War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[The Rabbi]

It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.

And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you

(Excerpt)

Chances are, 2008's market meltdown did a number on your retirement portfolio. Misery had plenty of company. The year's 401(k) and IRA account summaries have been rolling in, and they don't look pretty: In 2008, employees, on average, lost 14 percent—or about $10,000—of their retirement savings, according to Hewitt Associates. Some lost much more. Fidelity, the nation's largest retirement-plan administrator, says the average balance in its customers' accounts dropped $19,000 in 2008. But averages don't tell the whole story. How your retirement account navigated the year's tumultuous market depends on several factors: your portfolio's stock versus bond breakdown, your allocation to other asset classes, the performance of your individual funds, and your account balance. So how did your 401(k) fare compared with investors in the same boat? Here's a look:

How Did Your 401 k Really Stack Up in 2008 - US News

(Close)

Investors were lucky in 2008. The majority were only hurt -- not totally ruined. But don't make the very common mistake of believing it can't happen. We barely squeaked by this time but the Nation is $17.5 billion in debt now, so there is nothing left to be "bailing out" any more criminal bankers.

You are quite right about investing being capable of producing a better return than Social Security payments. But so are the crap tables in Las Vegas.

The smart way to go is Social Security with some investments on the side. And if you earn too little to do that you have no business playing around in the Market.

Gah.... You know what this is? This is proof public education doesn't teach jack squat.

Look.....

First off, the national debt, and the stock market, are not related in any way. Citing the other, in reference to the first, is ridiculous.

The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that.

Second, the reason people lose money in the stock market, is only because they are ruined by the awful education system we have. You can't be wiped out, unless you allow yourself to be wiped out.

There is only two ways to get wiped out.

1. Buy single stocks in a single company.
2. By selling when the price goes down.

Buying single stocks, is highly risky, and rather dumb. In times gone past, people had these phrases "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" and similar. The point was, you don't know what is going to succeed and what is going to fail.
Even the Bible says:
"Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth" (Ecclesiates 11:2).

Plain and simple, it means Diversify. The people who get wiped out, are the morons who put all their money in one investment. Like the Enron people, who put their entire retirement fund in Enron stock.... yeah, you can scream about the CEO, but that stupidity was on them. You never put all your money in one single stock, because if the stock crashes, your screwed.

Solution? Buy a mutual fund. Mutual funds, have teams of analysts who spend all day check and rechecked, investigating, researching, to determine what stocks they wish to buy, and which to sell. And they don't invest in one company, or two companies, but a hundred companies.

My mutual fund has stock in Exxon, Walmart, Apple, and dozens of other large companies. My Euro Pacific has stock in dozens of international companies.

Second, selling when the price goes down. People make the mistake of thinking that they 'lost something' when the market crashes.

Fail. You lose nothing when the market crashes. Nothing at all.

Say I have 100 shares of XoCorp stock, which is valued at $1,000, ($10 a share). Now say the market crashes, and the value is cut in half. So now it's $5 a share, for a total value of $500. "I lost $500!".... no I didn't. I still have 100 shares. I've lost nothing.

In fact... when the shares go down in price, that's when you buy. If Ford cuts the price of a Mustang Convertable in half, you don't run out and sell your car. You run out and buy a Mustang. It's on sale. Now is the time to buy!

When the market crashes, it's like stocks are on sale. It's time to buy more shares, not sell them off.

Worse yet, when the market crashes, that's when you make the most money on your investment.

Companies hand out Dividends. If XoCorp is giving out 50¢ a share, and I have 100 shares, that's $50. When your retirement fund gets that Dividend, they use that money to buy more stock. They buy 5 more shares with the $50, and now I have 105 shares. That's how 401Ks and IRAs grow in value. You use the dividends to buy more shares, thus growing your investment value.

Well if the price of shares drops in half, and I get the $50 in dividend, how many shares can I buy now? At $5 a share, I can buy 10 shares, instead of 5 before. Now I have 110 shares.

A mutual fund will grow faster during a market crash, than before.

Then when the market rebounds back to full price, because I have more shares, I'll have a higher value.

The only way I get screwed, is if I sell off my shares when the value crashes. The people that held their money in the stock market during the crash in 2007, all the way through, made all their money back plus a ton more. I certainly did. My portfolio is more than double what it was in 2007. Easy.

"The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that."


Honesty, try it

How the Deficit Got This Big
In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html



The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say

This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.


The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.



...During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.



This was the primary justification for a big tax cut.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-of-george-w-bush/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Bush also let PAYGO expire.

Bush believed, absurdly, that budget surpluses meant that Americans were being overtaxed.

Democrats in Congress made PAYGO expire. If government is spending more than it's taking in it needs less revenue, ergo lower taxes.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

Really? When did the government start means testing Social Security?

Doesn't it matter how long you live after you start drawing SSI as to how much you take out vs. how much you put in? Sure it does. Try again.

Are you retarded? Where did I say government started means testing SS?

Upper middle income folks by average put in more than they will get out. Lower income folks by average get much more back than they put in. These are facts.

Well why don't you post a link to those supposed "facts"? Cause I went looking on Google and didn't find that info. Or are you just making shit up again? Yep. Making shit up again. That's pretty standard for you.

But you stupid fuck, if you live long enough, everybody drawing SSI will get more back than they paid in. IF YOU LIVE LONG ENOUGH. Which group you think has better life longevity? Poor or rich? Of course you will say poor people live longer.

And what is up with you and poor people. You think poor people get a "special" poor person SSI bonus? You dumb fuck. Does the percentage of withholding change as the income amount changes? Nope. Does the higher income person receive a bigger SSI check than the low income person. Yep.

Maybe you are confusing SSI and the Earned Income tax credit that really does benefit poor people by increasing the amount of their tax refund.

Yea, it's Sunday, I'll give your stupid ass the benefit of the doubt.

You're a lying POS. Look it up yourself, dumb ass.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

Really? When did the government start means testing Social Security?

Doesn't it matter how long you live after you start drawing SSI as to how much you take out vs. how much you put in? Sure it does. Try again.

Are you retarded? Where did I say government started means testing SS?

Upper middle income folks by average put in more than they will get out. Lower income folks by average get much more back than they put in. These are facts.

For example, I maxed out my SS deposits before I turned 36. Every dollar I put in after 36 is "extra." Yet I get to keep paying and paying and paying... receiving nothing extra in return. Why? Because the SS payouts are capped to middle income, not upper middle income. Upper middle income folks get royally screwed by SS.

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

"Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive."

Many people think that Social Security is a progressive program which redistributes income from the rich to the poor. But according to new research by Julia Lynn Coronado, Don Fullerton, and Thomas Glass, Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive.

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

Dumb fuck.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

No you didn't and your name isn't RW. Or are you claiming to be RW's sock?

 

[Dad2three]

It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.

And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you

(Excerpt)

Chances are, 2008's market meltdown did a number on your retirement portfolio. Misery had plenty of company. The year's 401(k) and IRA account summaries have been rolling in, and they don't look pretty: In 2008, employees, on average, lost 14 percent—or about $10,000—of their retirement savings, according to Hewitt Associates. Some lost much more. Fidelity, the nation's largest retirement-plan administrator, says the average balance in its customers' accounts dropped $19,000 in 2008. But averages don't tell the whole story. How your retirement account navigated the year's tumultuous market depends on several factors: your portfolio's stock versus bond breakdown, your allocation to other asset classes, the performance of your individual funds, and your account balance. So how did your 401(k) fare compared with investors in the same boat? Here's a look:

How Did Your 401 k Really Stack Up in 2008 - US News

(Close)

Investors were lucky in 2008. The majority were only hurt -- not totally ruined. But don't make the very common mistake of believing it can't happen. We barely squeaked by this time but the Nation is $17.5 billion in debt now, so there is nothing left to be "bailing out" any more criminal bankers.

You are quite right about investing being capable of producing a better return than Social Security payments. But so are the crap tables in Las Vegas.

The smart way to go is Social Security with some investments on the side. And if you earn too little to do that you have no business playing around in the Market.

Gah.... You know what this is? This is proof public education doesn't teach jack squat.

Look.....

First off, the national debt, and the stock market, are not related in any way. Citing the other, in reference to the first, is ridiculous.

The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that.

Second, the reason people lose money in the stock market, is only because they are ruined by the awful education system we have. You can't be wiped out, unless you allow yourself to be wiped out.

There is only two ways to get wiped out.

1. Buy single stocks in a single company.
2. By selling when the price goes down.

Buying single stocks, is highly risky, and rather dumb. In times gone past, people had these phrases "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" and similar. The point was, you don't know what is going to succeed and what is going to fail.
Even the Bible says:
"Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth" (Ecclesiates 11:2).

Plain and simple, it means Diversify. The people who get wiped out, are the morons who put all their money in one investment. Like the Enron people, who put their entire retirement fund in Enron stock.... yeah, you can scream about the CEO, but that stupidity was on them. You never put all your money in one single stock, because if the stock crashes, your screwed.

Solution? Buy a mutual fund. Mutual funds, have teams of analysts who spend all day check and rechecked, investigating, researching, to determine what stocks they wish to buy, and which to sell. And they don't invest in one company, or two companies, but a hundred companies.

My mutual fund has stock in Exxon, Walmart, Apple, and dozens of other large companies. My Euro Pacific has stock in dozens of international companies.

Second, selling when the price goes down. People make the mistake of thinking that they 'lost something' when the market crashes.

Fail. You lose nothing when the market crashes. Nothing at all.

Say I have 100 shares of XoCorp stock, which is valued at $1,000, ($10 a share). Now say the market crashes, and the value is cut in half. So now it's $5 a share, for a total value of $500. "I lost $500!".... no I didn't. I still have 100 shares. I've lost nothing.

In fact... when the shares go down in price, that's when you buy. If Ford cuts the price of a Mustang Convertable in half, you don't run out and sell your car. You run out and buy a Mustang. It's on sale. Now is the time to buy!

When the market crashes, it's like stocks are on sale. It's time to buy more shares, not sell them off.

Worse yet, when the market crashes, that's when you make the most money on your investment.

Companies hand out Dividends. If XoCorp is giving out 50¢ a share, and I have 100 shares, that's $50. When your retirement fund gets that Dividend, they use that money to buy more stock. They buy 5 more shares with the $50, and now I have 105 shares. That's how 401Ks and IRAs grow in value. You use the dividends to buy more shares, thus growing your investment value.

Well if the price of shares drops in half, and I get the $50 in dividend, how many shares can I buy now? At $5 a share, I can buy 10 shares, instead of 5 before. Now I have 110 shares.

A mutual fund will grow faster during a market crash, than before.

Then when the market rebounds back to full price, because I have more shares, I'll have a higher value.

The only way I get screwed, is if I sell off my shares when the value crashes. The people that held their money in the stock market during the crash in 2007, all the way through, made all their money back plus a ton more. I certainly did. My portfolio is more than double what it was in 2007. Easy.

"The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that."


Honesty, try it

How the Deficit Got This Big
In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html



The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say

This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.


The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.



...During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.



This was the primary justification for a big tax cut.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-of-george-w-bush/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Bush also let PAYGO expire.

Bush believed, absurdly, that budget surpluses meant that Americans were being overtaxed.

Democrats in Congress made PAYGO expire. If government is spending more than it's taking in it needs less revenue, ergo lower taxes.

DEMOCRATS DID THAT IN A GOP CONGRESS? lol

Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/


How about paying off the debt? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Libertarians are anarchists

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

No you didn't and your name isn't RW. Or are you claiming to be RW's sock?

YES, I DID, AND I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ADDRESSED IT TO, YOU LIED!


3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.


Platform Libertarian Party


LYING POS CONS

 

[Dad2three]

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

Really? When did the government start means testing Social Security?

Doesn't it matter how long you live after you start drawing SSI as to how much you take out vs. how much you put in? Sure it does. Try again.

Are you retarded? Where did I say government started means testing SS?

Upper middle income folks by average put in more than they will get out. Lower income folks by average get much more back than they put in. These are facts.

For example, I maxed out my SS deposits before I turned 36. Every dollar I put in after 36 is "extra." Yet I get to keep paying and paying and paying... receiving nothing extra in return. Why? Because the SS payouts are capped to middle income, not upper middle income. Upper middle income folks get royally screwed by SS.

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

"Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive."

Many people think that Social Security is a progressive program which redistributes income from the rich to the poor. But according to new research by Julia Lynn Coronado, Don Fullerton, and Thomas Glass, Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive.

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

Dumb fuck.

So no, you don't like FACT based things. Got it

 

[RKMBrown]

See page 40 ratio of benefits to taxes:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/jeffreyliebman/distcurrfinalv2.pdf

If your income is less than 50 percent of the poverty line you receive 89.64 times more in SS benefits than you put in.

If your income is between 50 to 100 percent of the poverty line you receive 7.49 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 100 to 200 percent of the poverty line you receive 2.28 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 200 to 300 percent of the poverty line you receive 0.82% percent of what you put in.

If your income is greater than three times the poverty line you receive 26% of what you put in.

 

[RKMBrown]

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

No you didn't and your name isn't RW. Or are you claiming to be RW's sock?

YES, I DID, AND I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ADDRESSED IT TO, YOU LIED!


3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.


Platform Libertarian Party


LYING POS CONS

No you are a fucking idiot. You think changing government is anarchy. That makes you either a dumb ass that can't read or just a stupid fucking idiot.

 

[Dad2three]

Libertarians are anarchists

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

Did you also provide the links to the demopublican platforms that called for communism?


Why is trying to abolish slavery and tyranny "anarchy"?

.

PLEASE, if that's your posit, PLEASE feel open to post the links dummy? lol

3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

Platform Libertarian Party

GAAAWDDDAMN ANARCHIST LIBERTARIANS!

 

[Dad2three]

It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.

And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you

(Excerpt)

Chances are, 2008's market meltdown did a number on your retirement portfolio. Misery had plenty of company. The year's 401(k) and IRA account summaries have been rolling in, and they don't look pretty: In 2008, employees, on average, lost 14 percent—or about $10,000—of their retirement savings, according to Hewitt Associates. Some lost much more. Fidelity, the nation's largest retirement-plan administrator, says the average balance in its customers' accounts dropped $19,000 in 2008. But averages don't tell the whole story. How your retirement account navigated the year's tumultuous market depends on several factors: your portfolio's stock versus bond breakdown, your allocation to other asset classes, the performance of your individual funds, and your account balance. So how did your 401(k) fare compared with investors in the same boat? Here's a look:

How Did Your 401 k Really Stack Up in 2008 - US News

(Close)

Investors were lucky in 2008. The majority were only hurt -- not totally ruined. But don't make the very common mistake of believing it can't happen. We barely squeaked by this time but the Nation is $17.5 billion in debt now, so there is nothing left to be "bailing out" any more criminal bankers.

You are quite right about investing being capable of producing a better return than Social Security payments. But so are the crap tables in Las Vegas.

The smart way to go is Social Security with some investments on the side. And if you earn too little to do that you have no business playing around in the Market.

Gah.... You know what this is? This is proof public education doesn't teach jack squat.

Look.....

First off, the national debt, and the stock market, are not related in any way. Citing the other, in reference to the first, is ridiculous.

The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that.

Second, the reason people lose money in the stock market, is only because they are ruined by the awful education system we have. You can't be wiped out, unless you allow yourself to be wiped out.

There is only two ways to get wiped out.

1. Buy single stocks in a single company.
2. By selling when the price goes down.

Buying single stocks, is highly risky, and rather dumb. In times gone past, people had these phrases "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" and similar. The point was, you don't know what is going to succeed and what is going to fail.
Even the Bible says:
"Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth" (Ecclesiates 11:2).

Plain and simple, it means Diversify. The people who get wiped out, are the morons who put all their money in one investment. Like the Enron people, who put their entire retirement fund in Enron stock.... yeah, you can scream about the CEO, but that stupidity was on them. You never put all your money in one single stock, because if the stock crashes, your screwed.

Solution? Buy a mutual fund. Mutual funds, have teams of analysts who spend all day check and rechecked, investigating, researching, to determine what stocks they wish to buy, and which to sell. And they don't invest in one company, or two companies, but a hundred companies.

My mutual fund has stock in Exxon, Walmart, Apple, and dozens of other large companies. My Euro Pacific has stock in dozens of international companies.

Second, selling when the price goes down. People make the mistake of thinking that they 'lost something' when the market crashes.

Fail. You lose nothing when the market crashes. Nothing at all.

Say I have 100 shares of XoCorp stock, which is valued at $1,000, ($10 a share). Now say the market crashes, and the value is cut in half. So now it's $5 a share, for a total value of $500. "I lost $500!".... no I didn't. I still have 100 shares. I've lost nothing.

In fact... when the shares go down in price, that's when you buy. If Ford cuts the price of a Mustang Convertable in half, you don't run out and sell your car. You run out and buy a Mustang. It's on sale. Now is the time to buy!

When the market crashes, it's like stocks are on sale. It's time to buy more shares, not sell them off.

Worse yet, when the market crashes, that's when you make the most money on your investment.

Companies hand out Dividends. If XoCorp is giving out 50¢ a share, and I have 100 shares, that's $50. When your retirement fund gets that Dividend, they use that money to buy more stock. They buy 5 more shares with the $50, and now I have 105 shares. That's how 401Ks and IRAs grow in value. You use the dividends to buy more shares, thus growing your investment value.

Well if the price of shares drops in half, and I get the $50 in dividend, how many shares can I buy now? At $5 a share, I can buy 10 shares, instead of 5 before. Now I have 110 shares.

A mutual fund will grow faster during a market crash, than before.

Then when the market rebounds back to full price, because I have more shares, I'll have a higher value.

The only way I get screwed, is if I sell off my shares when the value crashes. The people that held their money in the stock market during the crash in 2007, all the way through, made all their money back plus a ton more. I certainly did. My portfolio is more than double what it was in 2007. Easy.

"The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that."


Honesty, try it

How the Deficit Got This Big
In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html



The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say

This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.


The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.



...During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.



This was the primary justification for a big tax cut.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-of-george-w-bush/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Bush also let PAYGO expire.

Bush believed, absurdly, that budget surpluses meant that Americans were being overtaxed.

Democrats in Congress made PAYGO expire. If government is spending more than it's taking in it needs less revenue, ergo lower taxes.

The PAYGO statute expired at the end of 2002. After this, Congress enacted President George W. Bush's proposed 2003 tax cuts (enacted as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[5] The White House acknowledged that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements:

PAYGO - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

No you didn't and your name isn't RW. Or are you claiming to be RW's sock?

YES, I DID, AND I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ADDRESSED IT TO, YOU LIED!


3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.


Platform Libertarian Party


LYING POS CONS

No you are a fucking idiot. You think changing government is anarchy. That makes you either a dumb ass that can't read or just a stupid fucking idiot.

"to abolish it"


LOL

 

[RKMBrown]

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

No you didn't and your name isn't RW. Or are you claiming to be RW's sock?

YES, I DID, AND I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ADDRESSED IT TO, YOU LIED!


3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.


Platform Libertarian Party


LYING POS CONS

No you are a fucking idiot. You think changing government is anarchy. That makes you either a dumb ass that can't read or just a stupid fucking idiot.

"to abolish it"


LOL

Abolishing one form of government is not the same as abolishing all forms of government. What a dumb ass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.

And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you

(Excerpt)

Chances are, 2008's market meltdown did a number on your retirement portfolio. Misery had plenty of company. The year's 401(k) and IRA account summaries have been rolling in, and they don't look pretty: In 2008, employees, on average, lost 14 percent—or about $10,000—of their retirement savings, according to Hewitt Associates. Some lost much more. Fidelity, the nation's largest retirement-plan administrator, says the average balance in its customers' accounts dropped $19,000 in 2008. But averages don't tell the whole story. How your retirement account navigated the year's tumultuous market depends on several factors: your portfolio's stock versus bond breakdown, your allocation to other asset classes, the performance of your individual funds, and your account balance. So how did your 401(k) fare compared with investors in the same boat? Here's a look:

How Did Your 401 k Really Stack Up in 2008 - US News

(Close)

Investors were lucky in 2008. The majority were only hurt -- not totally ruined. But don't make the very common mistake of believing it can't happen. We barely squeaked by this time but the Nation is $17.5 billion in debt now, so there is nothing left to be "bailing out" any more criminal bankers.

You are quite right about investing being capable of producing a better return than Social Security payments. But so are the crap tables in Las Vegas.

The smart way to go is Social Security with some investments on the side. And if you earn too little to do that you have no business playing around in the Market.

Gah.... You know what this is? This is proof public education doesn't teach jack squat.

Look.....

First off, the national debt, and the stock market, are not related in any way. Citing the other, in reference to the first, is ridiculous.

The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that.

Second, the reason people lose money in the stock market, is only because they are ruined by the awful education system we have. You can't be wiped out, unless you allow yourself to be wiped out.

There is only two ways to get wiped out.

1. Buy single stocks in a single company.
2. By selling when the price goes down.

Buying single stocks, is highly risky, and rather dumb. In times gone past, people had these phrases "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" and similar. The point was, you don't know what is going to succeed and what is going to fail.
Even the Bible says:
"Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth" (Ecclesiates 11:2).

Plain and simple, it means Diversify. The people who get wiped out, are the morons who put all their money in one investment. Like the Enron people, who put their entire retirement fund in Enron stock.... yeah, you can scream about the CEO, but that stupidity was on them. You never put all your money in one single stock, because if the stock crashes, your screwed.

Solution? Buy a mutual fund. Mutual funds, have teams of analysts who spend all day check and rechecked, investigating, researching, to determine what stocks they wish to buy, and which to sell. And they don't invest in one company, or two companies, but a hundred companies.

My mutual fund has stock in Exxon, Walmart, Apple, and dozens of other large companies. My Euro Pacific has stock in dozens of international companies.

Second, selling when the price goes down. People make the mistake of thinking that they 'lost something' when the market crashes.

Fail. You lose nothing when the market crashes. Nothing at all.

Say I have 100 shares of XoCorp stock, which is valued at $1,000, ($10 a share). Now say the market crashes, and the value is cut in half. So now it's $5 a share, for a total value of $500. "I lost $500!".... no I didn't. I still have 100 shares. I've lost nothing.

In fact... when the shares go down in price, that's when you buy. If Ford cuts the price of a Mustang Convertable in half, you don't run out and sell your car. You run out and buy a Mustang. It's on sale. Now is the time to buy!

When the market crashes, it's like stocks are on sale. It's time to buy more shares, not sell them off.

Worse yet, when the market crashes, that's when you make the most money on your investment.

Companies hand out Dividends. If XoCorp is giving out 50¢ a share, and I have 100 shares, that's $50. When your retirement fund gets that Dividend, they use that money to buy more stock. They buy 5 more shares with the $50, and now I have 105 shares. That's how 401Ks and IRAs grow in value. You use the dividends to buy more shares, thus growing your investment value.

Well if the price of shares drops in half, and I get the $50 in dividend, how many shares can I buy now? At $5 a share, I can buy 10 shares, instead of 5 before. Now I have 110 shares.

A mutual fund will grow faster during a market crash, than before.

Then when the market rebounds back to full price, because I have more shares, I'll have a higher value.

The only way I get screwed, is if I sell off my shares when the value crashes. The people that held their money in the stock market during the crash in 2007, all the way through, made all their money back plus a ton more. I certainly did. My portfolio is more than double what it was in 2007. Easy.

"The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that."


Honesty, try it

How the Deficit Got This Big
In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html



The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say

This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.


The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.



...During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.



This was the primary justification for a big tax cut.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-of-george-w-bush/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Bush also let PAYGO expire.

Bush believed, absurdly, that budget surpluses meant that Americans were being overtaxed.

Democrats in Congress made PAYGO expire. If government is spending more than it's taking in it needs less revenue, ergo lower taxes.

PAYGO expired in 2002. Bush president, Congress Republican.

 

[Discombobulated]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

 

[RKMBrown]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

Eggzactly. Middle class jobs are under attack from the bottom via illegal immigration, and the top via H1B visas and offshoring. Upper middle class income is under attack via the so called progressive tax system and offshoring. The rich.. yeah profits are up and govco is writing them checks from the upper middle class.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

You don't understand the concept of lost opportunity.

If people controlled the money thrown away into SS they would have vastly more to live on.

The numbers have been done over and over again by people here including me.

Take 15% of your income over your life annualize it and then figure out how much you would have had if you invested it in a balanced portfolio and compare the income that sum will provide you and compare it to the 1200 a month average SS payment.

If you have half a brain in your head you'll see that SS is costing you more than it pays you

 

[Boss]

And cons prefer we look like another 3rd world country progressive policies lifted US from!


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

Let's be clear about something, moron... Regardless of what conservative prefer or what you think, there is no way to continue spending more than you take in. Quotes from Jefferson will not matter when our credit resources are exhausted and our creditors demand payment.

Contrary to what you might think, I don't like to see people suffer needlessly. In fact, I want to do everything in my power to keep that from happening. But the real suffering is coming if we don't get a grip on deficit spending. This means we can't just keep on creating new inventive ways to "help" people with more borrowed money. You're not "helping" anyone, you are mortgaging our future and ensuring future generations will suffer like we can't even fathom.

Now whine some more about "the rich" and how they should have to pay for all this "help" you are bestowing... it's not happening. You're not getting their wealth! You can't get their wealth because they are way smarter than you! And... there are more and more wealthy people generated every day. And of course, that is what you want to stop from happening... you want people to NOT be wealthy. To be enslaved to The State, where they will have to march in lockstep behind your authoritarian Fascist policies. You prefer a nation full of dependent people who count on YOU to bestow financial blessings from upon high. But YOU are broke... there is no money!

Now ya boy Mao had a 'solution' for this, he rounded up all those "rich greedy asshole capitalists" and executed them. Stole their wealth and did it in the name of "helping" the people. The results were catastrophic and outright heinous. It didn't help anyone but the ruling class, and it plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

 

[Dad2three]

See page 40 ratio of benefits to taxes:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/jeffreyliebman/distcurrfinalv2.pdf

If your income is less than 50 percent of the poverty line you receive 89.64 times more in SS benefits than you put in.

If your income is between 50 to 100 percent of the poverty line you receive 7.49 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 100 to 200 percent of the poverty line you receive 2.28 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 200 to 300 percent of the poverty line you receive 0.82% percent of what you put in.

If your income is greater than three times the poverty line you receive 26% of what you put in.

So, NO you didn't read the link I provided


Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

"Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive."


In The Progressivity of Social Security (NBER Working Paper No. 7520), the authors concentrate on redistribution within, rather than across, generations. The Social Security benefit formula explicitly transfers money from people who earned more during their working years to those who earned less. This is why it is commonly seen as a progressive program. And, most economic studies have confirmed that Social Security is redistributive.

But the common perception and these previous studies fail to include a range of relevant individual characteristics that determine whether people really are lifetime rich or lifetime poor, the authors argue. When people are properly classified, no redistribution is found.

R/W NBER

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

 

[RKMBrown]

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

You don't understand the concept of lost opportunity.

If people controlled the money thrown away into SS they would have vastly more to live on.

The numbers have been done over and over again by people here including me.

Take 15% of your income over your life annualize it and then figure out how much you would have had if you invested it in a balanced portfolio and compare the income that sum will provide you and compare it to the 1200 a month average SS payment.

If you have half a brain in your head you'll see that SS is costing you more than it pays you

Agreeing with me is not the same as disagreeing with me. FYI the poor get an 8x return on their investment. Vs the upper middle class who get a 25% return on their investment. Yes, getting 1/4 of what you put in is a bad rate or return