On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:56:41 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Funny, doesn't look like the Democrats to me.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Looks like a Republican plan to bankrupt the country. I guess that's
one way to get a smaller government.

Idiot! You're clueless. You don't even know the difference between a
budget deficit and the national debt.

Uh, let me take a wild guess. The national debt is the accumulation of
our budget deficits.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a
drop in the bucket relative to the problem.


You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait,
the market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost since
the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it will
have to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before then.


If you're trying to blame the Dems in the last two years for what Bush did
to the economy in the last eight, you've probably got a brain tumor that's
disrupting your cognitive function. Take a look at this. Looks like you'll
have plenty of time, assuming senility hasn't set it.

http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-...rom-1996-2007/


And if one looks he

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

It's plain to see the largest percentage increase in national debt occured
under Clinton!

And takes off again under the Democratic controlled Congress!!!

Don't worry though, our kids and their kids and their kids will pay for it
all!!

Deficit spending - It's for the children!

Clinton: Highest debt to GDP in over 50 years!

http://www.economicshelp.org/uploade...GDP-748639.gif

Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a drop
in the bucket relative to the problem.

You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait,
the market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost since
the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it will have
to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before then.


If you're trying to blame the Dems in the last two years for what Bush did
to the economy in the last eight, you've probably got a brain tumor that's
disrupting your cognitive function. Take a look at this. Looks like you'll
have plenty of time, assuming senility hasn't set it.

http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-...rom-1996-2007/

If you will look at your reference January 4, 2007 when the new congress
took office and add 100 days. That is the end of pelosi's 100 days when
she accomplished "wonders and changed the world". Add time for the
market to realize she was going to block any legislation to correct the
bad paper for worthless mortgages, and you will be at the peak before
the current slide. Thanks for publishing the data to support my point.

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a
drop in the bucket relative to the problem.

You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait,
the market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost
since the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it
will have to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before
then.


If you're trying to blame the Dems in the last two years for what Bush
did to the economy in the last eight, you've probably got a brain tumor
that's disrupting your cognitive function. Take a look at this. Looks
like you'll have plenty of time, assuming senility hasn't set it.

http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-...rom-1996-2007/

If you will look at your reference January 4, 2007 when the new congress
took office and add 100 days. That is the end of pelosi's 100 days when
she accomplished "wonders and changed the world". Add time for the market
to realize she was going to block any legislation to correct the bad paper
for worthless mortgages, and you will be at the peak before the current
slide. Thanks for publishing the data to support my point.


?? You're ranting. Are you seriously trying to claim that the Democrats are
responsible for the financial debacle??? If so, you're not the brightest
bulb in the room.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:11:09 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Nonsense. You're fooling yourself. If today you have an asset that could
be
sold for x, and yesterday it could have been sold for 2x, you've lost
half
the value of the asset since yesterday. You might hope it will again be
saleable for 2x some day, but that's just a hope.


Incorrect. You've lost nothing until you sell it.

Ever hear of mark to market treatment of financial instruments? FAS 115?
FAS
157?

No. I thought not.

It's funny money unless
you sell or reallocate. Did you actually attend accounting 101? LOL

The difference apparently is that my learning on the topic didn't end 35
years ago.


Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with losing or not losing money on a
401K portfolio. The only ways to lose money is for the underlying companies
to go belly up, you sell when the stocks are down, or similarly reallocate
your portfolio, e.g., into bonds from stocks, when the stocks are down.

As I said, you need to either take an updated class or read the original
post.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:08:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

It's funny money unless
you sell or reallocate. Did you actually attend accounting 101? LOL

The difference apparently is that my learning on the topic didn't end 35
years ago.


Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with losing or not losing money on
a
401K portfolio.

It did, however, have something to do with your suggestion that I don't
know
anything about accounting.

True. You do know something about accounting.


The only ways to lose money is for the underlying companies
to go belly up, you sell when the stocks are down, or similarly reallocate
your portfolio, e.g., into bonds from stocks, when the stocks are down.

What you paid for securities is a historical accident, just as the book
value of plant and equipment on an enterprise's balance sheet is a
historical accident. It has no current relevance. Securities you hold
today
are worth whatever a willing buyer would pay for them in an orderly sale.
Period.

Correct.

The decision to account for various assets at cost, market or some other
basis is the result of resolving the conflicting accounting concepts of
certainty and relevance. The accounting convention calling for PPE to be
valued at depreciated cost represents a tilt toward certainty, since cost
is
easily determined, and market value is less so. In the case of securities
held for sale, and having a readily determinable market value, the balance
is tilted the other way.

The key phrase is "for sale." If you're not selling the items in your 401K,
you're not making a profit or a loss.

I will tell you that during the current year I have discovered errors by
two
major bank accounting firms requiring a restatement of the numbers they
had
previously audited and given a clean report on. When I analyzed the
accounting treatment for them they agreed and restated.

And your point?

But you just go ahead and tell yourself you haven't lost anything if that
makes you feel better.

Please show me how I would account for my supposed 401K losses when it comes
time to file my return. Should I deduct the $100K? LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with losing or not losing money on
a 401K portfolio. The only ways to lose money is for the underlying
companies to go belly up, you sell when the stocks are down, or similarly
reallocate your portfolio, e.g., into bonds from stocks, when the stocks
are down.


The portfolio could go up and one can still lose by paying the tax burden.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Please show me how I would account for my supposed 401K losses when it
comes
time to file my return. Should I deduct the $100K?

Different question entirely. There are significant differences between the
way things are reported for tax purposes and the way they are accounted
for
under generally accepted accounting principles. Else there would be no
such
thing as loss carry-forwards and deferred tax assets. So you report the
losses the same way you accounted for the gains, if any, you had before
the
market decline.

There are also major differences between cash accounting and accrual
accounting. Accrual accounting is generally designed to eliminate the
effect
of the accident of when cash is received or paid, and reflect the
underlying
economic impact of events occurring during a period. On a cash basis, you
wouldn't record a gain or loss on an asset until the asset is sold. But if
you let that fact obscure the underlying economic reality you are simply
fooling yourself..


So, according to the IRS no loss took place. According to my regular bank
balance, no loss took place. According to my ability to buy bread with cash
on hand or with my credit card, no loss took place. So, according to my
credit score, nothing has changed. So, how is it a loss? If the value of the
stock will likely increase (assuming the company doesn't go bust) over time,
I'm not relying on my 401K to live, and I'm not selling it any time soon,
how is it a loss? Answer: it isn't unless I sell or the company goes
worthless, after which I can then call it a loss.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:56:41 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Funny, doesn't look like the Democrats to me.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Looks like a Republican plan to bankrupt the country. I guess that's
one way to get a smaller government.

Idiot! You're clueless. You don't even know the difference between a
budget deficit and the national debt.

Uh, let me take a wild guess. The national debt is the accumulation of
our budget deficits.

Guess again!