Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 19/04/2010 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:43:40 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

In ,
says...


guess you didn't read about his stripping of the SEC of the capability
to regulate derivatives

guess what a major cause of the financial m eltdown was?

I was looking about a bit for information on the current financial
reform bill under consideration amidst the usual partisan bickering, and
came across a couple things that I found interesting.

1. Obama has said he will veto any bill that does not regulate
derivatives.
I'm not sure the current bill does, and some commentary suggest that it
doe not, and strongly criticize it for that reason.
Why is that?
Democrats control that legislation.
It seems that those who are serious about regulation that will prevent
the bilking of America, as recently happened, say that is a necessity.
Are some of the Democrats writing this bill still in the Wall Street
pocket? Will Obama get his way, veto, or cave in?
It will be interesting to see.

2. The $50 billion bank financed fund to handle bank failures is the
rallying point for Republican opposition to the bill.
Mitch McConnell harps on that incessantly.
And I happen to agree that fund is a bad idea.
Well, Obama and Dodd both say it can be dropped from the legislation.
But here's the kicker.
That fund was put in at Republican insistence during the bipartisan
negotiations as the the bill was first constructed!
This so reminds me of those customers who insist on wearing a too-small
shoe against my very strong advice, and then blame me for causing them
foot ailments!
It has never been more clear to me that I am in the right business to
understand human nature.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make at least 3 years of retail shoe
sales a prerequisite for becoming a member of Congress.
I really think things would run more smoothly then.

Peter



I agree the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot with a machine gun
right now. They had the chance to get out in front of this while
everyone was looking at health care and they screwed the pooch. Now
they either have to back Obama's plan or just look stupid. I said a
few days ago, they seem destined to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory.
It is clear there will be some regulation coming but I fear the
weasels will find loopholes faster than they can write the bill. If
Obama uses the same logic he used on health care he will have wall
street lobbyists writing the deregulation bill.
I also find it amusing that bank whore Dodd is out there acting like
he is the regulator in chief. He has been pimping for banks and
insurance companies for three and a half decades

My suggestion is that you make sure your 401K and IRAs have a
signifigant asset base outside of the USA. Because at this point the
future of the USD looks pretty shakey.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:15:22 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:10:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:46:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:



it's now worth what it was 10 years ago. i should have spent it on
whores and booze like john paulson did when he looted goldman sachs
for a billion

yet in your mind he's a hero because he's rich, and i'm an idiot
because i'm a hard working middle class guy

shows what moral values the right has


You were not saving in your 401K! You were buying the alternative to a
defined benefit pension

that's called 'saving'.

. Saving is living below your means and taking part
of each weeks paycheck and putting it away for the future

which is what a 401K does. i can see it in my paycheck

. Maybe the near
term future of paying for kids college, saving to buy a car without having
to finance it, or saving to have a better retirement than your 401k or
company pension will give you. Your wife being an attorney and you and
engineer and not saving at least $15-20k a year outside of your "pension"
is
a sign that you are both clueless and living beyond your means. Blame
yourself, not Wall Street

let's see...

100,000,000 americans are in the same boat as i am

goldmans sacks gets indicted for fraud

and he says it's the fault of the american middle class

yep. typical right wingers

401k is a subset of saving. The money your employer would have been putting
away for a pension, shows up in your paycheck now. And you buy your own
pension. Which I think is fabulous. As I liked startups and most would not
have been there long enough to vest a pension. You are buying your pension
with that money. Not saving money. Saving is living below your means and
taking part of your disposable income and putting it away for a rainy day or
even as an addition to pension money. With your attitude about saving, you
would have been in deep **** if there was a hiccup at your work and you got
laid off. You could not live on your wife's income with your apptitued..

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:33:23 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:11:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:06:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Uh? Social security will be broke before too long,

medicare may be. social security is in decent shape.

Social security is broke right now, spending more than it takes in.

for the last month, yes.

you don't read the news


The boomers are just starting to wallow up to the trough. This will
never recover. Most will not be waiting for 66 either, they are taking
it at 62. I am the only person I know over 62 who is not collecting.

You should be collecting. When I signed up at 62, Suzy Orman said you had
to live to 73 or maybe 76 to break even. The Social Security guy stated I
would be ahead of the game if I lived past 80. You don't think they will
have cut benefits in the next 13 years? Since the age to collect goes up
every year, that is the same as cutting benefits. They just have not got to
those 62 year olds yet.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
fOn Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:08:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:58:31 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Middle class always pays, that is why they had better vote smarter this
fall or you can just call the Whitehouse, #1 Bankrupt Way.

we finally voted out the right wing free market fundies. guess you
didn't notice.

As long as Geithner, Summers and the rest of those weasels are working
for Obama you haven't really got rid of the free market fundies.

at least they've had the courage to admit they were wrong

the right wing, however, thinks wall street is the same as mt. sinai.





The herd of people did it to themselves by years of electing "low debt
and quick fix" promises from liberal hype turkeys and snake oil
representation. And now you want to cry about it?

ROFLMAO!! for 22 of the last 30 years we've had right wing free market
presdients who deregulated wall street with a vengeance.

how'd that work out?


You mean like Clinton?

He is the one that signed most of that deregulation

You did say "presidents" didn't you?

I don't remember president Gramm and he is the one you blame for
everything.

guess you didn't read about his stripping of the SEC of the capability
to regulate derivatives

guess what a major cause of the financial m eltdown was?


And they want the derivatives traded on an exchange. That is good. But the
Chris Dodd's sponsored bill says the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and New
York Merchantile Exchange are good for that. Sen. Dodd neglects to mention
his wife is a director of the company that owns the CME, NYME.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...medium=twitter

OT investments
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:04:11 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

The boomers are just starting to wallow up to the trough. This will
never recover. Most will not be waiting for 66 either, they are taking
it at 62. I am the only person I know over 62 who is not collecting.

You should be collecting. When I signed up at 62, Suzy Orman said you had
to live to 73 or maybe 76 to break even. The Social Security guy stated I
would be ahead of the game if I lived past 80. You don't think they will
have cut benefits in the next 13 years? Since the age to collect goes up
every year, that is the same as cutting benefits. They just have not got
to
those 62 year olds yet.


I know. I guess I was just OK without it and thought of it as a
savings program of sorts but I agree I should be banking it if nothing
else.
Is there any advantage to waiting for your birthday or is it pro rated
throughout the year?

do not know about prorating per month or year. I know there is an increase
as you wait.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:00:38 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:15:22 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


100,000,000 americans are in the same boat as i am

goldmans sacks gets indicted for fraud

and he says it's the fault of the american middle class

yep. typical right wingers

401k is a subset of saving. The money your employer would have been putting
away for a pension, shows up in your paycheck now. And you buy your own
pension.

and companies USED to provide pensions. they don't any more.

Which I think is fabulous. As I liked startups and most would not
have been there long enough to vest a pension. You are buying your pension
with that money. Not saving money. Saving is living below your means and
taking part of your disposable income and putting it away for a rainy day or
even as an addition to pension money.

and where do you 'put it away' in a form that is protected, and rises
above inflation?


With your attitude about saving, you
would have been in deep **** if there was a hiccup at your work and you got
laid off. You could not live on your wife's income with your apptitued..

i've saved since 401Ks were created about 30 years ago

it was a waste of time. wall street thugs stole 40% of it. and that's
true for 100,000,000 other americans

along with the 8,000,000 who lost their jobs due to the financial
collapse

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:37:22 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:33:23 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:11:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:06:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Uh? Social security will be broke before too long,

medicare may be. social security is in decent shape.

Social security is broke right now, spending more than it takes in.

for the last month, yes.

you don't read the news


The boomers are just starting to wallow up to the trough. This will
never recover. Most will not be waiting for 66 either, they are taking
it at 62. I am the only person I know over 62 who is not collecting.

notice how he hates the middle class.

the boomers worked all their lives. now they're retiring; he says
they're 'wallowing up to the trough'.

BUT...if they'd been wall street bankers, like john paulson, and stole
a billion dollars, he'd worship at their feet.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:04:11 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:33:23 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:11:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:06:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Uh? Social security will be broke before too long,

medicare may be. social security is in decent shape.

Social security is broke right now, spending more than it takes in.

for the last month, yes.

you don't read the news


The boomers are just starting to wallow up to the trough. This will
never recover. Most will not be waiting for 66 either, they are taking
it at 62. I am the only person I know over 62 who is not collecting.

You should be collecting. When I signed up at 62, Suzy Orman said you had
to live to 73 or maybe 76 to break even.

AND you're in better health at 62 than 73. you enjoy it more!

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:38:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

US dollar is up.

Against the other western economies that are in worse shape than us.
How do you figure the dollar is doing against the yuan or the riyal?
Are you really saying imported oil or chinese goods are getting
cheaper?

the reason the yuan isn't getting cheaper is it cant

it's pegged to the dollar.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:18:11 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 19/04/2010 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:38:05 -0400, wrote:

US dollar is up.

Against the other western economies that are in worse shape than us.
How do you figure the dollar is doing against the yuan or the riyal?
Are you really saying imported oil or chinese goods are getting
cheaper?

From a 7 year perspective, USD has dropped at leat 30% against the CAD.
I know, I made off like a bandit converting most of the USDs to CAD in
early 2004.

bpuharic will never get it. US democrat debt mongering is slowly
flushing the USD into the toilet

uh no.

the canadians regulated their banking system more than the US did.

canuck, a canadian, is ignorant of the economics

of canada.