OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security. Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a
spending and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous administration".
Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job prospects?
Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the Red
Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for it.


Yes, me and my cat. My cat is smarter than you... by a long shot. Well, you
don't know very much. That's been established.

I don't dumpster dive, but I think I saw you doing that last week? You were
the scruffy looking guy who was mumbling to himself.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security. Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a
spending and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous administration".
Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job
prospects? Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the Red
Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for it.

Sounds like you're trying to beat her down on her prices.
Just tell her what you need and I'm sure she'll do something for you.

He couldn't afford what I sell. I sell high-end used clothing. Occasionally
we get a throw-away.. damage that wasn't noticed. I'd be happy to send those
to him... they are, after all, mostly clothes for women.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:25 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 12:09 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the
cost of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending
and tax give-away for 7 years.

Ah, delerious denialism... Just a paracite. So how does it feel to be
a paracite?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

So, Bush did a good job? You're really an idiot!

It's spelled parasite not paracite. IDIOT

See, progress. You did something useful today besides whale away like a
stuck constipated pig.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

I'm glad I can help with your continuing education. Sounds like you're the
constipated one, but leave the pig out of it.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 12:09 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending
and tax give-away for 7 years.

Ah, delerious denialism... Just a paracite. So how does it feel to be
a paracite?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

So, Bush did a good job? You're really an idiot!

It's spelled parasite not paracite. IDIOT


Hold that thought. There's some other spelling errors, nearby, you need to
tag with your "IDIOT" logo.


Why not just add the word to all of your posts. It'll save me some time, and
self-identification is very in now.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:09:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending and
tax give-away for 7 years.

Privatizing SS would actually take money away from the government.
Taxing the hell out of your 401k gives the government money.

Privatizing SS would mostly take money away from people. Umm... not sure
what you mean about taxing the 401ks... you mean when you withdraw them?

The real issue is, would your money have done better in a decent
portfolio of investments over 40 years, than it would in a PAID FOR
social security plan. I understand SS is a great deal but it is
unsustainable and far more generous for the amount invested because
politicians sold out our kids to the voters.(see Tyler). Unfortunately
I still say the whole idea of 62 year old retirees is unsustainable.
The Clinton era thinking that said people should be downsized into
company pension programs at 50 pretty much killed the private pension
system.

It is sustainable with some proper management. There's time to fix the
problems. The portfolio of which you speak might or might not work, but it
requires a great deal of effort from people who in many cases don't have the
time, inclination, or education to do it right.

Most people can work past 62, and perhaps the min. age should be raised, but
some would raise it to 90. As I said, there's plenty of time to fix SS, so
there's no need to jump off a cliff.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:11:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

The first is just politically impossible. The second isn't a bad idea, but
it is also highly unlikely. It goes right back to if someone has it, they
don't want to give it up. How do you plan on forcing people to give up
these
deductions?


Tyler again. As long as people get to vote for the taxes they pay they
will always vote themselves a "generous benefit"

So, I ask again, what's your solution? Take away their ability to vote??

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama) wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.


They'll remember you as a racist.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability
as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to
the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Vote for Palin. Oh wait, you can't vote...

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability
as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes
100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to
the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy
is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate
a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

~~ Snerk ~~
You two trying out an Abbott & Costello routine? Don't quit your day
jobs.

Amazingly good job with it too!

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 3:39 PM, YukonBound wrote:


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax
deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes
100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys
to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US
economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the
expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances
than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to
graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get
to do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

~~ Snerk ~~
You two trying out an Abbott & Costello routine? Don't quit your day
jobs.

Nope, three stooges and a drunken ally cat.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Apparently, you're one of the stooges. LOL!!!