|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:38 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:06:53 -0400, wrote: I asked if your 401K had a money market fund. By putting your money in same, you could have prevented the losses you took. gee. where was your crystal ball in 2006? I sold a lot of stock in 2006, you should have asked me. I sold off my home builder stock in 2004. I am actually swimming in that money (my pool) gee. too bad most m iddle class americans will have to work 'til they're 70 Not if they applied themselves, worked hard, and saved money. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
Canuck57 wrote:
On 21/07/2010 8:51 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:36:22 -0600, wrote: On 21/07/2010 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:35:19 -0400, wrote: Only the dumb ones. I retired when I was 49 but I did have a little hobby job for a few years after that. so 100M americans are dumb you right whiners think your little fairy tales have an impact on the middle class. wrong Nope, many of them become lillionaires! And before they are 50... Only the portion that is not thinking correctly end up losers and without raises. why not check the GINI coefficient? the US has the least social mobility of 10 western democracies, except for the UK Because many have lost the American way, trading it in for envy, greed and entitlement -- which do not work. Plus, your born much better off than 80% of the world to start with. In in Afganistan, less than a 50% chance you can read when you are 20. The room to grow their is high. Bum to Saddam or Obama, sorry, Osama in a lifetime is real and fewer people to compete with. more facts to blow your bull**** away. and those without raises? that's the ENTIRE MIDDLE CLASS http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...the-day-6.html I actually don't entirely disagree with you in that being middle class is now tougher than ever before. But I disagree with the reason. Big fat corruptive government is the cause. Track total government revnue against wages...you will see government outsrips income. And you can't keep having government grow like a cancer. At some point, DC will go bankrupt. And Obama will have the dubious honor of kicking DC past the tipping point. DC will tip over? Like Guam? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:28:20 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:22:20 -0600, wrote: no, i lost because i was middle class. you seem to forget that there are 100M in the same shape i'm in but, then, you're right wing. the problems of the middle class dont interest you at all. not a bit Where the hell you get 100,000,000? Another factoid pulled out of your ass! a 1/3 of the people in the us are not middle class workers. There were only 120,000,000 employed in 2008. Most people, middle class included had less than $50k in savings and retirement funds when they retired. And that was before the crash. Most did not lose much in the crash, as they had spent all the money they made already. the question is, what does this have to do with anything? the issue is the situation of the middle class. that includes joblessness, decrease in wealth (including 401K's, home assets, etc) and the fact we havent had a raise in 30 years while the richest 1% have had a 500% increase in income A few years ago, we discussed the cost of boats on this group. At least one person sid they did not care what the boat cost, but what the payment per month were. They ignored the fact the boat loan was for 15 years for a $9,000 boat. That attitude was and is rampant in both the lower and middle class. more proof that the right hates the middle class. nothing changed for the middle class in terms of attiitudes. what DID change is the financial sector's rapacious GREED in inventing new financial instruments and using these to transfer MASSIVE amounts of wealth FROM the middle class TO the rich by bush's tax cuts, lack of sharing increases in productivity, etc there's a reason the GINI coefficient, which measures income inequality, is the WORST For the US vs other democracies. there's a reason the middle class hasnt had a raise in 30 years....and that reason is GREED on the part of wall street and others who control the economy you have NOTHING but emotion. no data. no facts. you have right wing mythology, fables and fairy tales you use to comfort yourself about why the rich are blessed of god while the middle class deserves poverty Admit it, you made bad choices, and are economically ignorant. We lost jobs because people decided a living wage was required, and that living wage was enough to be upper middle class in the last 60 years. PERFECT EXAMPLE of what i'm talking about...you insist that the US, which has the POOREST GINI coefficient has a greedy middle class when it's the RICH who are greedy. you're very right wing. you're a PERFECT example of how ARROGANT the right wing is. No raise in 10 years, says you suck at your job more right wing bull**** NOBODY in the middle class has had a raise; NOBODY dooes the ENTIRE middle class suck at their jobs? WHY is this ONLY in the US? is it ONLY the US middle class that sucks? you are SO filled with bizarre right wing bull**** it's laughable! .. 100% Democrat and Republican and Independent Congress peoples fault. Not Wall Street, not the big banks. really? CDO's went from 1 trillion in 1997 to SIXTY TWO TRILLION in 2007 the financial sector accounted for 40% of GDP in 2007. what value did this bring to the US economy? NOTHING! NOTHING at all. it was GREED. the numbers dont lie. but the right wing DOES. they want to blame the middle class even though the US middle class just takes it year after year after year. They were going along because the government was giving them huge profits. WTF?? how does 'the government' give them big profits? they simply wiped out all regulation, and stole everything not nailed down and you blame the middle class! Wall streets and the big banks were greedy so they insured the loans and sold them for even more profit. That was criminal, but all started because government gave away the house. EXACTLY!! right wing BULL**** said 'smaller govt and less regulation will give the free market a chance to work' and THAT destroyed the US economy. the middle class was NOT at fault Are you beginning to realize that certain posters here would have jumped to your side if anything you were typing had a shred of truth? Does it surprise you that you are the Lone Ranger in this moronic debate? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:28:20 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: NOBODY in the middle class has had a raise; NOBODY dooes the ENTIRE middle class suck at their jobs? WHY is this ONLY in the US? is it ONLY the US middle class that sucks? Wall streets and the big banks were greedy so they insured the loans and sold them for even more profit. That was criminal, but all started because government gave away the house. EXACTLY!! right wing BULL**** said 'smaller govt and less regulation will give the free market a chance to work' and THAT destroyed the US economy. the middle class was NOT at fault Man you'd better slow down. All this ranting will take its toll on your health. gee. imagine what i'm gonna be like when i still have to work at 70 to support wall street. BTW.....many of your "middle class" Americans have had increases over the past ten years. They are called merit increases. more incredibly stupid bull****. INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years are you naturally stupid or do you practice? Wow! You finally caught on about the "adjusted for inflation" part of the graph you posted a dozen times. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:10:02 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:03:21 -0600, wrote: you be sure and let me know Sensationizing are we? Advertising how big of a loser you are? yeah. me and 100M other americans. And yet you vote Obama who blows Trillions on corruption....LMAO notice he hates the middle class THEN blames the black president for what the white rich boy president caused? you're probably the only canadian who flies a klan flag on his front porch Capitol gains is partly so people will invest for the long term. which is bull****. it costs about 50 cents for every dollar we give to the rich in captial gains check out the chart about half way down the page here http://www.tnr.com/blogs/jonathan-chait giving the rich more money COSTS the economy money. Who is giving the rich money? Obama wants to give the losers *our* money. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:39:34 -0400, wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:41:31 -0400, wrote: neither will 100,000,000 other middle class americans. Now I'm off to the Hard Rock casino to enhance my lifestyle. yeah. tell us again about all those raises we got. I never claimed that a majority received raises. It's you that claim all over this news group that EVERY member of the class have not received increases. fine. you go show me where the data is showing the middle class has gotten a raise. i've shown you data that they didnt. AND that the rich got a 500% increase in 30 years where's your data? Your graph supported it. What was the level of inflation for the past 30 years? Do you have any idea? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
D.Duck wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:30:16 -0400, bpuharic wrote: it's greed. there's a reason the financial sector accounted for 40% of GDP in 2007 while the US did NOT become more competitive in world markets. the financial sector added NOTHING to US assets Where do you think the money for your retirement will be coming from? The whole basis for everyone's pension, 401k and IRA is that Wall Street sector you seem to hate. Retirees are by definition not adding anything to the economy, they are living off of it. Well, that's not really true. They're spending their money in many ways that contribute. If they just hoarded their money, the economy would be much worse off. The same is true of everyone on Social Security. You better hope Wall Street stays 40% of the economy if you want your 401k to be worth anything when you start sucking off the public tit. Unfortunately, 401Ks and IRAs (except Roths) aren't really great for retirement instruments. People forget about the tax consequences of withdrawing money. Tax rates are at historic lows. They will rise, and one needs to factor that in when planning for retirement. Well put. That's why I've been slowly removing money from my traditional IRA for the past ten years to minimize the tax implications as much as I can. Yup. Obama's off-the-chart spending will certainly increase taxes. He can't keep printing money forever. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Larry" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:30:16 -0400, bpuharic wrote: it's greed. there's a reason the financial sector accounted for 40% of GDP in 2007 while the US did NOT become more competitive in world markets. the financial sector added NOTHING to US assets Where do you think the money for your retirement will be coming from? The whole basis for everyone's pension, 401k and IRA is that Wall Street sector you seem to hate. Retirees are by definition not adding anything to the economy, they are living off of it. Well, that's not really true. They're spending their money in many ways that contribute. If they just hoarded their money, the economy would be much worse off. The same is true of everyone on Social Security. You better hope Wall Street stays 40% of the economy if you want your 401k to be worth anything when you start sucking off the public tit. Unfortunately, 401Ks and IRAs (except Roths) aren't really great for retirement instruments. People forget about the tax consequences of withdrawing money. Tax rates are at historic lows. They will rise, and one needs to factor that in when planning for retirement. Well put. That's why I've been slowly removing money from my traditional IRA for the past ten years to minimize the tax implications as much as I can. Yup. Obama's off-the-chart spending will certainly increase taxes. He can't keep printing money forever. You're truly stupid. The fact is that Bush lowered taxes for no damn good reason, and they were already at historic lows. This isn't sustainable. Even a moron like you should know that. Keep blaming Obama for all your troubles, but they're definitely self-made. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:40:34 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:55:30 -0400, bpuharic wrote: really? where's your proof? because here's mine. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...the-day-6.html WHERE ARE THE REAL INCREASES IN WAGES?? you scream that they exist where are they?? The went to the qualified people who were essential to the operation of the company. proof? well...none. where's your data? guesswork and bull**** doesnt count There were also people who had sense enough to change jobs when they knew they were in a dead end position. data? or bull****. looks like bull****. no data at all The real question is, if you are still doing the same job you were dong 20 years ago, why would they pay you more? If you want to grow your salary, you have to grow your job. you ignore the EVIDENCE. other countries dont have this problem. we do. the evidence is clear you're just a right winger who herniates himself covered with bull**** |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:05:43 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, wrote: INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years are you naturally stupid or do you practice? Wow! You finally caught on about the "adjusted for inflation" part of the graph you posted a dozen times gee. so did you.. more backpedaling? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:33:50 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:09:47 -0400, wrote: go ahead. tell me how the middle class hasnt had a raise in 27 years while, in the same time, the wealthiest 1% has had a 500% increase. go head. i'll wait Look up "inflation adjusted" and get back to me. You are also comparing the entire "middle class" to the wealthiest *1%*!?!? uh no. let I be income let t be time i'm NOT comparing I(middle class) to I(rich) i'm comparing dI(middle class)/dt to dI(rich)/dt wihich shows the middle class have grabbed every freakin' dime for themselves and STARVED the middle class |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:47:19 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: Only the dumb ones. I retired when I was 49 but I did have a little hobby job for a few years after that. so 100M americans are dumb you right whiners think your little fairy tales have an impact on the middle class. wrong Your problem is you don't read well and come up with these crazy knee-jerk responses. You have blinders on and, apparently, they have been on your whole life. folks generally do make that complaint when they get bitch slapped |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:42:07 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:38 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:06:53 -0400, wrote: I asked if your 401K had a money market fund. By putting your money in same, you could have prevented the losses you took. gee. where was your crystal ball in 2006? I sold a lot of stock in 2006, you should have asked me. I sold off my home builder stock in 2004. I am actually swimming in that money (my pool) gee. too bad most m iddle class americans will have to work 'til they're 70 Not if they applied themselves, worked hard, and saved money. ROFLMAO!! so it's the middle class's fault?? HAHAHAHAHA!! |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:39:16 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:03:06 -0400, wrote: and what makes you think loan officers arent interested in money? I said, and I know I misspelled a word, that I realize that they can be liquidated. They are still of not interest to a loan officer as collateral. I'm quite bright. I have a large 401K/IRA. You, apparently don't. so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K. mine's bigger. and so is my 401K |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:09:36 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:10:02 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: you're probably the only canadian who flies a klan flag on his front porch Capitol gains is partly so people will invest for the long term. which is bull****. it costs about 50 cents for every dollar we give to the rich in captial gains check out the chart about half way down the page here http://www.tnr.com/blogs/jonathan-chait giving the rich more money COSTS the economy money. Who is giving the rich money? Obama wants to give the losers *our* money. correct. because we h ave no choice but it's time to pass a few bux to the mddle class |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:41:04 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:05:16 -0400, wrote: then they get to write off their losses. deduct business expenses...yadda yadda... *Get* to write off losses? Like that's a good thing? Business expenses are expenses, not income, so they should be deductible. uh no. you dont understand the difference between an expense and a loss |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:13:47 -0400, Larry wrote:
Yup. Obama's off-the-chart spending will certainly increase taxes. He can't keep printing money forever. actually it's bush. obama's first year budget was a carry over from bush. and it had a 9% GDP deficit. but he's black... |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:01:59 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote: more incredibly stupid bull****. INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years are you naturally stupid or do you practice? Why should someone get a raise above inflation? ladies and gentlemen...there's a name for this question. it's called 'backpedaling'. he shrieked that the middle class was doing fine. great! perfect! we were all getting these huge merit based wage increases. NOW that i've shoved the truth up his...ahem...nose...he's reduced to pleading that the middle class doesnt deserve squat. the reason we deserve increases is the following 1. productivity has increased about 30% in the last 10 years alone. sharing NONE of this with america's middle class is GREED. pure and simple. we've seen WALL STREET greed. and now we see CORPORATE greed...balanced on the backs of america's middle class 2. and this is a critical point... THE MIDDLE CLASS IS THE BACKBONE OF THE ECONOMY. yes, that's right folks. the right wing, as he admitted...wants to destroy the middle class by denying them any wage increases at all BUT when you do this, you wind up with a middle class that has NO spending power. consumer spending accounts for about 70% of GDP you right wingers want ALL the money to go to the rich without realizing that, when you do this, you destroy 70% of the GDP THEN you're shocked...SHOCKED when we go into a depression because the middle class can't spend. THIS is why you guys are clueless. you work like ants to do EVERYTHING to destroy middle class wage earners THEN cant understand when consumers stop spending!! Did they improve the bottom line? Those that get raises get merit raises. I got those when I worked, but I also help produce increases in income. Just because you were there a year, you do not deserve a raise above inflation, maybe not a raise at all. If you are doing the same amount of work and producing the same amount of widgets per year, and the cost of widgets went down, you should get a decrease in pay. Raises are not an entitlement! you keep bleating on with your bizarre cult questions as if what I am doing affects 100,000,000 other americans. face it rush-boy. the middle class is being wrecked by exactly the policies you advocate. and it blows your fuses to see that the middle class cant spend, and cant drive the economy because we have no money it's quite straightforward to anyone but the far right I have not backpedaled. Seems as you are the one who does that with increasing frequency. My question to you is still why should a person doing the same job get a raise just because a year has passed? Has productivity increased, or the revenue per part? Most of industry has been shrinking production. Cars a prime example. They may go up in price 30% but they are not making 30% more. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:30:16 -0400, bpuharic wrote: it's greed. there's a reason the financial sector accounted for 40% of GDP in 2007 while the US did NOT become more competitive in world markets. the financial sector added NOTHING to US assets Where do you think the money for your retirement will be coming from? that's the problem. there is none. The whole basis for everyone's pension, 401k and IRA is that Wall Street sector you seem to hate. gee. that's why i'll have to work, like millions of others, until i'm 70 so you're right. wall street has our money for retirement which means no one can retire. thanks. i already knew that Retirees are by definition not adding anything to the economy, they are living off of it. The same is true of everyone on Social Security. You better hope Wall Street stays 40% of the economy if you want your 401k to be worth anything when you start sucking off the public tit. bull****. wall street produces nothing. there is no value added in trading CDO's 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. 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. They deserve help. CC |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:07:32 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:39 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 22/07/2010 4:21 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: s. 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. Bill's stopy is not quique. Those that are "conservative" and don't worship debt do far better than liberal debt mongers. gee. that biggest spenders in history are conservatives. Maybe previously, but the liberals in charge have spent more in the last 18 months than almost all the conservatives combined. you DO realize that the spending in the first year of obama's govt...was determined by george bush...bush raised the deficit to 9% of GDP. so, again, you give us proof of your racism And Obama has raised it to about 18%. We are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar of spending. How long you think that can go on. Cities and states are in the same boat. Mostly because they promised pie in the sky retirement benefits they did not fund. When a few large cities declare bankruptcy, which is not out of the question, they may be few states, California being the leader who default on their debt. How much do you think we will have to pay to borrow that excess spending money? We will big in the same boat as the PIIGS. Obama asked all of Europe at the G20 to deficit spend our way out of the recession. HE WAS TURNED DOWN. We have about 107 Trillion in unfunded mandates. Mostly SS, and Medicare and other government retirement stuff. What is that 10x the GDP? Historically the Fed has gotten about 18% of the GDP in revenue. No matter what the tax rates. It is projected by a couple economists that by 2024 the average worker will have to pay 62% of their wages to the Feds. How many will work at the rate? How many will decide they can go on the dole and do about the same? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:06:26 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill" 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. gee. i get the rich mixed up with their right wing sock puppets. sorry 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. 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. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 22/07/2010 5:52 PM, Larry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 21/07/2010 8:51 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:36:22 -0600, wrote: On 21/07/2010 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:35:19 -0400, wrote: Only the dumb ones. I retired when I was 49 but I did have a little hobby job for a few years after that. so 100M americans are dumb you right whiners think your little fairy tales have an impact on the middle class. wrong Nope, many of them become lillionaires! And before they are 50... Only the portion that is not thinking correctly end up losers and without raises. why not check the GINI coefficient? the US has the least social mobility of 10 western democracies, except for the UK Because many have lost the American way, trading it in for envy, greed and entitlement -- which do not work. Plus, your born much better off than 80% of the world to start with. In in Afganistan, less than a 50% chance you can read when you are 20. The room to grow their is high. Bum to Saddam or Obama, sorry, Osama in a lifetime is real and fewer people to compete with. more facts to blow your bull**** away. and those without raises? that's the ENTIRE MIDDLE CLASS http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...the-day-6.html I actually don't entirely disagree with you in that being middle class is now tougher than ever before. But I disagree with the reason. Big fat corruptive government is the cause. Track total government revnue against wages...you will see government outsrips income. And you can't keep having government grow like a cancer. At some point, DC will go bankrupt. And Obama will have the dubious honor of kicking DC past the tipping point. DC will tip over? Like Guam? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w I would look up his constituancy, but at least 50% of the people there are dumber than nails for voting for jack ass. What an imbecile. Should give him a drug test. -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 22/07/2010 10:32 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:39 -0600, wrote: On 22/07/2010 4:21 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: s. 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. Bill's stopy is not quique. Those that are "conservative" and don't worship debt do far better than liberal debt mongers. 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. 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. I figure this winter is going to be a cold one for many. -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 22/07/2010 7:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:07:32 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:39 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 22/07/2010 4:21 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: s. 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. Bill's stopy is not quique. Those that are "conservative" and don't worship debt do far better than liberal debt mongers. gee. that biggest spenders in history are conservatives. Maybe previously, but the liberals in charge have spent more in the last 18 months than almost all the conservatives combined. you DO realize that the spending in the first year of obama's govt...was determined by george bush...bush raised the deficit to 9% of GDP. so, again, you give us proof of your racism And Obama has raised it to about 18%. We are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar of spending. How long you think that can go on. Cities and states are in the same boat. Mostly because they promised pie in the sky retirement benefits they did not fund. When a few large cities declare bankruptcy, which is not out of the question, they may be few states, California being the leader who default on their debt. How much do you think we will have to pay to borrow that excess spending money? We will big in the same boat as the PIIGS. Obama asked all of Europe at the G20 to deficit spend our way out of the recession. HE WAS TURNED DOWN. We have about 107 Trillion in unfunded mandates. Mostly SS, and Medicare and other government retirement stuff. What is that 10x the GDP? Historically the Fed has gotten about 18% of the GDP in revenue. No matter what the tax rates. It is projected by a couple economists that by 2024 the average worker will have to pay 62% of their wages to the Feds. How many will work at the rate? How many will decide they can go on the dole and do about the same? Actually, not long. There are strong indications serious money is exiting USD. Will not be long before a big tilt happens on the US and inflation will skyrocket. I figure it is going to be this fall or winter. -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:32:44 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . face it rush-boy. the middle class is being wrecked by exactly the policies you advocate. and it blows your fuses to see that the middle class cant spend, and cant drive the economy because we have no money it's quite straightforward to anyone but the far right I have not backpedaled. Seems as you are the one who does that with increasing frequency. My question to you is still why should a person doing the same job get a raise just because a year has passed? first you DENIED that middle class wages were flat. NOW you admit it bugt say 'screw the middle class' why should the RICH get a raise when they dont do diick for the economy? productivity in the last 10 years has increased 30%. NONE of that went to the middle class you saying workers had NO effect on productivity? go ahead and prove it Has productivity increased, or the revenue per part? yes. productivity has increased 30% in the last 10 years. NONE of it went to the middle class. not one penny |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:41:42 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:07:32 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: gee. that biggest spenders in history are conservatives. Maybe previously, but the liberals in charge have spent more in the last 18 months than almost all the conservatives combined. you DO realize that the spending in the first year of obama's govt...was determined by george bush...bush raised the deficit to 9% of GDP. so, again, you give us proof of your racism And Obama has raised it to about 18%. well no. it's still running about 9 oir 10%. bush increased it by 300%. obama by about 10%. but bush is white, you see... We are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar of spending. How long you think that can go on. tell you what stop spending that 40 cents. what do you think is gonna happen to the economy? consumers cant afford to spend because they've been raped by the rich for the past 30 years. so where's the money? We will big in the same boat as the PIIGS. Obama asked all of Europe at the G20 to deficit spend our way out of the recession. HE WAS TURNED DOWN. gee. ireland didnt spend. they cut govt spending. their economy is now in a tailspin how's that working out? We have about 107 Trillion in unfunded mandates. Mostly SS, and Medicare and other government retirement stuff. What is that 10x the GDP? Historically the Fed has gotten about 18% of the GDP in revenue. No matter what the tax rates. It is projected by a couple economists that by 2024 the average worker will have to pay 62% of their wages to the Feds. How many will work at the rate? How many will decide they can go on the dole and do about the same? gee. too bad wall street has raped the middle class, leaving us no money at all, isnt it? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com