Repubican capitalism made us rich, but liberalism stole the money!!!

[JoeB131]

The insanty of this thread is imagining that what we had (or have) is remotely a capitalist system.

But there's little point debating that issue with those who apparently don't know what capitalism really means, is there?

The problem is, we all know all to wel what capitalism is.


Captialism is evil. And you can't regulate evil.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

we aren't going to let our elderly starved, and the REST of us have an obligation to make sure they don't.

I'm good with that. If you aren't, you have serious problems.

There goes Mr. Bigot again. You are just so morally superior aren't you!! Do you find it fun to be a bigot??

 

[JoeB131]

we aren't going to let our elderly starved, and the REST of us have an obligation to make sure they don't.

I'm good with that. If you aren't, you have serious problems.

There goes Mr. Bigot again. You are just so morally superior aren't you!! Do you find it fun to be a bigot??

It's easy to feel superior to people who have no humanity.

Yes or no, do you think we should let a person starve to death because they made the wrong investments?

 

[Toronado3800]

we aren't going to let our elderly starved, and the REST of us have an obligation to make sure they don't.

I'm good with that. If you aren't, you have serious problems.

There goes Mr. Bigot again. You are just so morally superior aren't you!! Do you find it fun to be a bigot??

I don't kniw what your morals are. Personally even from a selfish standpoint I just don't want the elderly either moving in with me or dying in the streets.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hey, I am thrilled Reagan is no longer someone you look up to.

too stupid of course. Conservatives revere Reagan more than any other president since Jefferson!!

Again this is something a small child would know, just not a libera!!!!

You are arguing with a liberal. It is impossible to argue or even discuss anything with liberals because they are irrational non thinking emoters.

 

[thereisnospoon]

too stupid of course. Conservatives revere Reagan more than any other president since Jefferson!!

Again this is something a small child would know, just not a libera!!!!

Just when you start making sense....you start talking nonsense again.

So let me get this straight, you want a balanced budget ammendment and you like Ronald Reagan's deficit spending to pump the economy and FDR's deficit spending was bad but Reagan's was good???%?%?

The problem with Cons is that they've invented this mythical Reagan who was the ideal of all their dogma, not the real man who was president from 1981-1989.

The real Reagan, who appointed moderate justices, gave amnesty to illegals, raised taxes, reached comprimises with Democrats, would be a RINO today, driven from office like Dick Lugar.

That's where your constant emoting takes you down the path of looking like an idiot.
You people look at everything in terms of its potential political advantage.
Reagan did not care about the GOP or the politics of ideology. In fact he didn't care much for politics at all. Reagan was a Statesman. He did what he thought he had to do to make the country a better place to live. And accomplished that. Yes, Reagan held conservative values, but he governed "country first".

 

[thereisnospoon]

If an average America put 15% of his lifetime income at 4-6%( AT&Tor Verizon) in a private account he'd retire with $1.4 million estate as opposed to no ($0) estate with libturd SS!! Repubican capitalism made us rich, but liberalism stole the money!!!

Its just another a huge huge liberal scandal!!

Are you retarded?

Hit a nerve I see.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If an average America put 15% of his lifetime income at 4-6%( AT&Tor Verizon) in a private account he'd retire with $1.4 million estate as opposed to no ($0) estate with libturd SS!! Repubican capitalism made us rich, but liberalism stole the money!!!

Its just another a huge huge liberal scandal!!

The average american doesn't have 15% lifetime savings.

Idiot.

They should.. If one makes $500 per week and they refuse to save $75 that is their choice.
If they cannot, save $37.50 per week. Ten bucks. Who cares. The problem with most people is they have forgotten the value of a buck. They do not know or probably more accurately, never bothered to consider the consequences of poor spending habits.
one must be disciplined in their handling of finances. Take care of needs before even considering wants.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you retarded?

If an average America put 15% of his lifetime income at 4-6%( AT&Tor Verizon) in a private account he'd retire with $1.4 million estate as opposed to no ($0) estate with libturd SS!! Repubican capitalism made us rich, but liberalism stole the money!!!

Its just another a huge huge liberal scandal!!

You can scream as much as you want. The fact that you are screaming retarded shit just makes you look silly. Stop talking like a fool!

You don't get to just say "retarded"...Only a drive by smartass throws out one liner posts absent of substance.
Where is your solution?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The problem with Cons is that they've invented this mythical Reagan who was the ideal of all their dogma, not the real man who was president from 1981-1989.

too stupid!!!, its hardly a problem to love someone who thought as Jefferson did.

Hmmm....

I'm having a hard time thinking the way Jefferson did.

Maybe because I couldn't spend the whole day writing about "Freedom" and "Liberty" and then go home at night and beat and rape my slaves.

Just not capable of that level of hypocrisy.

I bet that comment just made your day.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you retarded?

If an average America put 15% of his lifetime income at 4-6%( AT&Tor Verizon) in a private account he'd retire with $1.4 million estate as opposed to no ($0) estate with libturd SS!! Repubican capitalism made us rich, but liberalism stole the money!!!

Its just another a huge huge liberal scandal!!

If he put that money in Enron, he'd be bankrupt today. The problem with investing is that it's a form of gambling. Yes, they'd have done VERY WELL if they placed the right bets.

If they had put that money into MCI/WOrldCom instead of AT&T, which probably would have seemed like the better bet in the 1990's when MCI was going gangbusters and AT&T seemed like it was going to flop, they'd have lost everything in the crash of 2002.

No you room temperature moron..
Buy and hold is investing. Playing the markets, whether the indexes or commodities is speculation. If you don't like it, tough shit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

]

If he put that money in Enron, he'd be bankrupt today.

too stupid!! If we can make people invest 15% of their lifetime income to teach them responsibility, so they can live comfortably in retirement, and so we don't have to support them in retirement we can make them invest only in a diversified portfolio of A rated investments!

Who are these "we" you speak of?

The producers. The people that work and pay income and property taxes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

]

If he put that money in Enron, he'd be bankrupt today.

too stupid!! If we can make people invest 15% of their lifetime income to teach them responsibility, so they can live comfortably in retirement, and so we don't have to support them in retirement we can make them invest only in a diversified portfolio of A rated investments!

Guy, I know a lot of people who responsibly put their money in homes and 401K's and wound up with underwater mortgages and busted 401K's.

So let's not get nto the woulda-shoulda-couldas. Let's talk about what your problem is.

80 years ago, the greatest of AMerican Presidents said, we aren't going to let our elderly starved, and the REST of us have an obligation to make sure they don't.

I'm good with that. If you aren't, you have serious problems.

Those who did not panic and sell off their 401k's and other assets saw them rebound.
So stupid. When people see their stock porfolios fall in value or their 401k's slide, they immediately sell...WRONG....As anyone knows, when a fixed amount of money goes into a fund at a set period of time( i.e. per pay period) they are buying more of the same stock with the same amount of dollars. If one is invested in solid growth companies. Pretty simple.

 

[auditor0007]

Nonsense. If a person has an investment account, mutual fund or other investment vehicle, the funds can most certainly be bequeathed to another.
Where do you people get your information from? A Cracker Jack decoder ring?
The greed of the left for assets they did not earn knows no bounds.

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? You seem to be referring to the fact that you can pass your investment account on to survivors should you die. I made no such argument against that. What you don't think about is what happens when you die at an early age, before that investment has had time to grow. Get in the ballgame if you want to play.

This is what you wrote:"The one advantage with SS is that should you die, your wife and kids will collect benefits until your kids turn 18. This benefit cannot be realized with your investment scenario outside of a separate life insurance policy. In the end, you're not going to see much difference. "
Do you have a clue?
You imply that private investment is no good while cheer leading for the government option.
Apparently you fall into the category of those who think because you are unsure of yourself in matters financial, everyone else must be equally as foolish.

Wow, this really isn't that difficult. If you die at a young age, before you have much in the form of those investments, they aren't going to pay out very much outside of a life insurance policy. It amazes me how fucking stupid some of you really are.

 

[auditor0007]

The median salary is only $26,000.

Average Employment Income
:
Annual, per Worker, incl. dependent & self employment
Disposable Gross (1)
2005
31,410
31,410

42,028
42,028 (average salary, USA 2011)

if the birdbrain wants to count 4% inflation per year ending salary is $255,000,

The OP is trying to pull a fast one.
The US Per capita income level is $41,560( 2011)
Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States
The poverty line for a family of 4 is $23,050 (2011)
Federal Poverty Guidelines

Now, in response to all the libs who whine with their class envy nonsense about the rich getting richer and and everyone else not, the per capita income of the nation's people, since 1994 the nation's per capita income has DOUBLED.
With the claim of ONLY the ONE PERCENT gaining income, this of course would be mathematically impossible.

U.S. Median Annual Wage Falls To $26,364 As Pessimism Reaches 10-Year High [CORRECTION]

The difference comes from the fact that the higher number only accounts for those who have full-time employment, while the lower number also takes into account the millions who do not have full-time employment.

 

[auditor0007]

The median salary is only $26,000.

Average Employment Income
:
Annual, per Worker, incl. dependent & self employment
Disposable Gross (1)
2005
31,410
31,410

42,028
42,028 (average salary, USA 2011)

if the birdbrain wants to count 4% inflation per year ending salary is $255,000,

The OP is trying to pull a fast one.
The US Per capita income level is $41,560( 2011)
Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States
The poverty line for a family of 4 is $23,050 (2011)
Federal Poverty Guidelines

Now, in response to all the libs who whine with their class envy nonsense about the rich getting richer and and everyone else not, the per capita income of the nation's people, since 1994 the nation's per capita income has DOUBLED.
With the claim of ONLY the ONE PERCENT gaining income, this of course would be mathematically impossible.

Historical Income Tables - People - U.S Census Bureau

Click on the first link. You will see that based on the census bureaus numbers, per capita earnings in 1994 were $16,555 and in 2011 were $27,554. This is not double. Worse than that, in real dollars, 1994 per capita earnings were only $24,844, so the real increase has been negligible, and in fact has gone almost entirely to the top 1%. The actual per capita totals are figured by taking total US income divided by the population. Most of the numbers you are using are wages earned by full-time employed individuals.

 

[auditor0007]

If you say FDR's deficit spending was bad for the economy then yiu say Reagan's was also.

yes, it is a fact that Conservatives and libertarians would prefer a Balanced Budget Amendment and no deficits or debts since no good can come from liberal deficits and debts but plenty of harm can come from them.

This is stuff a HS kid would know.


See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

Just like all Americans should follow a balanced budget, right? No one should buy a car, house, or furniture on credit. Everyone should wait until they can pay cash.

See why we are 100% positive a conservative will be slow??

 

[auditor0007]

too stupid of course. Conservatives revere Reagan more than any other president since Jefferson!!

Again this is something a small child would know, just not a libera!!!!

Just when you start making sense....you start talking nonsense again.

So let me get this straight, you want a balanced budget ammendment and you like Ronald Reagan's deficit spending to pump the economy and FDR's deficit spending was bad but Reagan's was good???%?%?

The problem with Cons is that they've invented this mythical Reagan who was the ideal of all their dogma, not the real man who was president from 1981-1989.

The real Reagan, who appointed moderate justices, gave amnesty to illegals, raised taxes, reached comprimises with Democrats, would be a RINO today, driven from office like Dick Lugar.

Reagan was an ideologue, but he was a pragmatist first, something completely lost on today's conservatives.

 

[auditor0007]

So Jefferson loved and conservatives love deficits and tariffs and bank bailouts?

IF I said he did I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or runaway with you liberal strawman between your legs

You confused me with your praise of Reagan as a Jeffersonian Conservative hero. Lol.

Do you understand the problem? You just say Ronald was in that vein but he was the opposite.

Edward gets lost in his fantasies. He can't deal with reality, so he makes this shit up. I suspect he was in diapers when Reagan was in office.

 

[JoeB131]

Just when you start making sense....you start talking nonsense again.

So let me get this straight, you want a balanced budget ammendment and you like Ronald Reagan's deficit spending to pump the economy and FDR's deficit spending was bad but Reagan's was good???%?%?

The problem with Cons is that they've invented this mythical Reagan who was the ideal of all their dogma, not the real man who was president from 1981-1989.

The real Reagan, who appointed moderate justices, gave amnesty to illegals, raised taxes, reached comprimises with Democrats, would be a RINO today, driven from office like Dick Lugar.

That's where your constant emoting takes you down the path of looking like an idiot.
You people look at everything in terms of its potential political advantage.
Reagan did not care about the GOP or the politics of ideology. In fact he didn't care much for politics at all. Reagan was a Statesman. He did what he thought he had to do to make the country a better place to live. And accomplished that. Yes, Reagan held conservative values, but he governed "country first".

Oh, I agree, Reagan was a statesman. He did lot of good. He took the pragmatic approach and comprimised with the Democrats and used the democratic approach to a problem. When Bork proved to radical, he nominated the vastly more sensible Anthony Kennedy. This is my whole point, and as usually, it went over your head.

I think Reagan was more in tune with working folks, coming from humble beginnings, than the Bushes or Romney, who were born on third base and thought they hit a triple.