|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
A bloody good idea... 98 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut this year thanks to Democratic legislation opposed by every single Republican. The teabaggers are still upset, of course, since this is somehow more evidence of "socialism". They are distraught that the richest 2 percent aren't getting their taxes cut as well. So here's my grand idea -- how about 100 percent of the teabaggers send their tax cut to the 2 percent richest Americans who didn't get one. Sure, Sarah Palin made over $12 million last year, but she didn't get a tax cut! So the teabaggers can helpfully send her their tax cut so that she can accumulate more wealth. And in Trickle-Down fantasy land, that means more jobs for everyone. Yeay! One helpful progressive even decided to put this form together to make it easier for them to forward their tax cuts to the richest of the rich. It's a great opportunity for them to put their words into action. http://learnandteachonline.com/givetotherich/give.htm From Kos. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:03:50 -0700, jps wrote:
A bloody good idea... 98 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut this year thanks to Democratic legislation opposed by every single Republican. The teabaggers are still upset, of course, since this is somehow more evidence of "socialism". They are distraught that the richest 2 percent aren't getting their taxes cut as well. So here's my grand idea -- how about 100 percent of the teabaggers send their tax cut to the 2 percent richest Americans who didn't get one. Sure, Sarah Palin made over $12 million last year, but she didn't get a tax cut! So the teabaggers can helpfully send her their tax cut so that she can accumulate more wealth. here PA afew years ago, people had the option of voting for either harris wofford for senate...he supported healthcare...or rick santorum...he supported the end of the estate tax that benefitted the richest 2 people (not 2%, the richest 2 PEOPLE) who died in PA every year. santorum won. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
"jps" wrote in message ... A bloody good idea... 98 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut this year thanks to Democratic legislation opposed by every single Republican. The teabaggers are still upset, of course, since this is somehow more evidence of "socialism". They are distraught that the richest 2 percent aren't getting their taxes cut as well. So here's my grand idea -- how about 100 percent of the teabaggers send their tax cut to the 2 percent richest Americans who didn't get one. Sure, Sarah Palin made over $12 million last year, but she didn't get a tax cut! So the teabaggers can helpfully send her their tax cut so that she can accumulate more wealth. And in Trickle-Down fantasy land, that means more jobs for everyone. Yeay! One helpful progressive even decided to put this form together to make it easier for them to forward their tax cuts to the richest of the rich. It's a great opportunity for them to put their words into action. http://learnandteachonline.com/givetotherich/give.htm From Kos. Sarah Palin made $12 million last year?? No wonder the US is going to hell in a handbasket! |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 15/04/2010 12:03 AM, jps wrote:
A bloody good idea... 98 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut this year thanks to Democratic legislation opposed by every single Republican. The teabaggers are still upset, of course, since this is somehow more evidence of "socialism". They are distraught that the richest 2 percent aren't getting their taxes cut as well. You have to look at democrats for teabaggers. As for tax cuts, two ways to look at it. Is Obama and democrats realizing Reaganomics was the right idea? Or is this more BS from the left? Gums a moving different than the pen. Obama style? -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:56:30 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 15/04/2010 12:03 AM, jps wrote: A bloody good idea... 98 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut this year thanks to Democratic legislation opposed by every single Republican. The teabaggers are still upset, of course, since this is somehow more evidence of "socialism". They are distraught that the richest 2 percent aren't getting their taxes cut as well. You have to look at democrats for teabaggers. As for tax cuts, two ways to look at it. Is Obama and democrats realizing Reaganomics was the right idea? Or is this more BS from the left? Gums a moving different than the pen. Obama style? gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years. how'd that work out? |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 15/04/2010 6:11 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:56:30 -0600, wrote: On 15/04/2010 12:03 AM, jps wrote: A bloody good idea... 98 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut this year thanks to Democratic legislation opposed by every single Republican. The teabaggers are still upset, of course, since this is somehow more evidence of "socialism". They are distraught that the richest 2 percent aren't getting their taxes cut as well. You have to look at democrats for teabaggers. As for tax cuts, two ways to look at it. Is Obama and democrats realizing Reaganomics was the right idea? Or is this more BS from the left? Gums a moving different than the pen. Obama style? gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years. how'd that work out? You are good proof why poor will remain poor. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:32:22 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 15/04/2010 6:11 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:56:30 -0600, wrote: gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years. how'd that work out? You are good proof why poor will remain poor. i ask again: how'd those tax cuts for the rich work out? notice all he does is bitch? |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... fOn Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:03:54 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:11:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote: gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years. We cut the tax for everyone. My taxes are about half what they were 20 years ago and we make more money. yeah. the middle class got a tax cut of about 25 bucks. I still have every 1040 since 1984, When I get a minute I will compile a list of gross vs tax and let's see what it looks like. I know I used to always say I expected to have that be about 20%. Now it is more like 10-11%. Anyone else want to play? when's the last time they cut middle class tax rates by 70%? My Federal tax rate this year was about 8%, I do not think it has ever been that low. Most of my income these days is dividends that get a preferred treatment as they have already been taxed. The other is a couple small retirements and Social Security. And that was with the standard deduction. Even with $7k of medical and dental, could not itemize. When I was in the semi-rich catagory for income they took about 30% federally. Plus 1.5% for medicare. During Clinton years, and the dot.com boom my options remitted 35% + 1.5% to the Fed's and 10% to the state of California. Seems as us "rich:" were paying more than our share. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:42:59 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . fOn Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:03:54 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:11:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote: gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years. We cut the tax for everyone. My taxes are about half what they were 20 years ago and we make more money. yeah. the middle class got a tax cut of about 25 bucks. I still have every 1040 since 1984, When I get a minute I will compile a list of gross vs tax and let's see what it looks like. I know I used to always say I expected to have that be about 20%. Now it is more like 10-11%. Anyone else want to play? when's the last time they cut middle class tax rates by 70%? My Federal tax rate this year was about 8% like i said: when's the last time they cut taxes for the middle class? you keep dodging the question |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/16/10 6:11 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:42:59 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... fOn Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:03:54 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:11:19 -0400, wrote: gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years. We cut the tax for everyone. My taxes are about half what they were 20 years ago and we make more money. yeah. the middle class got a tax cut of about 25 bucks. I still have every 1040 since 1984, When I get a minute I will compile a list of gross vs tax and let's see what it looks like. I know I used to always say I expected to have that be about 20%. Now it is more like 10-11%. Anyone else want to play? when's the last time they cut middle class tax rates by 70%? My Federal tax rate this year was about 8% like i said: when's the last time they cut taxes for the middle class? you keep dodging the question i've seen or heard three independent reports so far this week that indicate that for the middle classes, taxes are now the lowest they have been in 65 years, and for the wealthy, the lowest they've been in close to 40 years, because of obama's tax cuts. not surprising, the tea party protests are...a fraud. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/16/10 9:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... In , says... On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:11:19 -0400, wrote: gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years. We cut the tax for everyone. My taxes are about half what they were 20 years ago and we make more money. I still have every 1040 since 1984, When I get a minute I will compile a list of gross vs tax and let's see what it looks like. I know I used to always say I expected to have that be about 20%. Now it is more like 10-11%. Anyone else want to play? As I've said before, fed income tax doesn't tell the story, nor does total tax burden, which is the only way to count taxes. Disposable income is what counts. And is also what drives the economy. Taxes are just a political talking point when disposable income isn't included in the discussion. The left is interested in equalizing disposable income across the spectrum of "workers." The easiest way to do this is through tax policy. Another faux news absurdity. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/16/10 3:04 PM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:38:07 -0400, wrote: i've seen or heard three independent reports so far this week that indicate that for the middle classes, taxes are now the lowest they have been in 65 years, and for the wealthy, the lowest they've been in close to 40 years, because of obama's tax cuts. not surprising, the tea party protests are...a fraud. I agree and I am one of the conservative folks here. If tea party people want to attack the deficit they need to talk about raising taxes. In the out years when our kids will be shouldering the debt burden there will not be enough discretionary spending to touch the deficit if we cut it all. At some point we are really going to have to throw SS and Medicare under the bus. Nobody is ever going to do that. They will simply "monetize" the debt and inflate our way out. Sure you will still get your $1700 check from SS but $100 won't cover an early bird dinner at the Perkins. All entitlements at the federal level should be thrown under the bus. Let the states do entitlements and see how long they last. What we need is a return to common sense and the teaching of liberty to our children. Ahhh...Bertie's been collecting teabagger sound bits to repost here. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:38:07 -0400, hk
wrote: On 4/16/10 6:11 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:42:59 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: when's the last time they cut middle class tax rates by 70%? My Federal tax rate this year was about 8% like i said: when's the last time they cut taxes for the middle class? you keep dodging the question i've seen or heard three independent reports so far this week that indicate that for the middle classes, taxes are now the lowest they have been in 65 years, and for the wealthy, the lowest they've been in close to 40 years, because of obama's tax cuts. not surprising, the tea party protests are...a fraud. yep. absolutely true. obama has done what the GOP said would cause disaster...cut middle class taxes |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:59:23 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:16:18 -0400, bpuharic wrote: Were they paying 150% of the taxes before? (do the math to see the absurdity of your statement). I agree they may have had their taxes cut, we all did, but alleging 70% is ridiculous. when reagan took office capital gains tax was 40%. today it's 15%. sorry...that's only 56% \ Those pesky facts again! The only thing wrong with that is the cap gains rate was actually dropped to 28% in the CARTER administration. (1979-80) It was 28% when Reagan left office. The Clinton administration dropped it to 20% and Bush dropped it to 15. There was a sweet deal during the Reagan administration where 60% were excluded but that went away. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf let's look at the record a bit more closely, shall we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986 in 1986, while reagan was president: William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, summarizes the policy as "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income ---- the bill was cosponsored by liberal democrats bill bradely and dick gephardt, BUT: Domestic policy initiatives that Bradley led or was associated with included: federal budget reform to reduce the deficit, which included, in 1981, supporting Reagan's spending cuts but opposing his parallel tax cut package, one of only three senators to take this position when's the last time your taxes were cut 55%? When they cut the capital gains tax. exactly my point. you just made my case. Some of us actually have investments. and some of us work for a living. we get paychecks, not dividend checks |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:44:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
The left is interested in equalizing disposable income across the spectrum of "workers." The easiest way to do this is through tax policy. and the right wants to drive the GINI coefficient to 1 in the US. we have the highest GINI coefficient of any industrialized country. if the 'left' wants to equalize income, there's a reason for this: US inocme is VERY inequitably distributed. there's a reason the rich had a 300% increase in their income, while the middle class had 0 in the past 10 years |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:00:33 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:57:11 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:41:17 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:11:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote: like i said: when's the last time they cut taxes for the middle class? When? During the GW Bush administration. thanks to obama. and those are targeted to specific groups...like people with children. That cut from $8,093 to $6,661 happened during the Bush administration. The drop from $9,575 to $8,093 happened during the Clinton administration. Your taxes have been cut steadily for 20 years. really? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/obama...ory?id=9659186 The Obama administration's new middle class initiatives will put more money into the pockets of many Americans, but will it bolster the flagging economy? Reactions to the plan, unveiled Monday as part of a forthcoming report by the administration's Task Force on the Middle Class, have largely split among ideological lines. For Working Parents: Expanding Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit for Middle Class Families The saver's tax credit helps Americans save for retirement by providing a tax credit to match their own retirement savings up to a certain amount http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0911401420100410 "So far, Americans who have filed their taxes have discovered that the average refund is up nearly 10 percent this year -- to an all-time high of about $3,000," he said. So give it a rest about the damned middle class tax cut. only when we get a 45% tax cut like the wealthy have. give it a rest about how rough the rich have it. Make some investments and you can enjoy that too. i work for a living. if i made enough money to invest i wouldnt work. of course you rich guys disdain work, which is why you have no use for 100,000,000 working americans |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:59:11 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:15:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:00:33 -0400, wrote: Your taxes have been cut steadily for 20 years. really? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/obama...ory?id=9659186 The Obama administration's new middle class initiatives will put more money into the pockets of many Americans, but will it bolster the flagging economy That is really just more borrowing against our kid's futures. We only appropriate about 60 cents of every federal dollar we spend. The rest is borrowed. as opposed to the 25% unemployment you think should be the policy? what would happen to our kids if they were out on the street? typical right wing. bitching. no solutions. i work for a living. if i made enough money to invest i wouldnt work. of course you rich guys disdain work, which is why you have no use for 100,000,000 working americans Yup my $24,000 pension puts me up there with Bill Gates. We rich *******s really stick it to you guys. The reason I live a good live is I paid myself first. I saved and invested, even back when my tax rate was over 20%. The typical middle class tax rate is far less than 10% now if I take your number of 100,000,000 people to define them. and 50% of americans have less than 10,000 in their 401k's. do you hate them all? |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:08:47 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:16:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:07:25 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:12:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote: and some of us work for a living. we get paychecks, not dividend checks You will always work for someone too .... Pity. is there any more proof of how deeply the right hates the middle class than a statement like this? honorable, decent work, derided and disdained by america's right wing elites. I have always been a working class guy, probably never making more money than you make now but evidently I spent a lot less than you.. which has zip to do with the fact you think anybody who works for a living is a loser If you really think you don't have to save for your future and that some benevolent younger generation will spring to your defense you have an ugly surprise coming. i DID save for my future you MORON WALL STREET STOLE IT!!! where the **** have you been for the last 2 years you blithering IDIOT?? The Gen Xers and younger are going to throw granny under the bus when they finally decide to show up at the ballot box. It will happen when it occurs to them that we squandered their future, cutting our taxes to the bone and borrowing another 66% of what we were willing to tax ourselves to maintain our "entitlements" while still voting ourselves new ones. more bull****. more drivel WALL STREET BLEW OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE. NOT THE MIDDLE CLASS you just LOVE wall street. not ONCE have you said ANYHTHING about the thieves of wall street ALL of your posts are about what LOSERS the middle class is. ALL of them are about how the middle class deserves nothing and how the rich are the saviours of mankind... |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:47:20 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:51:11 -0400, bpuharic wrote: i DID save for my future you MORON WALL STREET STOLE IT!!! where the **** have you been for the last 2 years you blithering IDIOT?? I have been watching my stocks shoot up like they did in the 90s. What were you doing? Watching a stupid money manager ride the market to the bottom with a buy and hold philosophy? You seem to be the only one here who's 401k hasn't recovered. Who is the idiot here? That was a rhetorical question, right? -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:59:11 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:15:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:00:33 -0400, wrote: Your taxes have been cut steadily for 20 years. really? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/obama...ory?id=9659186 The Obama administration's new middle class initiatives will put more money into the pockets of many Americans, but will it bolster the flagging economy That is really just more borrowing against our kid's futures. We only appropriate about 60 cents of every federal dollar we spend. The rest is borrowed. as opposed to the 25% unemployment you think should be the policy? what would happen to our kids if they were out on the street? typical right wing. bitching. no solutions. i work for a living. if i made enough money to invest i wouldnt work. of course you rich guys disdain work, which is why you have no use for 100,000,000 working americans Yup my $24,000 pension puts me up there with Bill Gates. We rich *******s really stick it to you guys. The reason I live a good live is I paid myself first. I saved and invested, even back when my tax rate was over 20%. The typical middle class tax rate is far less than 10% now if I take your number of 100,000,000 people to define them. and 50% of americans have less than 10,000 in their 401k's. do you hate them all? Of those 50%, how many lease a nice car, live in a home that is a maximum mortgage or rent a nice place? I made good money, drove a Chevrolet, Ford, VW, and Toyota and Chevy LUV pickup over the years. As Greg states. Pay yourself first. We took resonable vacations with the kids and even after they left home. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:34:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:59:11 -0400, wrote: The reason I live a good live is I paid myself first. I saved and invested, even back when my tax rate was over 20%. The typical middle class tax rate is far less than 10% now if I take your number of 100,000,000 people to define them. and 50% of americans have less than 10,000 in their 401k's. do you hate them all? Of those 50%, how many lease a nice car, live in a home that is a maximum mortgage or rent a nice place? I made good money, drove a Chevrolet, Ford, VW, and Toyota and Chevy LUV pickup over the years. As Greg states. Pay yourself first. We took resonable vacations with the kids and even after they left home. it's funny...you begrudge hard working middle class americans the fruit of their labor americans are the hardest working people in the western world. we work 200 hours more than europeans and japanese. we have marginal health insurance. no vacations. no retirement. and the right wing says we're not working hard enough to make sure wall street stays rich |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
|
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:07:36 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:36:21 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:35:49 -0400, wrote: If your 401k manager's head was a quarter inch out of his ass he knew the market was crashing soon by 4q 2006 bull****. no one saw it save folks like roubini, etc. hell, t hey just indicted goldman sachs for fraud because they defrauded some of the world's most sophisticated investors. You are talking about the phony derivatives scams, the market would have crashed without that, it just wouldn't have needed the TARP to fix it. 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? 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?? you right wingers ALWAYS want to blame middle class america for wall street's lies and deceptions No I wouldn't blame anyone but myself for not seeing this crash coming. gee. and if you come home one day and find your house burglarized, do you blame yourself? you're gonna die someday. you gonna blame yourself? that's the problem with the right. they never blame criminals...IF the crooks are rich |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
"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. 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 |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/18/10 11:25 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 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. -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
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. -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
"hk" wrote in message m... On 4/18/10 11:25 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 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. Sorry but I can't agree totally to that. There certainly have been some companies managed by greed. 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. 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. I based my risk of investment on that knowledge. They don't make major headlines, aren't involved in shareholder fraud lawsuits, or otherwise show up much on the radar screen. They are all well managed, successful without being greedy and have shown an ability to adapt to changing times and markets. I've held them for many years. Despite the wild swings in the economy and crash of 2008, the modest investments I made have steadily grown 5 to 6 times or more. 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. I can't say that for the brokerage houses that manage investments via 401K contributions or direct investments, but I am not qualified to judge. I've never used one. Don't trust them. Eisboch |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
On 4/18/10 12:06 PM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message m... On 4/18/10 11:25 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 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. Sorry but I can't agree totally to that. There certainly have been some companies managed by greed. 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. 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. I based my risk of investment on that knowledge. They don't make major headlines, aren't involved in shareholder fraud lawsuits, or otherwise show up much on the radar screen. They are all well managed, successful without being greedy and have shown an ability to adapt to changing times and markets. I've held them for many years. Despite the wild swings in the economy and crash of 2008, the modest investments I made have steadily grown 5 to 6 times or more. 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. I can't say that for the brokerage houses that manage investments via 401K contributions or direct investments, but I am not qualified to judge. I've never used one. Don't trust them. Eisboch Ahhh. Well, I got entirely out of the market some years ago, but I've crept back in a little. Bought some Apple stock last year at about $130 or so, and it is doing ok. -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
In article ,
says... On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:22:31 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:07:36 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:36:21 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:35:49 -0400, wrote: If your 401k manager's head was a quarter inch out of his ass he knew the market was crashing soon by 4q 2006 bull****. no one saw it save folks like roubini, etc. hell, t hey just indicted goldman sachs for fraud because they defrauded some of the world's most sophisticated investors. You are talking about the phony derivatives scams, the market would have crashed without that, it just wouldn't have needed the TARP to fix it. 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. 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. If you can find things I wrote in 2004 you will see I saw it coming. The prices in housing were simply unsustainable. you right wingers ALWAYS want to blame middle class america for wall street's lies and deceptions No I wouldn't blame anyone but myself for not seeing this crash coming. gee. and if you come home one day and find your house burglarized, do you blame yourself? you're gonna die someday. you gonna blame yourself? 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. If you are asking what I think should happen to the people who caused this, throw them in jail. Obama's answer HIRE THEM as his advisors.! I am looking at Geithner on TV pontificating about outlawing things he advocated when he was in charge of the NY Fed and I should be watching him in an orange jumpsuit pickling up trash on the highway. I try to be as objective as possible about political matters, so it not with any malice that I suggest a corollary to having people such as Geithner and Summers in such high positions in the Obama administration is that of Werner von Braun as the head of the U.S. space program. The U.S. employed a number of ex-Nazis after WWII, for what I believe to be cynical motives. Personally, I believe as you do, that hanging them would have been the better option. I do believe we can muddle through challenges without the aid of the black hearted. It is sad that both political parties support these people who have shown such bad judgment in the recent past. Is it any wonder that the population is disturbed? Or are they? 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. It is a strange world. I sometimes get a customer who absolutely insists on a smaller shoe than is healthy for her. She will jam her feet into those shoes. I will not assist in this, BTW, and do my best to warn her off. But in the end, I can not refuse to sell her the shoes. It is the most disheartening aspect of my job, and I am only saddened more by learning of the death of one of my long-time customers. 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. I alway demur from financial discussions, but customers will talk. Peter |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com