That is another problem with privatizing social security, suddenly it is just another private investment account so when companies like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, K-Mart, etc. inevitably screw their employees again, then the fingers will be pointed at the victims and the talking point from the corporate powers will be "Your loss says more about your ability to manage your retirement account than anything else."

That is another problem with privatizing social security, suddenly it is just another private investment account so when companies like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, K-Mart, etc. inevitably screw their employees again, then the fingers will be pointed at the victims and the talking point from the corporate powers will be "You loss says more about your ability to manage your retirement account than anything else."

going from one weak argument to an even weaker one.:rolleyes:

A minor point - $100,000 isn't what it used to be... My parents, together, earn around $115,000 a year. However, I'd call us squarely in the middle class. We don't live lavishly, in fact my step-mother is quite thrifty, but we're still in debt.

Anyways, Ron Paul says that we can eliminate the income tax all together and replace it with NOTHING, and the government's revenues would still be at the level that they were 10 years ago. It shouldn't be too hard to get spending down to those levels, right? (Not that it matters, since the government is already in debt). I'd like to see spending cut A LOT. Then we wouldn't need to replace the income tax with the Fair Tax.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

try being in an income class for the majority of your life that is BELOW $20,000 a year. and ADJUST your lifestyle to the income. it does actually work. but it would help if those in the upper class whether CLASSIFIED as middle class or upper class start paying their fair share of taxes. only 4% of the population does not pay any kind of income tax. the rest of us, including those on minimum wage, pay the rest.
cut politicians pay down to what the majority of people make in a year and THEN tax the fuck out of them, and see how they feel then.

politicians, just future worm food to me. they may go into office with good intentions, but it don't take em long to be in the hip pocket of the rich man.

going from one weak argument to an even weaker one.

If it is so "weak" surely you can disprove it.

There is a first for everything. :thumbs:

If it is so "weak" surely you can disprove it.

There is a first for everything. :thumbs:

You've made the claim. Not i. I merely reject your claim and if you'd like to demonstrate the strength of your 'insight' it would be incumbent on you to substantiate your claim, to demonstrate how the privatization of social security will increase the level of criminal behaviour among corporate executives.

Perhaps in your 'proof' you could give reference to the level of regulatory scrutiny required by Sarbanes-Oxley.:rolleyes:

Any chance you'll be producing that info on the Kennedy tax breaks sometime soon?

Another failure by Waldo to say anything meaningful. :rolleyes:

Drama makes a claim, can't substantiate it, walks away. :p

I could say the sky is blue and you would "reject the claim".

I won't waste my time arguing with a fool like you Waldo.

You've made the claim. Not i. I merely reject your claim and if you'd like to demonstrate the strength of your 'insight' it would be incumbent on you to substantiate your claim, to demonstrate how the privatization of social security will increase the level of criminal behaviour among corporate executives.


Leave it to Waldo to have to invent "claims" that don't exist in order to continue his arguments.

That is another problem with privatizing social security, suddenly it is just another private investment account so when companies like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, K-Mart, etc. inevitably screw their employees again, then the fingers will be pointed at the victims and the talking point from the corporate powers will be "Your loss says more about your ability to manage your retirement account than anything else."

If that isn't an allegation of increased corporate irresponsibility caused by privatization, what is it?:rolleyes:

If that isn't an allegation of increased corporate irresponsibility caused by privatization, what is it?

I didn't say anything whatsoever about "INCREASED" corporate irresponsibility.

I said they will simply continue to do what they have been doing all along.

I managed (with a full match, just like you) to damn near DOUBLE my money in the last 6 years...On that note, only one of two things could've conspired here to net you an 8 year loss: either your fund manager has Downs Syndrome, or you're lying to bolster your point.You forgot one other possibility: that the market tanked from 2000-2002. REALLY tanked. Anyone can turn a profit in a bull market and I did as well, investing primarily in S&P index funds. But, as I said, since Junior got elected (8 years) all the indexes are down. Especially the NASDAQ: bellwether of the New Economy. Btw it's not a 5 series and I bought it used.

try being in an income class for the majority of your life that is BELOW $20,000 a year. and ADJUST your lifestyle to the income. it does actually work.
Well for most of my life I lived with a single mother, and we were always on food stamps, got free lunch at school, etc. although I wasn't aware of how much she actually made until just a few years ago. When we lived in Costa Rica we were a family of four (my mom, her boyfriend, my brother and I) living on less than $10,000 a year. Even though our rent/utilities only added up to a few hundred a month it was still hard sometimes to keep food on the table.

I'm pretty sure my mom does actually pay taxes now that she's got a steady job, but I know her tax refunds are big.

You forgot one other possibility: that the market tanked from 2000-2002. REALLY tanked.
You're absolutely right, it did. When commercial jets level two key buildings in your nations' foremost financial district, that'll happen. That said, the market wasn't stellar when "Junior" took office due to the dotcom collapse in the late nineties, and then later, Y2K worries.
Anyone can turn a profit in a bull market and I did as well, investing primarily in S&P index funds. But, as I said, since Junior got elected (8 years) all the indexes are down. Especially the NASDAQ: bellwether of the New Economy.
And the implication here is that it's his fault, right?
Btw it's not a 5 series and I bought it used.
:) What do you have then? An M3? I suppose that is more fitting when you're trading in a Porsche for a BMW. My brother drives an '04 (before Chris Bangle royally fucked it up) M3 (6-speed, not an SMG car) with a shitload of modifications, 3-piece, 19" BBS forged wheels, and roughly 16,000 miles on the clock. His car makes about 400 WHEEL hp. That thing's a blast. :)

I didn't say anything whatsoever about "INCREASED" corporate irresponsibility.

I said they will simply continue to do what they have been doing all along.

Then the notion that privatizing SS will cause 'another problem' is nonsense since it will merely continue. ;)

The problem is the Dow Nasdaq and S&P are all lower than in 2000 aren't they? Can't squeeze blood from a rock. All those tax cuts and deficit spending really haven't done much good (for the middle class - of which I am a member) have they? Thank God my Social Security isn't tied up in the markets - then I'd really be in a mess.....

Sorry, Fluffer, but the reason I'm not buyin' your gripe here is twofold; firstly, middle class people don't drive late model BMWs and Porsches (unless they've decided to live in them, but I digress), and they most certainly didn't "lose" money in the market (9/11 aside) barring some freak incident where your entire team of brokers fell asleep at the wheel. Hell, I can't think of ONE fund manager (working for a mega company like Merrill Lynch, Prudential, et al) who actually netted a loss (for they'd be losing BILLIONS of dollars by way of allocating EVERYONES' funding in an absolutely abysmal fashion). I mean, you'd have to intentionally pick losers in '05 and '06 for that to be the case.

I managed (with a full match, just like you) to damn near DOUBLE my money in the last 6 years. I went from roughly 30k to 55k, and all I had to do was partake in the incredibly daunting task of shuffling group types (aggressive, moderately aggressive, conservative, etc.) based on intuition, suggestions, and market trends. Seriously, I'm no broker, but with the help of a competent team, I managed to make a fair amout of money. On that note, only one of two things could've conspired here to net you an 8 year loss: either your fund manager has Downs Syndrome, or you're lying to bolster your point. I'm leaning towards the latter

The Republican Party, through its legislators in Congress and its President in the White House, has overseen what must be described as nothing short of abysmal performance of the U.S. stock markets, which represent the overwhelming bulk of the value of all public ownership of American corporations. It is in the stocks traded on these exchanges that much of the wealth of the nation is invested by everything from huge pension and mutual funds to individual speculators.

Blame for the miserable performance of the stock markets over the past six years rests squarely with the GOP, which rode into office on a long-standing platform of fiscal prudence and policies tilted toward economic growth through low taxes and reduction of regulatory hurdles to business investment and growth. The Republican Party has failed, despite its blustering rhetoric and the curiously rosy data pumped out from the government agencies it controls.

An investor forming a portfolio tracking the Dow Jones Industrial Average from the beginning of the Bush Administration (http://dark-wraith.com/2007/01/analysis-index-portfolio-performance.html) in January of 2001 until January 19, 2007, would have realized a total gain in real value of the portfolio of just over three percent, which is equivalent to an annualized, compounded rate in purchasing power of the portfolio over the term of the Bush Administration of just one-half percent per year; the investor forming a portfolio tracking the Standard & Poor's 500 over that period would have suffered a total loss in real value of the portfolio of more than seven-and-a-half percent, which is equivalent to an annualized, compounded annual rate of loss in purchasing power of the portfolio over the term of the Bush Administration of about one-and-a-third percent per year; and the investor forming a portfolio tracking the NASDAQ Composite index over that period would have suffered a loss in total real value of the portfolio of almost twenty-three percent, which is equivalent to a compounding rate of loss in purchasing power of the portfolio over the term of the Bush Administration (http://dark-wraith.com/2007/01/analysis-index-portfolio-performance.html) of about four-and-a-quarter percent per year.

http://dark-wraith.com/images/trr011907b.png

http://dark-wraith.com/images/arr011907b.png

From a well-balanced portfolio of the common stock of reasonably low-risk, very large public corporations to an equally well-balance portfolio of the common stock of relatively riskier, small-cap public corporations, common stock —the e_q_u_i_t_y (that is, the "ownership") claim on corporations— has provided real returns over the course of the Bush Administration that were at best miserably anemic and more likely significantly negative.

Securities markets do not make long-term assessments of the value of the American economy based upon political biases: billions of shares of stock trade each day, and the total value of these trades is so great as to be almost incomprehensible. Over the past six years, the absolute control of the government by the Bush Administration and its Republican allies in Congress has been subject to an on-going, objective assessment by the securities markets of the United States. The result to date of this real-value assessment is that the American economy, as represented by the market values of stocks of large, medium, and small public corporations, has not grown. This is an undeniable, unavoidable fact delivered by the very stock markets whose large-scale participants by and large support the Republican Party, its goals, and its politicians.

Perhaps ft could relate the perfomance of the stock market and the GDP numbers for the country.

In 2000 the GDP was $9.1 trillion and at the end of 2006 had grown to $13.2 trillion.

No one would argue that the stock market is a better indicator of economic performance than the GDP.

Then the notion that privatizing SS will cause 'another problem' ...

You should try actually comprehending what I say before you respond, for a change.

Mike Huckabee had one thing right, we should be building infrastructure to stimulate our economy. It creates American jobs and gives a better return than just throwing a little cash (that they are borrowing from China) at people that they are going to go spend on Chinese made products anyway.

I am sure China will appreciate that.

If we borrow $1 million to build a school, we will see the return in the taxes of everyone we educate there who goes out into the workforce with a better job over the rest of their lives.

You should try actually comprehending what I say before you respond, for a change.

Alex i'll take drama for $1000.

Say something demonstrably false, gets called on it, whines.

Who is drama?

Did you say something Waldo? I don't speak bullshit.

:thumbs:

has anyone ever thought just how much BULLSHIT economics is in the first place? especially since the majority of it is based on imaginary numbers now?
i.e.- debt
and speculation.
and a monkey wrench can be thrown into it by simply fucking with the numbers. one:
a couple of jets slam into a building and shuts down wallstreet for a few daze.
two: someone steals and makes a billion dollars worth of investors imaginary numbers (money) to disappear.
three: burn a dollar bill (or what the lowest denomination most commonly used in your country- america : the dollar bill, britain- the pound note) or drill a hole in a dollar coin. do this once a week, every week.


the destruction of civilization plan is coming on very well. just hope no one starts a nuke contest in the throws of its death. but those are the eggs you have to crack to make an omlette.
unless of course it is an underground explosion in or near the himilayas. that would do just fine.


5 pillars, fuck with governments, bin laden, islam, allah, bomb, bush sucks donkey dicks. fuck america and the white horse it road in on. 1763 royal proclamation.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Thread-Dumb.jpg

I have read the entire thread and come to one conclusion. While fluffernutter and Waldo have different views they at least seem to be conversant with the topic. dharmabum on the other hand is like a little puppy piddling on the floor and nipping at ankles. He has no idea what he is talking about.

I have read the entire thread and come to one conclusion. While fluffernutter and Waldo have different views they at least seem to be conversant with the topic. dharmabum on the other hand is like a little puppy piddling on the floor and nipping at ankles. He has no idea what he is talking about.

Yet Talk On he does,at never diminishing returns.As if he's an Energizer
Bunny gettin paid by the post.Usually there is a Law of Diminishing
Return,in most of Life.A saturation point.
Maybe he doesn't comprehend the notion :

Can't see the Forest through the Trees !

His Political Naivete is usually seen,be there No Trees,Forest
just a Little Wooden Cottage and that infernal piping hot bulging
at the seams Pie,and Grandma,gladly smiling upon her favorite
sons arrival.I wonder if they ever discuss the Notion of
having Fluorinated water installed,the better to keep their Fangs
sharp as well their Politics.

Perhaps ft could relate the perfomance of the stock market and the GDP numbers for the country. In 2000 the GDP was $9.1 trillion and at the end of 2006 had grown to $13.2 trillion. No one would argue that the stock market is a better indicator of economic performance than the GDP. BEA.GOV (http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y) is the government agency that releases GDP: 2000 = 9.817, 2007 = 11.567 adjusted for inflation, but not adjusted for the increase in population, which would make them even worse...You are waterboarding the numbers again.

Besides, I think for the middle class, the market indexes and the local real estate are the two most important variables. The party is over for real estate and it's been over for the markets since 2000. GDP is nice but increases in GDP don't necessarily trickle down to the middle class.

BTW, in the NYC metro area it is virtually impossible to support a middle-class family on less than 100k a year, without running up piles of debt.

BEA.GOV (http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y) is the government agency that releases GDP: 2000 = 9.817, 2007 = 11.567 adjusted for inflation, but not adjusted for the increase in population, which would make them even worse...You are waterboarding the numbers again.
Your're comparing apples and oranges. You're using the same starting point as i do but using a diffferent end point.

Population growth is irrelevant unless you have some evidence that population growth ha been outsized.

Avg annl growth in the neighborhoud of 4% is bad? That's a ridiculous assertion.



Besides, I think for the middle class, the market indexes and the local real estate are the two most important variables. The party is over for real estate and it's been over for the markets since 2000. GDP is nice but increases in GDP don't necessarily trickle down to the middle class. So what. Do you think that these things move in linear fashion?

[BTW, in the NYC metro area it is virtually impossible to support a middle-class family on less than 100k a year, without running up piles of debt.

And NY is one of the most expensive regions in the world to live. They're an outlier rather than the median or the average.

The Fed cut the prime rate again today. Must be because our economy is doing so great. :rolleyes:

Growth of the nation's gross domestic product slowed to a mere 0.6% annual rate -- its slowest pace in five years, the government announced today.