Something to think about
 

Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Something to think about
 

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H

Something to think about
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H


Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H


Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?

No. But then again, the Democrat leadership in the big cities seems to
be providing even less.
--

John H

Something to think about
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H


Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?

No. But then again, the Democrat leadership in the big cities seems to
be providing even less.
--

John H


Really? That's not been my experience working with the homeless. In any
case, do you think they should migrate to the country? Historically, the
migration moves from country to city.

Must everything bad be the Democrat's fault? Because, that seems to be the
theme for you.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:58:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H


Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?

I really think that is the biggest flaw in the "Great Society"
program. They piled all the welfare money up in the city where the
people were concentrated in ghettos instead of spreading it out across
the countryside and diluting the problem.
If you are trying to find jobs for a few marginally qualified people
per town it is easier than having them all in one area. The cost of
living is also lower out in the country if you are just sending them a
check.
Unfortunately with the collapse of the manufacturing base in this
country marginally skilled people are in serious trouble, no matter
where they live but that is another problem..

And it seems to me the Marion Barrys of the world are trying hard to
keep them 'marginal'.
--

John H

Something to think about
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.
Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.
And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H

Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?
No. But then again, the Democrat leadership in the big cities seems to
be providing even less.
--

John H


Really? That's not been my experience working with the homeless. In any
case, do you think they should migrate to the country? Historically, the
migration moves from country to city.

Must everything bad be the Democrat's fault? Because, that seems to be the
theme for you.


You have experience working with the homeless, from your house? With an
ocasional outcall?

Something to think about
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those
in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.
Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.
And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H

Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?
No. But then again, the Democrat leadership in the big cities seems to
be providing even less.
--

John H


Really? That's not been my experience working with the homeless. In any
case, do you think they should migrate to the country? Historically, the
migration moves from country to city.

Must everything bad be the Democrat's fault? Because, that seems to be
the theme for you.


You have experience working with the homeless, from your house? With an
ocasional outcall?


What is your problem? Have you always been in your house? Don't get out
much? That's sad.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H


Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?

I really think that is the biggest flaw in the "Great Society"
program. They piled all the welfare money up in the city where the
people were concentrated in ghettos instead of spreading it out across
the countryside and diluting the problem.
If you are trying to find jobs for a few marginally qualified people
per town it is easier than having them all in one area. The cost of
living is also lower out in the country if you are just sending them a
check.
Unfortunately with the collapse of the manufacturing base in this
country marginally skilled people are in serious trouble, no matter
where they live but that is another problem..



Pretty hard to offer services onezee twozee don't you think? Not very cost
effective or practical. The Great Society did a lot of good, but it wasn't
perfect.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:54:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those
in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H


Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?

I really think that is the biggest flaw in the "Great Society"
program. They piled all the welfare money up in the city where the
people were concentrated in ghettos instead of spreading it out across
the countryside and diluting the problem.
If you are trying to find jobs for a few marginally qualified people
per town it is easier than having them all in one area. The cost of
living is also lower out in the country if you are just sending them a
check.
Unfortunately with the collapse of the manufacturing base in this
country marginally skilled people are in serious trouble, no matter
where they live but that is another problem..



Pretty hard to offer services onezee twozee don't you think? Not very cost
effective or practical. The Great Society did a lot of good, but it wasn't
perfect.

The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)
People flocked to the cities because that was where the money was.
What used to be families of "working poor" (a government defined term)
became non working welfare recipients.
The programs rewarded women without a man in the house and punished
the families where dad stayed, so the men left.
It doesn't take many generations of absent fathers to create the mess
we have now.
I said then and I still think, we went the wrong way. The incentive
should have been to spread these people out, not concentrate them.
It is a whole lot easier to accommodate and find jobs for a few
families in the country than it is to do this for a half million
people in a city.
Unfortunately I think the way the great society was implemented was
racist in the worst way. Instead of encouraging people out in flyover
country to embrace a few black people, they created an all black
ghetto in the city where there was very little contact with each
other.



There are some things that the Federal gov't does better than local gov'ts.
Just because what you saw was bad doesn't mean the concept or even a lot of
the implementation was bad. One can always find examples of system abuse.
Certainly the answer to the problem now is not to abandon people in the
inner city (well, any more than we've already done).

--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:26:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Pretty hard to offer services onezee twozee don't you think? Not very
cost
effective or practical. The Great Society did a lot of good, but it
wasn't
perfect.

The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)
People flocked to the cities because that was where the money was.
What used to be families of "working poor" (a government defined term)
became non working welfare recipients.
The programs rewarded women without a man in the house and punished
the families where dad stayed, so the men left.
It doesn't take many generations of absent fathers to create the mess
we have now.
I said then and I still think, we went the wrong way. The incentive
should have been to spread these people out, not concentrate them.
It is a whole lot easier to accommodate and find jobs for a few
families in the country than it is to do this for a half million
people in a city.
Unfortunately I think the way the great society was implemented was
racist in the worst way. Instead of encouraging people out in flyover
country to embrace a few black people, they created an all black
ghetto in the city where there was very little contact with each
other.



There are some things that the Federal gov't does better than local
gov'ts.
Just because what you saw was bad doesn't mean the concept or even a lot
of
the implementation was bad. One can always find examples of system abuse.
Certainly the answer to the problem now is not to abandon people in the
inner city (well, any more than we've already done).

We shouldn't have lured them to the city in the first place.

I really don't think you can blame the Great Society program for "luring"
poor people to cities. Most came (and still come) to cities to find work.
We're not in the 1800s any more.

If the federal government was really so great at this they would have
fed these people out in the country.

Come on. The vast majority of the population has lived in cities for a long
time.

In the early part of the 1800s only a few percent lived in cities. After the
Industrial Revolution, cities started taking up the vast majority of
people... something like 90% today.

In the city they just became welfare dependents and lost the ability
to work. The opportunity for work was limited there anyway.

?? That's where the work is and has been for a long, long time.

When the government would give you more than you could make working,
why work. That problem was not addressed for 30 years, until Bill
Clinton and the 104th congress took a swing at it. It was too little
too late.

They reduced the welfare roles significantly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

Something to think about
 

On Sep 21, 9:16*pm, wrote:


The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, *onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)

now let's see....who was it that destroyed my 401K...the 'free market'
or the govt?...hmmm....let me think

Something to think about
 

On Sep 22, 12:44*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:16*pm, wrote:

The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, *onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)

now let's see....who was it that destroyed my 401K...the 'free market'
or the govt?...hmmm....let me think

The answer to that is "both".

Your 401k is a ponzi anyway.

and it's the ONLY game in town. the rich have structured it that way
to force workers to work until we die, creating a bigger workforce

Something to think about
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:03:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:26:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Pretty hard to offer services onezee twozee don't you think? Not very
cost
effective or practical. The Great Society did a lot of good, but it
wasn't
perfect.

The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)
People flocked to the cities because that was where the money was.
What used to be families of "working poor" (a government defined term)
became non working welfare recipients.
The programs rewarded women without a man in the house and punished
the families where dad stayed, so the men left.
It doesn't take many generations of absent fathers to create the mess
we have now.
I said then and I still think, we went the wrong way. The incentive
should have been to spread these people out, not concentrate them.
It is a whole lot easier to accommodate and find jobs for a few
families in the country than it is to do this for a half million
people in a city.
Unfortunately I think the way the great society was implemented was
racist in the worst way. Instead of encouraging people out in flyover
country to embrace a few black people, they created an all black
ghetto in the city where there was very little contact with each
other.



There are some things that the Federal gov't does better than local
gov'ts.
Just because what you saw was bad doesn't mean the concept or even a lot
of
the implementation was bad. One can always find examples of system
abuse.
Certainly the answer to the problem now is not to abandon people in the
inner city (well, any more than we've already done).

We shouldn't have lured them to the city in the first place.

I really don't think you can blame the Great Society program for "luring"
poor people to cities. Most came (and still come) to cities to find work.
We're not in the 1800s any more.

If the federal government was really so great at this they would have
fed these people out in the country.

Come on. The vast majority of the population has lived in cities for a
long
time.

In the early part of the 1800s only a few percent lived in cities. After
the
Industrial Revolution, cities started taking up the vast majority of
people... something like 90% today.

The problem is the cost of living is higher in the city and there are
not that many opportunities for unskilled labor, at least not at the
salary necessary to pay the bills.
Back in the olden days they had factories in the cities, by the 60s,
these were moving out of town. In a place like DC there was very
little work for unskilled labor (unless you include the government).

In the city they just became welfare dependents and lost the ability
to work. The opportunity for work was limited there anyway.

?? That's where the work is and has been for a long, long time.

Sure, hooker, crack dealer, thief.
You are not going to earn the cost of living in most big cities busing
tables

When the government would give you more than you could make working,
why work. That problem was not addressed for 30 years, until Bill
Clinton and the 104th congress took a swing at it. It was too little
too late.

They reduced the welfare roles significantly.



As an example ... There's no public transit in rural areas, so that means
you have to have a car. Most cities have some form of public transit.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:16 pm, wrote:


The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)

now let's see....who was it that destroyed my 401K...the 'free market'
or the govt?...hmmm....let me think

The answer to that is "both".

Your 401k is a ponzi anyway. If you are much under 60 you will lose
your ass on it no matter what. When the boomers are forced to draw
down their 401ks (by law) the stock market will be history, along with
the whole concept of "retirement".


If you look at the entire financial system, in a way you're right. Financial
markets are built upon trust and confidence, but historically, they've done
pretty well for people. There are ups and downs. Anyone relying on one thing
for retirement is foolish. It's called diversification and participation in
your financials. You can let any investment just ride along and hope
everything will turn out ok.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

On Sep 22, 2:15*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:48:29 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 22, 12:44*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:16*pm, wrote:

The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, *onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)

now let's see....who was it that destroyed my 401K...the 'free market'
or the govt?...hmmm....let me think

The answer to that is "both".

Your 401k is a ponzi anyway.

and it's the ONLY game in town. the rich have structured it that way
to force workers to work until we die, creating a bigger workforce

This is not an evil conspiracy. It is just a demographic problem.
There are not enough people in the work force to support 84 million
retired boomers.

that depends. if the 401K had worked out like the folks who wanted to
privatize social security had said it would, there'd be no problem.
i've been investing in my 401K since the program started in 1981 or
so. and i just got killed.


The happy days generation who are in (or entering)
their 70s now are probably the last ones who will live the retirement
dream unscathed ... if they don't live too long

agreed. i think the days of retirement are over. we'll all be working
until we drop.

Something to think about
 

On Sep 22, 2:12*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:16 pm, wrote:

The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)

now let's see....who was it that destroyed my 401K...the 'free market'
or the govt?...hmmm....let me think

The answer to that is "both".

Your 401k is a ponzi anyway. If you are much under 60 you will lose
your ass on it no matter what. When the boomers are forced to draw
down their 401ks (by law) the stock market will be history, along with
the whole concept of "retirement".

If you look at the entire financial system, in a way you're right. Financial
markets are built upon trust and confidence, but historically, they've done
pretty well for people. There are ups and downs. Anyone relying on one thing
for retirement is foolish. It's called diversification and participation in
your financials. You can let any investment just ride along and hope
everything will turn out ok.

--


the problem is that, for the middle class, we have a limited number of
options. we USED to have pensions but the rich decided they wanted
more money for capital gains and dividends, so pensions are gone.

Something to think about
 

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 22, 2:12 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:16 pm, wrote:
The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)
now let's see....who was it that destroyed my 401K...the 'free market'
or the govt?...hmmm....let me think
The answer to that is "both".
Your 401k is a ponzi anyway. If you are much under 60 you will lose
your ass on it no matter what. When the boomers are forced to draw
down their 401ks (by law) the stock market will be history, along with
the whole concept of "retirement".
If you look at the entire financial system, in a way you're right. Financial
markets are built upon trust and confidence, but historically, they've done
pretty well for people. There are ups and downs. Anyone relying on one thing
for retirement is foolish. It's called diversification and participation in
your financials. You can let any investment just ride along and hope
everything will turn out ok.

--


the problem is that, for the middle class, we have a limited number of
options. we USED to have pensions but the rich decided they wanted
more money for capital gains and dividends, so pensions are gone.


Just think where we're being taken by the right-wingers...no pensions
and pretty soon, no employer health care, but we'll be able to buy it at
increasingly high prices from private, for-profit health insurance
companies, and the big non-profits which actually aren't non-profits.

My thinking is that health insurance companies serve no useful purpose
for the middle and lower income classes, and ought to be done away
with...and replaced with the Swiss plan.

In Switzerland, the most free economy country in the world, health
insurance is mandatory, and private for-profits are allowed to offer a
basic plan to all at the same price and with the same benefits. You pay
for it, but it is far less expensive than it is here, and if you cannot
afford it, your participation in the plan is subsidized by the government.

If you want *more* than is in the basic plan, you can buy "supplemental"
insurance from the private for profit from which you buy your basic
plan. That's where the plans really complete and make their profits.

Now *that* would be health insurance reform...coverage for everyone,
affordable, and no bull**** from the insurance companies.













--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Something to think about
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:12:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:16 pm, wrote:


The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)

now let's see....who was it that destroyed my 401K...the 'free market'
or the govt?...hmmm....let me think

The answer to that is "both".

Your 401k is a ponzi anyway. If you are much under 60 you will lose
your ass on it no matter what. When the boomers are forced to draw
down their 401ks (by law) the stock market will be history, along with
the whole concept of "retirement".


If you look at the entire financial system, in a way you're right.
Financial
markets are built upon trust and confidence, but historically, they've
done
pretty well for people. There are ups and downs. Anyone relying on one
thing
for retirement is foolish. It's called diversification and participation
in
your financials. You can let any investment just ride along and hope
everything will turn out ok.

I would never put more into a 401k than your boss matches.
Invest the rest of your savings in a variety of instruments with after
tax money. The Roth makes sense for a lot of people.

The biggest lie of the 401k and IRAs scam is that you will pay taxes
at a lower rate than you would when you were working. That will only
be true if you are living below the poverty level when you cash it in.
For most of us the government will be coming after that money with a
vengeance.
For one thing, it is all taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains.
You may also be forced to sell into a declining market if you wait too
long.


Not entirely accurate. You can manage your 401K withdrawls. Yes, you have to
be careful, but it's doable with minimal taxes.

Lots of people are currently being forced to sell in a declining market
right now. However, that's not catastrophic if you've saved enough.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Something to think about
 

On Sep 22, 3:17*pm, H the K wrote:

Now *that* would be health insurance reform...coverage for everyone,
affordable, and no bull**** from the insurance companies.

--


of course it would never fly here. not enough opportunities to plunder
the middle class.

Something to think about
 

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:17 pm, H the K wrote:

Now *that* would be health insurance reform...coverage for everyone,
affordable, and no bull**** from the insurance companies.

--


of course it would never fly here. not enough opportunities to plunder
the middle class.


Yeah, well that's one of the reasons why this country is sliding into
the abyss.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Something to think about
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:15:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:48:29 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 22, 12:44*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:16*pm, wrote:

The problem is that the federal government was doing this. If it was
local government or even local charity, *onezee twozee is not that
hard to do.
I lived in SE DC when the great society programs hit and I saw those
neighborhoods decline into the cesspools they are now (Marion Barry's
8th ward for you folks outside the beltway)

now let's see....who was it that destroyed my 401K...the 'free market'
or the govt?...hmmm....let me think

The answer to that is "both".

Your 401k is a ponzi anyway.

and it's the ONLY game in town. the rich have structured it that way
to force workers to work until we die, creating a bigger workforce

This is not an evil conspiracy. It is just a demographic problem.
There are not enough people in the work force to support 84 million
retired boomers. The happy days generation who are in (or entering)
their 70s now are probably the last ones who will live the retirement
dream unscathed ... if they don't live too long.

Another reason to work hard at improving my golf score.
--

John H