retirement money and put them in FDIC covered instruments????????? You know better... come on.

If everyone were to have to take the same amount being taken out now and invest in only a 100% secured instrument that could not be accessed until retirement age this would not be an issue... but that wasn't the scheme.

Well... that was the whole point. It was designed to ALLOW you to invest it into a 401K style investment. You can invest, if you so choose, into CDs, Bonds, Stocks, and other mutual funds, or if you are plain stupid, you could leave it all in Social Security which is broke.

See, that's the problem with you liberals. Bush wasn't going to force anyone to do anything. In fact, he was going to give you somethings nifty and new called "options". In other words, control over what should be YOUR money.

But of course liberals are always liars, and never really want people having options.
 
Werbung:

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Doesn't have to be everybody. Just has to be anybody. The Stock Market is no guarantee for everybody at anytime. S.S. was created to give the elderly just some protection against poverty stricken old age. People should absolutely also delve into addition retirement funding sources whether that be home equity or 401K or whatever. But S.S. is the bottom line safety net.

What are you talking about? Being on social security IS being poverty stricken. You need to go meet people living off social security.

The Bible... you think that's the medical predictor of the future. AMAZING!

Funny how often it's true, isn't it?

In a worldwide economy both management & Union thinking has to change somewhat... but that in no way means the ability of workers to organize or worker protections are not necessary. How bout this... no one in management can make over say 100 times total compensation including all benefits (no stock options or golden parachutes) of what the average hourly workers wage is? That means the top guy at GM, Ford & Chrysler could only make a measly $2,800,000 per year.

Management and the Unions will learn that there is a way to get to a profitable conclusion once again. It's not just those terrible greedy workers.;)

Do you know what happens to companies that do not compensate top executives well? Either no one does the job, or they get really bad CEOs that run the company into the ground. A company of that size, which did not offer stock options or golden parachutes, would end up with Enron quality executives.

You sure have some great ideas for destroying companies.

Keep shining that 82 Buick of yours Andy... keep shining that 82 Buick!:D

Keep giving non-answers and really bad ideas Top Gun!
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
Well... that was the whole point. It was designed to ALLOW you to invest it into a 401K style investment. You can invest, if you so choose, into CDs, Bonds, Stocks, and other mutual funds, or if you are plain stupid, you could leave it all in Social Security which is broke.

See, that's the problem with you liberals. Bush wasn't going to force anyone to do anything. In fact, he was going to give you somethings nifty and new called "options". In other words, control over what should be YOUR money.

But of course liberals are always liars, and never really want people having options.

That's all nice smoke & mirrors logic but the fact is when you break the fund down by allowing opt out you effectively destroy the whole fund.

You like Bush wanted to dismantle S.S. and give a little rush to Wall Street which we all know now would have been the ultimate disaster for many elderly people.

Could not be more glad that you lost.
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
What are you talking about? Being on social security IS being poverty stricken. You need to go meet people living off social security.

You obviously have no understanding of the concept behind S.S. It was never meant to set people up to buy a Caddilac and retire to a big new condo in Florida.

The idea was that it would be enough to just keep the elderly poor off the streets. In today's cases probably pay the utility bills and buy a little food hoping that the retired would have been able to buy some small place or have a very cheap apartment to retire to while they were still able to work.


Funny how often it's true, isn't it?

More like bazaar that you probably really believe that.:D

Do you know what happens to companies that do not compensate top executives well? Either no one does the job, or they get really bad CEOs that run the company into the ground. A company of that size, which did not offer stock options or golden parachutes, would end up with Enron quality executives.

You sure have some great ideas for destroying companies.

You're silly. You argue that NO, ZERO, "good" executives would work for $2.8 milliom dollars a year... but those damn greedy $28 per hour working stiffs are destroying America.:D AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep giving non-answers and really bad ideas Top Gun!

I can't help but be amused by the great financial insight of someone that said they make what 13K a year and drives an 82 Buick. I mean come... you do see the irony.;)
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
You obviously have no understanding of the concept behind S.S. It was never meant to set people up to buy a Caddilac and retire to a big new condo in Florida.

The idea was that it would be enough to just keep the elderly poor off the streets. In today's cases probably pay the utility bills and buy a little food hoping that the retired would have been able to buy some small place or have a very cheap apartment to retire to while they were still able to work.

Off the street? I've walked into apartments with meals-on-wheels, where 3 retired SS recipients were crammed into a 2 bed room apartment with roaches scurrying from the floor. This is your idea of help? Then I don't want it. You are also ignoring that eventually, by your own admission, there won't be a social security for most people. So what's the point?

More like bazaar that you probably really believe that.:D

So your claiming that it's not true that the average age is 70 to 80 like the Bible said it would be?

You're silly. You argue that NO, ZERO, "good" executives would work for $2.8 milliom dollars a year... but those damn greedy $28 per hour working stiffs are destroying America.:D AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Strawman. Please locate where I said greedy $28/hour working stiffs are destroying America. Further, locate where I said no good executive would work for $2.8 million a year. If you don't have a real argument, then stop talking. Dumb made up statements to attack, make you look stupid.

I can't help but be amused by the great financial insight of someone that said they make what 13K a year and drives an 82 Buick. I mean come... you do see the irony.;)

Some of the greatest economists of our time started out in worse shape than I am in. What is amazing is the prejudice you show against people of meager means. Stop being a judgmental prick, or admit liberals are arrogant elitists.
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
Whoa WHOA WHOA... It absolutely WAS going to allowable to invest your retirement in the stock market in a Bush retirement scheme world.

Was it EVER said that you could only take your retirement money and put them in FDIC covered instruments????????? You know better... come on.

If everyone were to have to take the same amount being taken out now and invest in only a 100% secured instrument that could not be accessed until retirement age this would not be an issue... but that wasn't the scheme.

Yea.. "going to allow" being the key term, not "force" anyone to do anything. You are misrepresenting the entire issue.

It allowed people to get a far better return just by putting their money in a savings account. If you wanted to take more of a risk, you could put it in stocks, but you were not forced to do anything. The system we have now "forces" you to get a return of about 1%. Why not let people take their own money and choose how they can get a better return?
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
That's all nice smoke & mirrors logic but the fact is when you break the fund down by allowing opt out you effectively destroy the whole fund.

You like Bush wanted to dismantle S.S. and give a little rush to Wall Street which we all know now would have been the ultimate disaster for many elderly people.

Could not be more glad that you lost.

Good, break the fund down. I don't want a 1% return on a 40 year investment.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
That's all nice smoke & mirrors logic but the fact is when you break the fund down by allowing opt out you effectively destroy the whole fund.

You like Bush wanted to dismantle S.S. and give a little rush to Wall Street which we all know now would have been the ultimate disaster for many elderly people.

Could not be more glad that you lost.

Good, break the fund down. I don't want a 1% return on a 40 year investment.

Funny how allowing people the option to earn more than 1% on their own money is "breaking the fund down" and "the ultimate disaster for many elderly people" in the liberal world.

The Chinese always had a guarantied job and income in communism. They also had a guarantied 66% poverty. Funny how things tend to go the same way with the same tactics, yes?

Did it ever occur to any liberals that if allowing an opt-out, would destroy the program, meant that people really don't want the program? Oh wait, you are not really for freedom, are you?
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
Off the street? I've walked into apartments with meals-on-wheels, where 3 retired SS recipients were crammed into a 2 bed room apartment with roaches scurrying from the floor. This is your idea of help? Then I don't want it. You are also ignoring that eventually, by your own admission, there won't be a social security for most people. So what's the point?

Dude you are comparing at least something to nothing. That's what the elderly had before S.S. nothing.


So your claiming that it's not true that the average age is 70 to 80 like the Bible said it would be?

I'm saying that for most all of the hundreds & hundreds of years after the Bible was written the human lifespan wasn't even half of that... hence your folly.

Strawman. Please locate where I said greedy $28/hour working stiffs are destroying America. Further, locate where I said no good executive would work for $2.8 million a year. If you don't have a real argument, then stop talking. Dumb made up statements to attack, make you look stupid.

I'm saying your argument is just that out of touch with reality.

Some of the greatest economists of our time started out in worse shape than I am in. What is amazing is the prejudice you show against people of meager means. Stop being a judgmental prick, or admit liberals are arrogant elitists.

Just saying if I had high fever I'd go to a doctor for the diagnosis not KFC... nuff said.:)
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
Yea.. "going to allow" being the key term, not "force" anyone to do anything. You are misrepresenting the entire issue.

It allowed people to get a far better return just by putting their money in a savings account. If you wanted to take more of a risk, you could put it in stocks, but you were not forced to do anything. The system we have now "forces" you to get a return of about 1%. Why not let people take their own money and choose how they can get a better return?

AGAIN... you side step the facts. It's like insurance if you let all the healthy people opt out then there's not enough premiums for the sick.

So your "going to allow" = killing off the program for those in need.

Mute point anyway... Social Security will be shored up now.
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
Good, break the fund down. I don't want a 1% return on a 40 year investment.

Did ya completely miss the latest crash where people lost not only their "interest return" but their whole principle... and were you also out of town on Nov. 4th?

That option is no longer even remotely on the table in anybody's mind (of either Party). Come on... you know that.
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
Did ya completely miss the latest crash where people lost not only their "interest return" but their whole principle... and were you also out of town on Nov. 4th?

That option is no longer even remotely on the table in anybody's mind (of either Party). Come on... you know that.

Are you telling me that putting money in the stock market, even in a crash, results in a worse return that SS gets you? (SS gets about 1%)

Further, if people have any idea how to actually invest, they will keep portions in cash, bonds, funds, stocks, and CDs. Sure the market downturn has hurt a lot of people, but how about people who are now buying at these discounts?

If I make the same argument when the market has turned around that "hey look we are up 10% this year" it still means little. The market swings in cycles, but over a 40 year period, it is pretty hard to not turn a profit. Further, splitting your money between stocks and guaranteed investments means you will not go broke when a down cycle comes.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Dude you are comparing at least something to nothing. That's what the elderly had before S.S. nothing.

Funny... most had something. Can you show that elderly were in worse condition prior? I can't. I've looked for that type of information, and it's not there.

You do realize that the average income for a social security recipient is $1000 a month, right? That's $12K a year. The problem is there are a large number of elderly that because of liberal rhetoric assume that government is going to take care of them, and end up with $12K a year. On top of that, thanks to Clinton, a good chunk of that has to be taxed.

In other words, people who might think forward and plan for their retirement, are instead believing in you guys, and you're screwing them.

Glad I looked that up. It explains why I found all those seniors crammed in tiny little apartments.

I'm saying that for most all of the hundreds & hundreds of years after the Bible was written the human lifespan wasn't even half of that... hence your folly.

That's blaw blaw. Question... does the Bible not say that the life span was 70 to 80, and is it not so? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question. All other answer are evading, and thus an acceptance of loss.

I'm saying your argument is just that out of touch with reality.

I'm saying you didn't make a point other than a few ignorant straw-man statements I didn't make.

Just saying if I had high fever I'd go to a doctor for the diagnosis not KFC... nuff said.:)

Just pointing out your prejudice and pathetic attempt to avoid responding with a point.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Did ya completely miss the latest crash where people lost not only their "interest return" but their whole principle... and were you also out of town on Nov. 4th?

That option is no longer even remotely on the table in anybody's mind (of either Party). Come on... you know that.

Who? I don't know anyone who did. I assume you do? What stock was it that is now worthless?
 
Werbung:

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Mute point anyway... Social Security will be shored up now.

LOL!!! Prove that! :D What a silly joke! There is only two ways to do this. Increase taxes on us, or reduce benefits. If he increases taxes, the resulting economic fallout will enhance the already sad situation we're in. If he reduces benefits, which is what is planned, the already awful $12K /year income will be worse. How retarded is that!
 
Top