|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:02:15 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: 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. -- I am really talking about the emotion of the market, not mine. Some say I have none. I won't buy a stock based on emotion alone but if I think one I have is about to be impacted by irrational emotions I will dump it. I will also buy a good company that has been beaten down by an emotional response. MO and HAL are two examples. After the settlements in the tobacco cases MO was clobbered but when it was apparent people were still going to smoke it went nuts. HAL got beaten down in the 2000 election but when Bush attacked Iraq I knew Haliburton was the only company that could really do logistical support and it was a nice run up. This was the second time HAL made me a lot of money. I remember in 2002 when I bought MO. Someone here said that was a bad investment, always going down, etc. Wish all my investments were that bad. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
"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: 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 were not saving in your 401K! You were buying the alternative to a defined benefit pension. Saving is living below your means and taking part of each weeks paycheck and putting it away for the future. 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, or Republicans or Wingers for you being broke. And you either need to get another job or work smarter if you work 60 hours a week to get your job done. Or ask for a raise of the at least the amount a 2nd engineer would make in straight salary for your company. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:30:34 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:28:22 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: and you? you pimp for these thieves, spouting your hatred for those who built this county, while telling us how wonderful the whores of wall street are You will die broke. no ****. and you? your attitude is 'let them eat cake'. i may die broke but you'll commit suicide. because you already have. You might as well commit suicide. You are mentally dead already. really? TEABAGGERS, HERE I COME!!! |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
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 |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
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 |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
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%
|
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. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:43:40 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote: In article , 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. right now the GOP is fighting this tooth and nail. 2 GOP senators just met behind closed doors with 25 members of wall street to lay out a strategy. one of NH's senators said derivatives must remain unregulated because, if they aren't, the market would go to singapore. 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. you're probably right... |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:09:51 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . 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 it's hard to tell what dodd believes unless you know what day of the week it is. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/20/10 6:44 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:18:11 -0600, 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. I long ago lost track of Canuck's nationality because of his convoluted posts. He's a Canadian who used to work in the United States, but can't any longer? Is that it? So, he's not a U.S. citizen? So why does he spend 99% of his time here whining about U.S. policies? -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/20/10 6:52 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:09:51 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... 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 it's hard to tell what dodd believes unless you know what day of the week it is. The real issue is opposition by the GOP to any sort of real controls over bank, insurance company, and wall street investment firms. A tertiary issue is whether "exchanges" should even be owned by private sector interests. I think not. They've proven themselves to be corrupt over and over and over. Further, for the most part, our regulatory agencies haven't ever had the manpower to properly police the exchanges or their clients, and the big accounting firms don't adequately police their publicly traded clients, either. There are too many opportunities for scams in big-time investing, and too many immoral execs standing in line to take advantage of the opportunities. -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:52:44 -0400, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:09:51 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. 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 it's hard to tell what dodd believes unless you know what day of the week it is. He appears to be among the least honest of Senators, who as a group, I am sad to say, I can put no trust in. With a few exceptions among them, as a whole they remind me of a time a group of carnival barkers who were attending a nearby convention entered my store just before closing one evening. There were at least a dozen of them. One of them had scuffed his patent leather shoe, and purchased a black liquid polish with applicator. I offered him a soft tissue and suggested he go to the Dollar store next door and buy a small bottle of mineral oil to remove the scuff, but he actually took umbrage at this, and said, "Who are you to tell me how to take care of my shoes?" I noted during this interchange that he had used liquid polish on his shoe previously. They looked terrible. I held my tongue throughout, not wanting a scene in the store. The entire group sported pompaded hair and strong colognes. All were spiffily dressed, if a bit loudly on ties, and I was surprised they wore such decent suits. That I will admit. I suspect a woman was behind their clothing selection. I heard enough of their conversation to know they were headed to a nearby "Gentlemen's Club" which features topless and lap dancing. The stench from their colognes lingered in the store for 3 days. Since then when I see Senators in a group, that evening is what comes to mind. False people, posturing, milling about, speaking inanities, and looking for an angle. The one with the scuffed shoe actually tried to bargain down the $1.39 price of the shoe polish by digging through the rack until he found a package with a small nick in the label, and claimied it was damaged goods. That didn't work with me, as it would be unethical. The inanities spoken by them are all the worse being that one half of them are lies, and the other half more lies to justify the first lie. Very sad really, that this sort of person should represent us in Congress. Dodd seems to fit in very well with them. What is even more sad is this sort of dishonesty seems to be institutional and difficult to change. But I do see more transparency into their conduct then ever before. That is why Dodd had to throw in the towel. Caught lying. We can only hope that all their scheming is brought to the light of day. Though I am no particular fan of the Tea Party, what they are doing may at least increase the demand for truth in politics. The only powerful response to lies is truth. So many of these politicians are weasels sneaking around looking for something to pilfer, and making them stand up straight and talk straight with the truth can only be good. As an example I previously mentioned the contentious $50 billion fund in the financial reform bill was inserted there Republicans. That was from a report that stated Dodd and Warner said that. Yet I don't see the Democrats tossing that allegation back. Which makes me wonder what the real truth of that is. Very sad that the truth is so difficult to find, and that I may have been enlisted into the Liars Club when I posted that. If so, I apologize. Okay, enough musing. I'm off to sell some shoes. And thinking of that, I am happy again, and rarin to go. Peter |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Apr 20, 8:09*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:52:44 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:09:51 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. 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...dodds-wife-and.... it's hard to tell what dodd believes unless you know what day of the week it is. He appears to be among the least honest of Senators, who as a group, I am sad to say, I can put no trust in. With a few exceptions among them, as a whole they remind me of a time a group of carnival barkers who were attending a nearby convention entered my store just before closing one evening. There were at least a dozen of them. One of them had scuffed his patent leather shoe, and purchased a black liquid polish with applicator. I offered him a soft tissue and suggested he go to the Dollar store next door and buy a small bottle of mineral oil to remove the scuff, but he actually took umbrage at this, and said, "Who are you to tell me how to take care of my shoes?" I noted during this interchange that he had used liquid polish on his shoe previously. *They looked terrible. I held my tongue throughout, not wanting a scene in the store. The entire group sported pompaded hair and strong colognes. All were spiffily dressed, if a bit loudly on ties, and I was surprised they *wore such decent suits. *That I will admit. I suspect a woman was behind their clothing selection. I heard enough of their conversation to know they were headed to a nearby "Gentlemen's Club" which features topless and lap dancing. The stench from their colognes lingered in the store for 3 days. Since then when I see Senators in a group, that evening is what comes to mind. False people, posturing, milling about, speaking inanities, and looking for an angle. The one with the scuffed shoe actually tried to bargain down the $1.39 price of the shoe polish by digging through the rack until he found a package with a small nick in the label, and claimied it was damaged goods. That didn't work with me, as it would be unethical. The inanities spoken by them are all the worse being that one half of them are lies, and the other half more lies to justify the first lie. Very sad really, that this sort of person should represent us in Congress. Dodd seems to fit in very well with them. What is even more sad is this sort of dishonesty seems to be institutional and difficult to change. But I do see more transparency into their conduct then ever before. That is why Dodd had to throw in the towel. *Caught lying. We can only hope that all their scheming is brought to the light of day. Though I am no particular fan of the Tea Party, what they are doing may at least increase the demand for truth in politics. The only powerful response to lies is truth. So many of these politicians are weasels sneaking around looking for something to pilfer, and making them stand up straight and talk straight with the truth can only be good. As an example I previously mentioned the contentious $50 billion fund in the financial reform bill was inserted there *Republicans. That was from a report that stated Dodd and Warner said that. Yet I don't see the Democrats tossing that allegation back. Which makes me wonder what the real truth of that is. Very sad that the truth is so difficult to find, and that I may have been enlisted into the Liars Club when I posted that. If so, I apologize. Okay, enough musing. *I'm off to sell some shoes. And thinking of that, I am happy again, and rarin to go. Peter- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Great to see you back, Vic. I was just thinking about you. The wife and I were in Edwardsville last week. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: Great to see you back, Vic. I was just thinking about you. The wife and I were in Edwardsville last week. I drop in here now and then. Looks like nothing has changed much. Haven't been down there since I last talked to you, but I have your number and plan to give you a call when I do. I want to see that pontoon boat. --Vic. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/20/10 11:52 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:43:43 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:42:40 -0400, 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? the reason the yuan isn't getting cheaper is it cant it's pegged to the dollar. It isn't really pegged to anything, that is one of our complaints. I agree we are their biggest market so their prosperity is somewhat pegged to ours but they also have a much higher tolerance to financial pain. At some point, as a nation, we're going to have to closely examine the "system" we have in "prosperity," since what we have now no longer really serves the middle class or those trying to claw their way into it. -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/20/10 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:47:44 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:17:38 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:43:40 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)" l. If Obama uses the same logic he used on health care he will have wall street lobbyists writing the deregulation bill. except it was the GOP that just met behind closed doors with 25 representatives from wall street. they also discussed how the GOP needs campaign money strange coincidence Wall street will still be writing this bill, no matter which side it comes from. Obama's people are wall street insiders too. 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 yep. it is a 'strange' turnaround, isnt it? He is in danger of losing his seat. Dodd is walking the tight rope of trying to look like a populist and still being able to collect insurance/bank money in his campaign war chest. The fact remains that running for office is still a billion dollar game and rich people are the only ones with the money to play it effectively. Dodd already has announced he is not running for re-election. -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
OT investments
wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:14:28 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: 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. It is a significant number between 63 and 64 and worth waiting a few months for if it is not pro rated per month. I guess I could call SSA but I hate being on hold for hours and I wouldn't bet the first person answering the phone would have the right answer. It is like calling the IRS. I guess I will poke around the web site a little more. Get an appointment. And they were easy to deal with when I went there. |
OT investments
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:14:28 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: 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. It is a significant number between 63 and 64 and worth waiting a few months for if it is not pro rated per month. I guess I could call SSA but I hate being on hold for hours and I wouldn't bet the first person answering the phone would have the right answer. It is like calling the IRS. I guess I will poke around the web site a little more. Get an appointment. And they were easy to deal with when I went there. Shocking! A gov't agency that works. News at 11! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:00:51 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:47:44 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:17:38 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:43:40 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)" l. If Obama uses the same logic he used on health care he will have wall street lobbyists writing the deregulation bill. except it was the GOP that just met behind closed doors with 25 representatives from wall street. they also discussed how the GOP needs campaign money strange coincidence Wall street will still be writing this bill, no matter which side it comes from. Obama's people are wall street insiders too. well that depends. the one thing the political class fears more than wall street is losing an election. blanche lincoln has propose a bill regulates derivatives so much that today the US chamber of congress flew 25 corporate leaders to washington to meet with the GOP to discuss how to defeat it. 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 yep. it is a 'strange' turnaround, isnt it? He is in danger of losing his seat. Dodd is walking the tight rope of trying to look like a populist and still being able to collect insurance/bank money in his campaign war chest. The fact remains that running for office is still a billion dollar game and rich people are the only ones with the money to play it effectively. yep. and at this point there's no way out. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:52:02 -0400, hk
wrote: On 4/20/10 6:52 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:09:51 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: The real issue is opposition by the GOP to any sort of real controls over bank, insurance company yep. today the US chamber of commerce flew 25 CEO's to washington, at the behest of investment bankers, to tell the GOP to defeat blanche lincoln's bill to regulate derivatives. 25 rich guys will get more of a hearing from the GOP than 100,000,000 americans. just look at what jim bunning did when unemployment funds were running out. he gave the finger to the middle class |
OT investments
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:14:28 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message m... 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. It is a significant number between 63 and 64 and worth waiting a few months for if it is not pro rated per month. I guess I could call SSA but I hate being on hold for hours and I wouldn't bet the first person answering the phone would have the right answer. It is like calling the IRS. I guess I will poke around the web site a little more. Get an appointment. And they were easy to deal with when I went there. Shocking! A gov't agency that works. News at 11! -- Nom=de=Plume Actually. sort of. They wanted to see my DD-214. Which is a different number from the USAF. Still do not know why, as I did not retire from the air force. Did my stint and got out. But those without appointments made it look like the DMV. |
OT investments
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:14:28 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message om... 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. It is a significant number between 63 and 64 and worth waiting a few months for if it is not pro rated per month. I guess I could call SSA but I hate being on hold for hours and I wouldn't bet the first person answering the phone would have the right answer. It is like calling the IRS. I guess I will poke around the web site a little more. Get an appointment. And they were easy to deal with when I went there. Shocking! A gov't agency that works. News at 11! -- Nom=de=Plume Actually. sort of. They wanted to see my DD-214. Which is a different number from the USAF. Still do not know why, as I did not retire from the air force. Did my stint and got out. But those without appointments made it look like the DMV. Don't know if you know it, but the DMV makes appointments. I've never had to wait more than 15 minutes. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com