Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 9:25 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


and you have the density of a black hole. i've been saving in my 401K
since congress created it 30 years ago.




You have not been "saving" in your 401K. You've been placing bets in your
401K.
You are betting that your investment will grow based on the performance,
success and work of others.

A 401K plan invested and managed for you or by you in the stock market *can*
produce much higher returns than other investments or savings plans. That,
plus the matching funds that some employers make have made them attractive.

But ... it's still not a guarantied savings plan. There are risks
associated with it. Correct me if I am wrong.

In my world, I haven't and don't invest any more money in the stock market
than that I am willing to lose. I certainly didn't plan my retirement based
on it.

Old fashioned, but it works for me. I am arrogant enough to rely mostly on
my own performance.

Eisboch
I would not call that arrogance, just good old fashioned self worth,
investing in yourself. Good attitude.



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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 9:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:19:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:10:22 -0400, wrote:

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


americans are the hardest working people in the western world. we work
200 hours more than europeans and japanese.



Yet the Europeans save about 3 times as much as Americans
You said you were working 60 hour weeks. That is 175% of your base
salary and you didn't think you should be saving some of that?

i'm salaried. i dont overtime

and you have the density of a black hole. i've been saving in my 401K
since congress created it 30 years ago.

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 probably make more money than I ever did. You just spend a higher
percentage of it.
A 401k is not savings, it is, at best, a substitute pension plan, at
worst a Ponzi scheme. I predict that when the boomers start drawing
down their 401ks the market will crash again. (and I seem to be pretty
good at predicting market crashes, certainly better than your 401k
manager)

401K/IRA are not ponzi. Perhaps what you direct them to invest in is.
Move your vested part of a 401K to a self directed IRA, much more
flexable than most of the company sponsored junk. But you do need to
learn to manage it yourself.

But one way or another, you better save for retirement or be prepared to
be a 65 year old bum. You can't live on social security alone.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

On 18/04/2010 10:06 AM, Eisboch wrote:

The only "new" stock I bought recently was Ford and did so when they were
at
about $1.46 a share and GM and Chrysler were just about goners. (well,
actually, they *were* goners).

I was impressed by the determination of Ford to forego government bailout
money and attempt to make it on their own. So far they have.




Owned Ford too, didn't do as well as you. Bought in at $2.25 and out at
$6.90 but a good ride and never got burned taking a profit. Watch Ford
carefully, it could go to $20 but there is a hype factor in it at the
moment. To manage debt, they diluted the shares and under current
valuation on a equity base, Ford is in definitive high end of valuation
for at least a decade, the question is are they over valued or can they
continue?


I bought as much as I dared risk right after they announced they would not
seek a bailout.
Sold half at about the same as you ($6.60) and half again at ($11.60). I
am well ahead of the game now, so the remainder will stay for the longer
haul, unless something blows up like a Pinto.

Eisboch

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 9:49 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/18/10 11:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:19:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:10:22 -0400, wrote:

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


americans are the hardest working people in the western world. we work
200 hours more than europeans and japanese.



Yet the Europeans save about 3 times as much as Americans
You said you were working 60 hour weeks. That is 175% of your base
salary and you didn't think you should be saving some of that?

i'm salaried. i dont overtime

and you have the density of a black hole. i've been saving in my 401K
since congress created it 30 years ago.

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 probably make more money than I ever did. You just spend a higher
percentage of it.
A 401k is not savings, it is, at best, a substitute pension plan, at
worst a Ponzi scheme. I predict that when the boomers start drawing
down their 401ks the market will crash again. (and I seem to be pretty
good at predicting market crashes, certainly better than your 401k
manager)


It's best to have available a variety of pensions and pension saving
devices.

Maybe. But always good to keep any eye on them and take them with you.

In my case, I left NorTel in 1995. I could smell the company changing
and I didn't like what I saw. I was underpaid and looked at
alternatives and quit. When I quit, I had to decide to leave the
pension moneys in the plan, or roll them over into my own account. I
chose the later. Today I am not close to retirement yet the yeild is
more than they predicted it would be when I did retire. Bonus, if I die
my wife and estate get 100% of the value. And I didn't eat the NorTel
pension write downs and dilutions.

I did it again in 2008. Actually lightly suggested I get laid off.
Thinking this is a good time to roll over the pensions. Was in cash
when the market crunched. And they too have since devlaued their
payouts while I was buying stock on the cheap.

There are a long list of companies that messed up pensions, Enron,
NorTel, GM, Chrysler, Delco...

I only count on what is in my name in my account. And will quit at the
appropriate times to roll it over into my control. That is, many
employers have plans that I would at some point view as a liability to
staying too long. You can't determine the benefits in 10, 20 or 30
years, they screw with it too much.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 10:07 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:49:25 -0400,
wrote:

It's best to have available a variety of pensions and pension saving
devices.

Exactly, if you are not diversified, you are vulnerable to all sorts
of things.

Diversification is always good. But in the case of a company pension
plan, it is out of your control. See Enron, they really got stiffed.
So did NorTel and a long list of others.

Get it in you account, in your name so if they go bust, you are not
bust. In my IRA I control diversification and don't end up like GMers
pension that had Carlyle's biggest investment as GM.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:25:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .


and you have the density of a black hole. i've been saving in my 401K
since congress created it 30 years ago.




You have not been "saving" in your 401K. You've been placing bets in your
401K.

more rightwing bull****. i think you guys violate the 1st law of
thermo

no. i've been saving. i have a regular deduction from my pay

and it's the ONLY retirement option the right wing has left the middle
class. YOU guys even wanted to do to social security what you did to
401lk's

remember bush's hatred of social security and his plan to 'privatize'
it?

oh. you forgot that. no wonder. right wing ideology is to investing
what celibate priests are to childcare

You are betting that your investment will grow based on the performance,
success and work of others.

more right wing bull****. YOU guys preached the infallibity of the
free market YOU guys preached 401k's. YOU guys preached that pensions
were useless because the rich needed that money.


But ... it's still not a guarantied savings plan. There are risks
associated with it. Correct me if I am wrong.

you're wrong. you're wrong because the right wing left the middle
class with NO retirement apart from 401k's. you're wrong because the
right planned to do to social security what they did to 401k's
w

In my world, I haven't and don't invest any more money in the stock market
than that I am willing to lose. I certainly didn't plan my retirement based
on it.

Old fashioned, but it works for me. I am arrogant enough to rely mostly on
my own performance.

you're arrogant enough to hate the middle class that built this
country and to tell us how wall street needs our support

you guys dont know **** about ****

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 4/18/10 1:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 18/04/2010 9:49 AM, hk wrote:

It's best to have available a variety of pensions and pension saving
devices.

Maybe. But always good to keep any eye on them and take them with you.


There are a long list of companies that messed up pensions, Enron,
NorTel, GM, Chrysler, Delco...


That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities. Further, we through our elected officers
control the fund, not the employers, and our fund officers select our
qpams. The employers do have "represenation" on the fund board, but they
are in the minority.

The fund's contributions are comprised entirely of the money the members
have put into it, and it is portable, so long as the member is working
for a signatory contractor. Now, there have been occasions when a
contractor has failed to forward the funds for the previous week's
contributions, but he is quickly convinced *that* is not a good idea.

This method of operations is fairly typical for building trades unions.
Our predecessors learned early on not to trust management when it is
holding your money.





--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:06:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:27:42 -0400, hk
wrote:



Agreed, and since wall street was and is operated by crooks whose
primary goal is to enrich themselves by whatever means necessary,
investing in wall street offerings is both risky and stupid.

I don't think you can buck the rich people but you can hitch a ride
with them. The only trick is to pay attention

ROFLMAO!!! goldman sach defrauded its investors...PROFESSIONALS...but
the right wing says it's all the fault of the middle class!


.. Stocks are not for "set
it and forget it" investing. You have to understand the power of
market orders and stop loss orders. Beyond that you only have to watch
the news. The market is 30% fundamentals and 70% emotion. A good or
bad news blitz will swing a stock a lot more than a change in th

so much for 'rational' market theory of the right wing chicago school.
looks like he just bought into the 'behavioral economics' of liberal
nobel prize winner paul krugman...who's been telling us what thieves
wall street is.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:06:19 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:




Sorry but I can't agree totally to that. There certainly have been some
companies managed by greed.

gee. which ones weren't?

notice how the right tells us the middle class DESERVES to get ****ed
because they're not rich BUT that that wall street is composed of
upstanding citizens

****, even alan greenspan doesn't believe THAT bull**** anymore. but
the right does!

There have been some run by outright crooks.
But I also believe that there are many that are run honestly,within the law
that offer good produces, services and investment opportunities.

you're gonna make me cry. i feel like i'm watching 'terms of
endearment'.


With one exception, the few stocks I hold are in companies that I know
something about, am familiar with their products and track records and, in
some cases, know some of the senior management.

blah blah blah. it's all about you. the 100,000,000 hard working
middle class workers who got raped, the professionals who got
duped...well they're all crooks, according to the right wing because
paul johnson made a billion dollars by defrauding the market like a
good american should

christ this is pathetic.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:50:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:22:31 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


correct. but the CDOs...beyond the 'synthetic' ones...went from 1B in
'96 to 60 TRILLION in 2006.

so tell me how you cover that?

There is no way to cover that. The money never existed
The government is trying to fix it by just printing more money.

bull****. it was wall street's doings and the right just shrugs its
shoulders and says the middle class should pay.



if the guys who were DOING this **** for a living didnt see it, how
was middle class america supposed to?

They weren't "doing it" if they didn't see this one coming.

ROFLMAO!! if they SAW it coming by committing fraud...what happened to
the professional investors, the rating services, etc, who DIDNT see it
coming??

Lots of people saw the crash in housing and knew the market would
follow that down.

few saw the level of greed and corruption on wall street

you still dont.


that's the problem with the right. they never blame criminals...IF the
crooks are rich

I would blame myself for not locking the door and having security
measures in place.

again he blames the middle class.

the middle class has to build the country, raise its children, provide
for the defense AND manage wall street without a voice about how wall
street is managed...because that would interfere with the 'free
market'.

this is like reading a children's novel written by a malevolent demon

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


It seems Mr. Bpuharic would be pleased if Geithner and Summers would
pump up his 401k to the level it was before the crash.
And ignore that that reliance on Wall Street is what led to our current
economic ills.

uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

i favor the french approach. ban CDO's and CDS. tie them to assets.
make the banks keep higher assets to cover losses. divorce proprietary
trading from banking.

of course, the right wing opposes this. a senator from new hampshire
said last week he's worried that CDO's would go to singapore if the US
regulated them

so you support his view of reality?


Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.
Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:03:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.

I just see the irony in someone who has all of his future dreams and
aspirations tied to wall street and then demonizes it as much as he
does.

ROFLMAO!! hey genius

what choice did i have. the 'chicago school' of reagan and friedman
told the middle class that if we unregulated the free market, our
401k's would be safe. we wouldnt need pensions because the rich needed
our pension money, and our 401k'd would be fine

or, i guess you're too stupid to realize george bush proposed to to do
for social security what was done to 401k's.

I would think a guy like that would be 100% invested in government
guaranteed paper.

i love it. the right wing ignores the fact 100,000,000 middle class
wage earners got raped by wall street. after all, wall street NEVER
makes mistakes. it's infallible because it's free market

another measure of how much the right HATES the middle class and
worships wall street

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


It seems Mr. Bpuharic would be pleased if Geithner and Summers would
pump up his 401k to the level it was before the crash.
And ignore that that reliance on Wall Street is what led to our current
economic ills.

uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

Yes, I know it well enough.
Please don't misunderstand. I actually am in agreement with many of
your views.
I too am not happy with the 401k system, as it designed to benefit Wall
Street, not retirees. I see it as a form of socialism for the wealthy.
But I choose not to benefit from it to any great degree as a matter of
principle. Yes, I contribute to the extent of matching contributions,
but my contributions all go into a very low return money market fund.
My salary does not justify putting more in for the tax savings.
Since I don't feed the beast we both seem to abhor, I am not concerned
with it.
That is the only issue of real disagreement I have with you.
Your 401k protestations calls to mind "I have seen the enemy, and he is
us."
I am a frugal person, and avoid debt and save what I can.
I am not expecting a rich environment in retirement, but nor have I in
my working life.
Selling shoes in a way that keeps my customers happy is fine with me.


i favor the french approach. ban CDO's and CDS. tie them to assets.
make the banks keep higher assets to cover losses. divorce proprietary
trading from banking.

of course, the right wing opposes this. a senator from new hampshire
said last week he's worried that CDO's would go to singapore if the US
regulated them

so you support his view of reality?


Of course not.

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.
Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Actually, many are. It is my understanding that those who consistently
contributed to 401k equity funds starting +20 years ago are well ahead
of the game even now.
I suspect they held on during the recent dive, and didn't move their
equity investments into other funds.
But I never get into that sort of detail with a customer.
Out of curiosity, and I don't mean to pry, doesn't your 401k show a
hefty profit over contributions?
I think much of it is a matter of timing, and those who entered in more
recently got "screwed." Does Ponzi come to mind here?

Peter

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:29:35 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

In article ,
says...



uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

Yes, I know it well enough.
Please don't misunderstand. I actually am in agreement with many of
your views.
I too am not happy with the 401k system, as it designed to benefit Wall
Street, not retirees.

now THAT is true. proof of this is how george bush lusted after social
security to turn it into another 401K type program. unfortunately
it's the only game in town
r.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 4/18/10 4:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:26:13 -0400,
wrote:

That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities.

Good thing you weren't a steel worker. They defaulted on their pension
plan. (before the PBGC)



What? The Steelworkers Union trust has assets of more than two billion
dollars. Are you talking about a pension fund administered and
controlled by corporate management?




--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Bubba I have been retired for 14 years. My 401k has recovered nicely.

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 10:54 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

On 18/04/2010 10:06 AM, Eisboch wrote:

The only "new" stock I bought recently was Ford and did so when they
were at
about $1.46 a share and GM and Chrysler were just about goners. (well,
actually, they *were* goners).

I was impressed by the determination of Ford to forego government
bailout
money and attempt to make it on their own. So far they have.




Owned Ford too, didn't do as well as you. Bought in at $2.25 and out
at $6.90 but a good ride and never got burned taking a profit. Watch
Ford carefully, it could go to $20 but there is a hype factor in it at
the moment. To manage debt, they diluted the shares and under current
valuation on a equity base, Ford is in definitive high end of
valuation for at least a decade, the question is are they over valued
or can they continue?


I bought as much as I dared risk right after they announced they would
not seek a bailout.
Sold half at about the same as you ($6.60) and half again at ($11.60). I
am well ahead of the game now, so the remainder will stay for the longer
haul, unless something blows up like a Pinto.

Eisboch

Yep, average in and out. Good tactic I regularily use too.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:47:11 -0600,
wrote:

Owned Ford too, didn't do as well as you. Bought in at $2.25 and out at
$6.90 but a good ride and never got burned taking a profit. Watch Ford
carefully, it could go to $20 but there is a hype factor in it at the
moment.

I took too much time believing Ford was real but I am still sitting on
a double.


After the 2009 windfall, I am back to a large percentage of cash. I am
certain this depression cycle is not over. The basic problems still
exist, just a whole lot more debt.

I am still sitting on my equities but I have stop loss orders in on
most of them

Stop loss orders are a good practice. I also have a sell target I set
when I buy stocks, and sell if they cross the high or low if it.

I agree that if the commercial real estate market doesn't find new
financing soon that is the next crash.

Commercial real-estate, I am not sure I would add to my very limited
position. About the closest to real estate investments I have is an old
folks home deal. Real estate has 2 challenges going forward. Deflation
of inventory value and interest rates. While interest rates are low
now, they will one way or another go up in time. Neither is good for
real estate. I expect it to be a dead sector unless inflation exceeds
20%. Too much inexpensive potentially recessive inventory still exists.

It will not have near the impact on the overall economy as the last
crash but it will still depress the market.
As I said, the market is 30% fundamentals, 70% emotion.

Emotion always catches up with fundimentals in time. I would not buy a
stock purely on emotional fundimentals. I still look towards the bottom
line, as if the bottom line is good and improving, time for emotions to
come around is in your favor. But a hype dog today could loose its
momentum pretty quick like musical chairs.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 11:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:

notice how the right tells us the middle class DESERVES to get ****ed
because they're not rich BUT that that wall street is composed of
upstanding citizens

****, even alan greenspan doesn't believe THAT bull**** anymore. but
the right does!

Alan Greenspan even admited he is part of why this whole debt mess
f---ed the economy. I would rather pick Ron Paul who predicted it 5
years in advance as congressional debt management was not sustainable.

Want to be rich? Change your thinking. It is all about attitude.
Think like a loser, be a loser. Think like a rich winner, get off your
ass and make it happen. All about attitude.

Here is a hint:

Debtors think about how to welsh on debt.
Rich think about managing money.

So:

To have money, means you don't want debt.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 11:26 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/18/10 1:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 18/04/2010 9:49 AM, hk wrote:

It's best to have available a variety of pensions and pension saving
devices.

Maybe. But always good to keep any eye on them and take them with you.


There are a long list of companies that messed up pensions, Enron,
NorTel, GM, Chrysler, Delco...


That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities. Further, we through our elected officers
control the fund, not the employers, and our fund officers select our
qpams. The employers do have "represenation" on the fund board, but they
are in the minority.

The fund's contributions are comprised entirely of the money the members
have put into it, and it is portable, so long as the member is working
for a signatory contractor. Now, there have been occasions when a
contractor has failed to forward the funds for the previous week's
contributions, but he is quickly convinced *that* is not a good idea.

This method of operations is fairly typical for building trades unions.
Our predecessors learned early on not to trust management when it is
holding your money.

Then you are one of the very few in that spot. Most either don't have
one or are bamboozeled by companies and even unions. GMers for example.
By luck and not by design I suspect then you are better off.

The most secure penions are government. If the screw up, they just
create more debt onto future taxpayers to pay the bills, in at least up
to this date. Nice inflation indexing too. Like inflation 70's that
screwed many a retired that pensions were not indexed.

But for most, it is a carrot they will never see.
--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:06:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/04/2010 11:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:

notice how the right tells us the middle class DESERVES to get ****ed
because they're not rich BUT that that wall street is composed of
upstanding citizens

****, even alan greenspan doesn't believe THAT bull**** anymore. but
the right does!

Alan Greenspan even admited he is part of why this whole debt mess
f---ed the economy. I would rather pick Ron Paul who predicted it 5
years in advance as congressional debt management was not sustainable.

yep. greenspan sold the entire political class on 'free market'
friedman monetarist economics. it was all bull****


Want to be rich? Change your thinking. It is all about attitude.
Think like a loser, be a loser. Think like a rich winner, get off your
ass and make it happen. All about attitude.

gee. i guess you haven't noticed. what do you think i'm bitching
about? the unregulated free market that trashed this country.


Here is a hint:

Debtors think about how to welsh on debt.
Rich think about managing money.

no. the rich dont think about managing money. they think about
stealing itl

you really are a sock puppet for wall street arent you?

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:57:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:39:54 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:03:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


another measure of how much the right HATES the middle class and
worships wall street


You still didn't answer the question, why didn't you allocate your
401k into the safer low return low risk government security basket?

because the free market fundamentalists on wall street said they were
infallible...just like you say they are...and i work for a living so
dont have the time to babysit wall street


Was it greed?

no. i'm not a right winger

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:16:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:53:57 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Bubba I have been retired for 14 years. My 401k has recovered nicely.

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

Hey I worked hard, paid off all my bills and saved a lot of money so I
could be lazy and shiftless for the rest of my life, too bad you
didn't.

if you worked hard you wouldnt hate people who do.

you seem to think i'm unique. guess you havent kept up with the news.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:07:37 -0600,
wrote:

In my case, I left NorTel in 1995. I could smell the company changing
and I didn't like what I saw.

When IBM downsized me out in 1996 I knew it was the right thing to do
from a business sense so I kept their stock. It was a good investment
over the years.
We became a Wal-Mart country and nobody is willing to pay for service,
quality or customer satisfaction. Good for the bottom line but
terrible for the people who used to provide that.

I wouldn't say it is all peoples faults from an individuals perspective.
Part of it is competition. If you can drop your prices by 2% and
reduce costs by 4%, then 2% more profit. So the company might offshore
support for their insert computer product here.

Then you have complexities and costs of hiring people. Insane. Get
sued because you farted. Why bother? Just import it from companies
that don't have over paid dead weigh like Wagoner (GM).

Then you get companies like GM, pawning of "quality" but not delivering.
Might as well buy the Tata Nano for $4K as in 3 years I will not feel
so bad or siffed if it dies. Plus, they make them so simple there is
less to go wrong.

Walmart has great service, bought Tires from Sams, moved around and the
local Walmart took care of me free when I had a flat. That little thing
nets them my business. No union belly aching and crooked types, I like
that.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 4/18/10 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:28 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/18/10 4:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:26:13 -0400,
wrote:

That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities.

Good thing you weren't a steel worker. They defaulted on their pension
plan. (before the PBGC)



What? The Steelworkers Union trust has assets of more than two billion
dollars. Are you talking about a pension fund administered and
controlled by corporate management?

I am not sure I just know my father in law's brother is a retired
union steel worker and he only gets his SS. The pension is gone.


In the good old days when steel corporations controlled the pensions,
the corporate crooks underfunded them and stole the money in them for
other purposes. If my memory is correct, the USW took over steelworker
pensions with the help of the pension guarantee corp.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 4/18/10 5:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 18/04/2010 11:26 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/18/10 1:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 18/04/2010 9:49 AM, hk wrote:

It's best to have available a variety of pensions and pension saving
devices.

Maybe. But always good to keep any eye on them and take them with you.


There are a long list of companies that messed up pensions, Enron,
NorTel, GM, Chrysler, Delco...


That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities. Further, we through our elected officers
control the fund, not the employers, and our fund officers select our
qpams. The employers do have "represenation" on the fund board, but they
are in the minority.

The fund's contributions are comprised entirely of the money the members
have put into it, and it is portable, so long as the member is working
for a signatory contractor. Now, there have been occasions when a
contractor has failed to forward the funds for the previous week's
contributions, but he is quickly convinced *that* is not a good idea.

This method of operations is fairly typical for building trades unions.
Our predecessors learned early on not to trust management when it is
holding your money.



Then you are one of the very few in that spot. Most either don't have
one or are bamboozeled by companies and even unions. GMers for example.
By luck and not by design I suspect then you are better off.

The most secure penions are government. If the screw up, they just
create more debt onto future taxpayers to pay the bills, in at least up
to this date. Nice inflation indexing too. Like inflation 70's that
screwed many a retired that pensions were not indexed.

But for most, it is a carrot they will never see.

I'm sure my net worth and future worth exceed yours, but of course it is
all by luck. D'oh.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:53:33 -0600,
wrote:

401K/IRA are not ponzi.

They are when you look at the impact of millions of boomers making a
run on the funds all at one time. There is simply not enough liquidity
in the system to sustain that. I predict the government will remove
the requirement that you have to draw down these funds in hopes that
the boomers will stay in there until they die.

Market opportunity for the wise. I bought so many cheap stocks at the
begining of last year. Can't remember which book I read it from, but it
said the best money in the market is in not doing what everyone else was
doing.

Now if everyone wants to be run like a herd of sheep, there is
opportunities in realising that.

I agree with letting boomers keep it in. Why not? Forcing them to
liquidate is anal retentive BS.

But I also would not doubt to raise cash in a hyper-debt situation the
government offers lower tax rates to withdraw to raise cash on taxes.
The government is in a debt spiral. How that unfolds is anyones guess
but will not be pretty when Greece issues migrate to USA through Japan,
Spain, Germany ...

Because in essense our governemnts are bankrupt and debt spending, not
sustainable.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:16:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:53:57 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Bubba I have been retired for 14 years. My 401k has recovered nicely.

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

Hey I worked hard, paid off all my bills and saved a lot of money so I
could be lazy and shiftless for the rest of my life, too bad you
didn't.

Ain't bein' lazy and shiftless great? :)

This Wednesday will be even greater - I can play a round of golf again. Support
the economy and all.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.

I just see the irony in someone who has all of his future dreams and
aspirations tied to wall street and then demonizes it as much as he
does.
I would think a guy like that would be 100% invested in government
guaranteed paper. I bet that is an option in his 401K. I know I have
several options in how I allocate my money and one is a low yield,
high security basket of bonds and other government paper.
My bet, he took the fund allocation that was first offered as the
default without ever really reading it.

What a wrong place to be, government paper locked in. At todays rates,
you can be 100% they will devalue on any rise in rates, and lower rates
are not possible.

If I could, I would put a 5 year short on them if I could. That goes
for any lending instrument that isn't 100% liquid without penalty.
Loaning money is stupid in this enviroment unless it is reasonably
secure and 7% or better.

Debtors want money but are not willing to pay fair market value hidding
behind low government rates. That will not last forever.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 11:39 AM, bpuharic wrote:

what choice did i have. the 'chicago school' of reagan and friedman
told the middle class that if we unregulated the free market, our
401k's would be safe. we wouldnt need pensions because the rich needed
our pension money, and our 401k'd would be fine

Born yesterday? But you believe Obama today? Doomed to repeat.

or, i guess you're too stupid to realize george bush proposed to to do
for social security what was done to 401k's.

Uh? Social security will be broke before too long, I wouldn't count on
it being increased to keep up with inflation. Obama has other ideas for
the money than to shore up social security. Besides Obama is in a debt
spiral.

I would think a guy like that would be 100% invested in government
guaranteed paper.

i love it. the right wing ignores the fact 100,000,000 middle class
wage earners got raped by wall street. after all, wall street NEVER
makes mistakes. it's infallible because it's free market

another measure of how much the right HATES the middle class and
worships wall street

Raped by corruption, yes. Again, Wall Street is just a 10 month mirror
into the economic outlook of the markets. Don't be such a simpltom
sheeples.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 12:29 PM, Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


It seems Mr. Bpuharic would be pleased if Geithner and Summers would
pump up his 401k to the level it was before the crash.
And ignore that that reliance on Wall Street is what led to our current
economic ills.

uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

Yes, I know it well enough.
Please don't misunderstand. I actually am in agreement with many of
your views.
I too am not happy with the 401k system, as it designed to benefit Wall
Street, not retirees. I see it as a form of socialism for the wealthy.
But I choose not to benefit from it to any great degree as a matter of
principle. Yes, I contribute to the extent of matching contributions,
but my contributions all go into a very low return money market fund.
My salary does not justify putting more in for the tax savings.
Since I don't feed the beast we both seem to abhor, I am not concerned
with it.
That is the only issue of real disagreement I have with you.
Your 401k protestations calls to mind "I have seen the enemy, and he is
us."
I am a frugal person, and avoid debt and save what I can.
I am not expecting a rich environment in retirement, but nor have I in
my working life.
Selling shoes in a way that keeps my customers happy is fine with me.


i favor the french approach. ban CDO's and CDS. tie them to assets.
make the banks keep higher assets to cover losses. divorce proprietary
trading from banking.

of course, the right wing opposes this. a senator from new hampshire
said last week he's worried that CDO's would go to singapore if the US
regulated them

so you support his view of reality?


Of course not.

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.
Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Actually, many are. It is my understanding that those who consistently
contributed to 401k equity funds starting +20 years ago are well ahead
of the game even now.

Quite true. When I add up over the years my contributions, it is much
less that current day value. And far surpasses bank saving interest rates.

I suspect they held on during the recent dive, and didn't move their
equity investments into other funds.

One tax savvy trick for cash accounts is to churn you funds at the
bottom getting tax loses on the books. Leaving latitude on future gains
without the taxes.

But I never get into that sort of detail with a customer.
Out of curiosity, and I don't mean to pry, doesn't your 401k show a
hefty profit over contributions?
I think much of it is a matter of timing, and those who entered in more
recently got "screwed." Does Ponzi come to mind here?

Part of this is their own fault as it takes time, dicipline, patience
and realistic calls to get this right. Emotional basket cases like
bpubaric and de-plume should not consider trading stock.

Does not hurt to leave cash in cash for some time waiting for a good
opportunity. I have at times let cash say idle cash for years as I
didn't feel comfortable about commiting it.

So Jan-Fed of 2009 was a hay day. And a good percentage is back in cash
waiting for the next knee jerk or for interest rates to climb.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 11:33 AM, bpuharic wrote:

bull****. it was wall street's doings and the right just shrugs its
shoulders and says the middle class should pay.

What a copout.

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

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?

LMAO... Lefties are so gullable.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

you're arrogant enough to hate the middle class that built this
country and to tell us how wall street needs our support

you guys dont know **** about ****



You are a trip.

One one hand, as a liberal who claims to hate free market concepts, you put
your faith in Wall Street to fund your retirement, apparently lost a bunch
and are now bitching about it.

Then, you accuse someone like me who has never trusted Wall Street, have
only a modest amount invested, never planned on Wall Street to fund my
retirement .... a "righty".

I was as middle class as you claim to be. Who's the dummy?


Eisboch

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:40:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:21:23 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

You still didn't answer the question, why didn't you allocate your
401k into the safer low return low risk government security basket?

because the free market fundamentalists on wall street said they were
infallible...just like you say they are...and i work for a living so
dont have the time to babysit wall street

The choice was simple, if you wanted a low risk investment it was
available.

it wasn't a matter of 'low risk'. it was a matter of growth in an
unregulated, free market which milton friedman, alan greenspan and
other free market fundies said was a certainty.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:32:13 -0400, hk
wrote:

I'm sure my net worth and future worth exceed yours, but of course it is
all by luck. D'oh.


Don't let BP hear you. He will say you hate the middle class too. ;-)

too late

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:43:44 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:22:38 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

Hey I worked hard, paid off all my bills and saved a lot of money so I
could be lazy and shiftless for the rest of my life, too bad you
didn't.

if you worked hard you wouldnt hate people who do.


You seem to be the one spewing hate. You have been calling me names
for several days and I have tried to remain civil.

so did david duke


you seem to think i'm unique. guess you havent kept up with the news.

Yes I understand you are not unique. There are plenty of "bitter"
people but they are the Obama fans, not the ones he talked about last
October.

yeah. there are 100,000,000 americans like me.

and you think wall street had zip to do with it

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:29:35 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

I think much of it is a matter of timing, and those who entered in more
recently got "screwed." Does Ponzi come to mind here?

I just got beat up for saying that.

When the boomers start cashing out it will be apparent to everyone
that most of what we think was a sound investment was crap, especially
the biggest ponzi of all, social security.

Do all of these rosy deficit projections take into account that SS is
upside down already, 4-6 years ahead of schedule (depending on which
projection you believed).
That fat surplus every president since LBJ used to balance the budget
is gone and we are putting general fund money into the social security
bucket now.

Well, SS does not at all fit the Ponzi model.
You actually know the accounting of it, and it was never an investment,
but a requirement.
The accounting of nothing, and I mean nothing, on Wall Street can be
looked upon with anything but skepticism.
And SS is not "upside down" or in "deficit" technically.
Good, honest accounting proves that.
That is why you know exactly what is in the trust fund, and are able
to make actual projections with it.
That the trust fund is now being tapped is due to the horrible economy
created by Wall Street and political malfeasance.
That political malfeasance was in allowing Wall Street to run wild, and
not addressing SS funding sooner.
But SS will be fixed soon enough by recovery of the economy, and changes
possibly increasing retirement age and most certainly contributions, as
was done back in the early 80's.
I suspect that the earning caps will be taken off, and perhaps means
testing instituted for benefits.
A lesser possibility is the payroll tax rate will be increased.
But any combination of those changes will easily push the solvency
projections ahead by decades.
Long after all the boomers are dead and not collecting.
Of course a robust economy is essential.
But the boomers dying off will be a great boon to the country's economy.
It is their demise that will help SS most.
Not being morbid here, just realistic.
In the larger scheme of things, actuarial tables don't lie.
And the SS administration knows them well.
"Despite our earthly pretensions, in the end we are mere statistics."
One of my customers, who was a statistician by profession, and a very
gentle and humble man who preferred inexpensive casuals said that to me
once, and it has stuck. He is gone now, and though my remembering his
words might seem to belie their meaning, I too will pass on, proving him
ultimately right.

Peter

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 18/04/2010 7:03 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:53:18 -0600,
wrote:

Actually, many are. It is my understanding that those who consistently
contributed to 401k equity funds starting +20 years ago are well ahead
of the game even now.

Quite true. When I add up over the years my contributions, it is much
less that current day value. And far surpasses bank saving interest rates.

I never really took my 401k seriously and only put money if it was a
100% employer match. Part of the problem is the overhead the fund
managers impose on you. It can easily be half of their return on
investment.
I bought a lot more IBM stock and with our option plan it was
definitely a better investment. There were times when we were buying
at half current market. To start with it was mine the day I bought it
and when I rolled some over into something else it was a capital gain,
not ordinary income.

Don't tell bpuharic, will wreck his day.

Have to like those capital gains.

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

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:03:39 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .

you're arrogant enough to hate the middle class that built this
country and to tell us how wall street needs our support

you guys dont know **** about ****



You are a trip.

One one hand, as a liberal who claims to hate free market concepts, you put
your faith in Wall Street to fund your retirement, apparently lost a bunch
and are now bitching about it.

Then, you accuse someone like me who has never trusted Wall Street, have
only a modest amount invested, never planned on Wall Street to fund my
retirement .... a "righty".

I was as middle class as you claim to be. Who's the dummy?


Eisboch


Another rhetorical question!
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:50:40 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Well, SS does not at all fit the Ponzi model.
You actually know the accounting of it, and it was never an investment,
but a requirement.
The accounting of nothing, and I mean nothing, on Wall Street can be
looked upon with anything but skepticism.
And SS is not "upside down" or in "deficit" technically.
Good, honest accounting proves that.
That is why you know exactly what is in the trust fund, and are able
to make actual projections with it.


Of course it fits the ponzi model. The people taking money out get it
directly from those new "investors" putting money in and when outgo
exceeds income the system quickly fails.

And how is that different than any transactional flow of money?
Are you saying that that selling shares in Ford is a Ponzi scheme?
As I said, the accounting is what determines whether or not a Ponzi fund
exists.
Can you tell me that the Ford balance sheets are honest, and that all
required government filings have real figures?

There is no real money in the trust fund. Every penny was borrowed and
spent since 1939 when the "trust fund act" was passed.

Reminiscent of a common home mortgage, isn't it.
Please don't say the U.S. government has no collateral.
The Treasury and IRS will instantly disagree.

The government now has to borrow that money again, from China or
Europe, to make its obligations. That is exactly what happened to
Madoff and Ponzi.

Actually Japan is our largest creditor now. China has sold off U.S
debt. And I noticed the sun rose yet once again this morning.
Who examined the books of Ponzi and Madoff?
Who was examining the books of AIG and Goldman Sachs?
The same people who examine the Ford books?
Though I am not an accountant, I do balance my sales at the register
each day, and know a bit about how fraud can be performed in many
flavors. Sadly, I have seen more than a few staff come and go due
to fraudulently reporting sales.
Not one has been criminally charged, but all have been required to make
restitution to avoid charges. Some have not done so for various reasons
and the losses were written off as theft.
In nearly all cases the fraud is quite easily detected, but there have
been a few sophisticated enough that it required a sharp auditor to
uncover their scheme.
I am speaking of shoe sales people here stealing at most a few thousand
dollars. It greatly saddens me when I think of it.
Can you imagine the schemes of Wall Street where books never get
examined by a good auditor?
I shudder at the very thought.

The government has been pay as you go since we came off the gold
standard, they have no vehicle to actually save money and whenever we
spend more than the revenue we take in, we either print money or
borrow money.
They have a creative name for printing money. They call it monetizing
the debt. The rest of us call it inflating the dollar.
The only good thing is China will not have to engage in a
thermonuclear war with us to get access to our resources. We will just
trade vast parts of the country for all the worthless paper we sold
them to try to maintain our credit..

And yet I can take that "worthless paper" called a dollar to the auto
dealership and purchase an automobile.
And when a customer pays with that "worthless paper" I have no qualms
about ringing up the sale for a good pair of shoe.
I have heard SS called a Ponzi scheme for many years, and predictions of
its failure for as many.
And yet it continues to pay retirees with money that can be spent to
purchase real goods and survive. And has never missed a payment.
Because it has accountability. I predict the negative cash flow into
the trust fund will be fixed soon by the revenue increases and outflow
reductions I mentioned, and you didn't address.
And here we are back where we began.
You calling it a Ponzi scheme, and me calling it an retirement insurance
plan that is well accounted and has never broken a promise.
Such is the nature of disagreement.
Of course the proof is always in the pudding.
If I hear SS misses a check that is promised, I will reconsider.
That is the acid test of a Ponzi scheme.
Late "investors" don't get back what was promised or suggested as a
return.
And where your argument falls flat.
You have only predictions, and ignore many realities regarding
accounting, politics and the social fabric of our country.
Anybody can predict anything.
I have myself predicted that the negative SS cash flow will be addressed
soon. I predict that President Obama can't avoid breaking his pledge to
not raise taxes on those with less than $250k income.
Simply raising the SS earnings cap will do that.
And I think instantly solve the SS cash flow problem, though I haven't
done that accounting, so I may be wrong.
But in my business I deal with realities, such as how a shoe will wear
in for a customer, and if I can perhaps recommend a style that I find
more suitable without causing offense.
Then there is keeping track of stock and dealing with the occasionally
unreasonable management.
I never have a defeatist attitude. It is 100% can do.
I can not tell you how many times a customer of mine has predicted "sky
is falling" scenarios.
It is the nature of some to do so.
It doesn't mean they are bad people and don't need a good new pair of
shoes. In the end, a comfortable pair of shoes has more value than
their dire predictions.
And that's what gets me up every morning, bright eyed and bushy tailed,
and off to the store to make as many customers as I can happy, with a
new pair of shoes for them, and a sale for me.
As a long-time customer once said to me, "Life should be measured by the
good you can do for others, while taking care of yourself so you can do
it with vigor."
She was a nice lady, favoring low pumps, and I miss her.
I am off shortly, and wish you as good a day as I intend mine to be.

Peter