On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:55:45 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 22/07/2010 10:32 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:39 -0600,
wrote:

gee. that biggest spenders in history are conservatives.


Wrong, Obama in less than two years has overspent Bush in 8 year buy
THREE times the amount.

uh no. obama's 1st year in office had a budget designed by george
bush. bush increased the deficit to 9% of GDP. so bush is the big
spender


I suggest you read up on 1932, the second dip, the big second dip after
governmen then tried to buy its way out of debt.

yeah. let me know how letting the banks fail worked out, OK?


I figure this winter is going to be a cold one for many.

of course, the american right will ensure the rich do just fine

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:43:12 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:06:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:


which is irrelevant to 100M americans trying to make a living and
being wrecked by wall street

My wife only
worked part time while the girls were in college. She was a stay at home
mom when they were in primary schools. 100's of thousands can not make
mortgage payments because they bought more house than they could afford!

yeah. who needs food and clothing for the kids! let 'em starve! if
they're not rich, screw 'em


Not irrelevant to your rants. You cry poor and no 401k and not savings.
You have lived way beyond your means, to be 55 and not have much other than
a 31 year old boat.

i'm not 100M americans who are in the same boat. you right wingers
hate the middle class so jus ignore EVERYONE in the middle class is
having the same problems

admitting this would blow your fuses. so you just ignore it

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:55:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:04:43 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

yeah i've been doing the minimum for awhile. lots of managers
recommend putting 10-20% in but no one has that kind of money and it's
nonsense to do that when it's far from certain wall street has a clue
about anything

Have you ever thought of putting money into something other than your
401k? You could have a Roth that is tax free when you take it out.
Of course you could directly invest and be one of those "rich
*******s" who exploit the capital gains laws.

yeah. money markets or T bills at 1%. thatll do me alot of good. in
10 years 1000 dollars will be worth 1100.

great.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:33:43 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote:


you know **** about business. if what you say is true, then why is the
economy a disaster?

answer: because too many people believe as you do.



I actually feel badly for you. You despise wall street and big business
yet, up until the meltdown, you were happy to rely on them to grow your
money into a nice retirement nest egg with no effort on your part. When
the bottom fell out you can't accept any responsibility. So, you blame
everyone else.

now let me see. i dont work on wall street. i didnt have any CDO's. i
had no toxic assets. i'm middle class and get w2 wages

so OF COURSE it's my fault!! the CDO's went from 1 trillion in 97 to
62 trillion in 2007

but it's the middle class's fault, you see...just...well, just
because if it ISNT then we have to blame white guys and rich guys. and
we CANT do that!!


Typical liberal.

I don't feel sorry for you. You were stupid. I feel for the people trying
to scratch out a living, providing for their families who don't have an
extra nickel to invest in wall street.

no you don't. they're called middle class. and you just said they're
lazy and stupid

typical right whiner

They deserve help.

CC

On 22/07/2010 11:06 AM, Califbill wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message


there's a reason CDO's went from 1 trillion in 97 to SIXTY TWO
TRILLION in 2007

greed of the rich. it had NOTHING to do with the middle class


you dont know **** about anything, let alone the middle class

I may be dumb, but not anywhere as dumb as you. I have bought several
houses, I own my house.

no one cares. you're not the entire middle class. you simply think
you're rich so it MUST be god on your side

go ahead. sell that attitude to the millions who cant make mortgage
payments, or lose their jobs.

I am not rich. A long ways from rich. I do not own a G5 airplane, or a
mega yacht. Comfortable, but that is because I lived on 75% of my income
and saved the rest. You should be in the lower rich or the super
comfortable range. engineer and wife who is an attorney. My wife only
worked part time while the girls were in college. She was a stay at home
mom when they were in primary schools. 100's of thousands can not make
mortgage payments because they bought more house than they could afford!

You are deemed "rich" but the left because you did things right.

To the left, you should be 60 years old and in debt up to your butt. Or
destitute.

Since you wisely provided for yorself, you are deemed rich.

Sort of like drag everyone down to their wasteful practices.
--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

On 22/07/2010 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:07:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:29:12 -0400, wrote:

You keep talking about unions, form one.

in the US you can't form a union without getting fired.

You missed the whole concept of unions. The point used to be that the
workers were so important to the operation that you couldn't fire them
all. Are you saying that you are so expendable that if your whole
office walked out, the company could replace you immediately?
We may be touching on why you haven't had a raise in 30 years.

I know the world thinks unions are all just take but I grew up around
the people who built the Teamsters union (yes I knew Hoffa) and there
was a lot of pain in that process.
BTW the biggest union busters in government were democrats.
I also understand in a NAFTA/GATT world, unions are not really going
to work until you can organize China, India, Mexico and Vietnam. It is
not an American problem.

Thanks for the perspective.


It was an education. I went to several Joint Council 65 summer outings
at the Lake of the Ozarks. Seeing these old guys who were building a
union during a depression talk about "old times" will really give you
perspective. That was when unions actually dealt with employer abuses
of the employees instead of the other way around.

Today you have to worry about union abuses to the employee.

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

On 22/07/2010 8:12 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:43:12 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:06:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:


which is irrelevant to 100M americans trying to make a living and
being wrecked by wall street

My wife only
worked part time while the girls were in college. She was a stay at home
mom when they were in primary schools. 100's of thousands can not make
mortgage payments because they bought more house than they could afford!

yeah. who needs food and clothing for the kids! let 'em starve! if
they're not rich, screw 'em


Not irrelevant to your rants. You cry poor and no 401k and not savings.
You have lived way beyond your means, to be 55 and not have much other than
a 31 year old boat.

i'm not 100M americans who are in the same boat. you right wingers
hate the middle class so jus ignore EVERYONE in the middle class is
having the same problems

admitting this would blow your fuses. so you just ignore it

You are destined to be poor and certainly hopelessly stupid.

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

On 22/07/2010 3:07 PM, Jim wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message


Bad advice. With catch-up he can put $22k this year in the 401k.
He should be maxing that to shelter it from taxes.

Nope. Right now, taxes are low, so it's doubtful that a it'll push him
into a higher bracket, and even if it does, you're talking about a
couple of percent. The future is much more uncertain, but it's very
clear that taxes will likely go up, and as a retired person, he should
be minimizing his tax exposure.


From what he's said he's in the 25-28% range already.
Why do you suppose he'll be in a higher bracket when retired?
The flies against most experience.

Even if it's money market with no return.

?? That makes no sense at all.

Pretty simple. You can't lose your contribution money as you could in
equity funds.
Remember, this is retirement money.

The feds won't let MM go below par because the economy would collapse.
That tax savings is money in the bank.

?? There tax savings of investing in a 401K is minimal at this point.


Don't know what you're talking about there.

Maybe about 5 grand for him.
When he takes it out upon retirement he'll be in a lower or no-tax
bracket.

Actually, that's doubtful and thee money he'll be taking out will be
much less than he's likely to be used to living on. By putting money
into something that basically gives you back your own money, you can
take it tax free and mitigate what will have to come out of your
401k/ira and be taxed.


Not doubtful at all. It's all very simple.
Put $22k in the 401k and pay no taxes on it.
Or don't and give the feds 25% ($5500.)
That's not financial advice, and it's not voodoo economics, or financial
adviser mumbo jumbo.
It's plain old taxes that anybody can quickly test with TurboTax or tax
tables.
He didn't spend $22k and he didn't pay $5500 in taxes on it.
That's $27,500 more he has for retirement - at a lower tax rate too.
Nothing could be simpler.

Save, save, save. Then you die.

Amend this with, save, save, save, spend, spend, spend, die, get a
death bene for your heirs.

Or you could gamble with equity funds. But don't cry about it.

Jim - Financial whiz kid. Hey, I ain't broke or complaining.

I'd suggest talking to a qualified financial advisor who gets a fee
vs. a percentage, and not listen to me or anyone else on this
newsgroup. I also wouldn't rely on "fund" managers. They've got an axe
to grind also.


You don't need to pay a financial adviser to make simple risk decisions
for you. None of this is rocket science.
The way he talks he listened to people who told him Wall Street equity
mutual funds were a sure way to get rich.
So he got suckered.
But since he's part of the "middle class" he can probably do simple math
and see the tax savings in maxing 401k contributions at his stated
income level, which I think was about $150k.


Jim - Surprised I'm having trouble getting this understood.

nin-de-poope likes to think she-it has knowledge on how to management
money. But it shows...not even an amature.
--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:07:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:29:12 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

You keep talking about unions, form one.

in the US you can't form a union without getting fired.

You missed the whole concept of unions. The point used to be that the
workers were so important to the operation that you couldn't fire them
all. Are you saying that you are so expendable that if your whole
office walked out, the company could replace you immediately?
We may be touching on why you haven't had a raise in 30 years.

I know the world thinks unions are all just take but I grew up around
the people who built the Teamsters union (yes I knew Hoffa) and there
was a lot of pain in that process.
BTW the biggest union busters in government were democrats.
I also understand in a NAFTA/GATT world, unions are not really going
to work until you can organize China, India, Mexico and Vietnam. It is
not an American problem.

Thanks for the perspective.


It was an education. I went to several Joint Council 65 summer outings
at the Lake of the Ozarks. Seeing these old guys who were building a
union during a depression talk about "old times" will really give you
perspective. That was when unions actually dealt with employer abuses
of the employees instead of the other way around.

You don't believe that there are major employer abuses still going on?
Perhaps they're not clubbing people, but bad things still go on.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2010 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:07:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:29:12 -0400, wrote:

You keep talking about unions, form one.

in the US you can't form a union without getting fired.

You missed the whole concept of unions. The point used to be that the
workers were so important to the operation that you couldn't fire them
all. Are you saying that you are so expendable that if your whole
office walked out, the company could replace you immediately?
We may be touching on why you haven't had a raise in 30 years.

I know the world thinks unions are all just take but I grew up around
the people who built the Teamsters union (yes I knew Hoffa) and there
was a lot of pain in that process.
BTW the biggest union busters in government were democrats.
I also understand in a NAFTA/GATT world, unions are not really going
to work until you can organize China, India, Mexico and Vietnam. It is
not an American problem.

Thanks for the perspective.


It was an education. I went to several Joint Council 65 summer outings
at the Lake of the Ozarks. Seeing these old guys who were building a
union during a depression talk about "old times" will really give you
perspective. That was when unions actually dealt with employer abuses
of the employees instead of the other way around.

Today you have to worry about union abuses to the employee.

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

You're a moron... nothing new.