Democrats and Republicans are one

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they pledged your Social Security benefits to Wall Street (or the Pentagon)

in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.

Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.

dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!

 

[georgephillip]

in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.

Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.

dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!

How much of that 15% would go to brokers' fees?
How much would be lost when the next inevitable speculative bubble POPS?
Why do Republicans hate productive workers and childen?

 

[Mertex]

in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.

Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.

dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!

Tell that to the schmucks who relied on their private retirement accounts during 2008.

“Private-defined benefit pensions — already a disappearing breed — buckled further under the stock market meltdown,” Bernstein says, “and the newly dominant 401(k)s plans lost, on average, a quarter of their value during the four years starting in 2008.

“But Social Security, not dependent on market performance, didn’t miss a beat as the principal source of retirement income. Indeed, with the faltering of private plans, it contributed an even larger share than ever to retirees and survivors.”

According to Bernstein, Social Security is on course to provide full benefits to its expected beneficiaries through 2036 due to its multi-trillion dollar trust fund.

Social Security more essential than ever, WUSTL expert says | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.

dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!

Tell that to the schmucks who relied on their private retirement accounts during 2008.

“Private-defined benefit pensions — already a disappearing breed — buckled further under the stock market meltdown,” Bernstein says, “and the newly dominant 401(k)s plans lost, on average, a quarter of their value during the four years starting in 2008.

“But Social Security, not dependent on market performance, didn’t miss a beat as the principal source of retirement income. Indeed, with the faltering of private plans, it contributed an even larger share than ever to retirees and survivors.”

According to Bernstein, Social Security is on course to provide full benefits to its expected beneficiaries through 2036 due to its multi-trillion dollar trust fund.

Social Security more essential than ever, WUSTL expert says | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis

You still seem to fail to realize that even with the loss of 50 percent, those retirement accounts WOULD STILL BE WORTH MORE. Further, SS creates no generational wealth, effectively keeping the poor, well, poor. Private holdings open people up to the market, give them real assets and creates real wealth. SS does not even give you enough to eat.

Add to that the fact that those accounts have now recovered (something you trumpet when the shit economy is brought up but are now ignoring) so those accounts recover that lost income. Essentially, it was akin to drawing double during the downturn.

The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away. Savings sucks in this nation and we rely on a bullshit system to help us out of it.

 

[Mertex]

dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!

Tell that to the schmucks who relied on their private retirement accounts during 2008.

“Private-defined benefit pensions — already a disappearing breed — buckled further under the stock market meltdown,” Bernstein says, “and the newly dominant 401(k)s plans lost, on average, a quarter of their value during the four years starting in 2008.

“But Social Security, not dependent on market performance, didn’t miss a beat as the principal source of retirement income. Indeed, with the faltering of private plans, it contributed an even larger share than ever to retirees and survivors.”

According to Bernstein, Social Security is on course to provide full benefits to its expected beneficiaries through 2036 due to its multi-trillion dollar trust fund.

Social Security more essential than ever, WUSTL expert says | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis

You still seem to fail to realize that even with the loss of 50 percent, those retirement accounts WOULD STILL BE WORTH MORE. Further, SS creates no generational wealth, effectively keeping the poor, well, poor. Private holdings open people up to the market, give them real assets and creates real wealth. SS does not even give you enough to eat.

And you seem to fail to realize that only those with a lot of money, who probably don't rely on their retirement benefits, had accounts that were worth more. The majority were in deep trouble, but hey, Republicans don't much care about the middle-class and below, so why worry, right?

That dire prediction, which I wrote two years ago, is already coming true. Our national demographics, coupled with indisputable glaringly insufficient retirement savings and human physiology, suggest that a catastrophic outcome for at least a significant percentage of our elderly population is inevitable. With the average 401(k) balance for 65 year olds estimated at $25,000 by independent experts – $100,000 if you believe the retirement planning industry - the decades many elders will spend in forced or elected “retirement” will be grim. (Update: In response to readers’ questions about the lower number, Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research, estimates that 75% of Americans nearing retirement in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts.)
The Greatest Retirement Crisis In American History - Forbes

Add to that the fact that those accounts have now recovered (something you trumpet when the shit economy is brought up but are now ignoring) so those accounts recover that lost income. Essentially, it was akin to drawing double during the downturn.

Sure they are!
Corporate America and the financial wizards behind the past three decades of so-called retirement innovations, most notably titans of the pension benefits consulting and mutual fund 401(k) industries, are down-playing just how bad things are already and how much worse they are going to get.
The Greatest Retirement Crisis In American History - Forbes

The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away. Savings sucks in this nation and we rely on a bullshit system to help us out of it.

You have to recognize the natural tendencies of people and meet them where they are.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away.

actually it is law!! You must contribute 15% to SS; the only problem is the money is promptly stolen by liberals and wasted on crippling welfare payments used primarily to buy votes, leaving the contributors dog food money if they live long enough to collect a penny.

The solution is Republican capitalist private accounts that would make every American rich!!

 

[georgephillip]

The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away.

actually it is law!! You must contribute 15% to SS; the only problem is the money is promptly stolen by liberals and wasted on crippling welfare payments used primarily to buy votes, leaving the contributors dog food money if they live long enough to collect a penny.

The solution is Republican capitalist private accounts that would make every American rich!!

The Pentagon stole the money, eb.
When are the Republicans planning to get it back.

 

[Mertex]

actually it is law!! You must contribute 15% to SS; the only problem is the money is promptly stolen by liberals and wasted on crippling welfare payments used primarily to buy votes, leaving the contributors dog food money if they live long enough to collect a penny.

The solution is Republican capitalist private accounts that would make every American rich!!

I thought you were a serious debater. I see, you just spew the same Republican/conservative ala Limbaugh style rhetoric.


(Sorry, you screwed up the previous posts when you quoted them, and I can't fix it - it's coming out all screwed up - quotes not matching the member that quoted it).

 

[FA_Q2]

Tell that to the schmucks who relied on their private retirement accounts during 2008.

“Private-defined benefit pensions — already a disappearing breed — buckled further under the stock market meltdown,” Bernstein says, “and the newly dominant 401(k)s plans lost, on average, a quarter of their value during the four years starting in 2008.

“But Social Security, not dependent on market performance, didn’t miss a beat as the principal source of retirement income. Indeed, with the faltering of private plans, it contributed an even larger share than ever to retirees and survivors.”

According to Bernstein, Social Security is on course to provide full benefits to its expected beneficiaries through 2036 due to its multi-trillion dollar trust fund.

Social Security more essential than ever, WUSTL expert says | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis

You still seem to fail to realize that even with the loss of 50 percent, those retirement accounts WOULD STILL BE WORTH MORE. Further, SS creates no generational wealth, effectively keeping the poor, well, poor. Private holdings open people up to the market, give them real assets and creates real wealth. SS does not even give you enough to eat.

And you seem to fail to realize that only those with a lot of money, who probably don't rely on their retirement benefits, had accounts that were worth more. The majority were in deep trouble, but hey, Republicans don't much care about the middle-class and below, so why worry, right?

That dire prediction, which I wrote two years ago, is already coming true. Our national demographics, coupled with indisputable glaringly insufficient retirement savings and human physiology, suggest that a catastrophic outcome for at least a significant percentage of our elderly population is inevitable. With the average 401(k) balance for 65 year olds estimated at $25,000 by independent experts – $100,000 if you believe the retirement planning industry - the decades many elders will spend in forced or elected “retirement” will be grim. (Update: In response to readers’ questions about the lower number, Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research, estimates that 75% of Americans nearing retirement in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts.)
The Greatest Retirement Crisis In American History - Forbes

Your point? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, most notably because there is no reason whatsoever attached to the low retirement accounts.

I stated directly that people do not save. That was already my contention. I belive that you missed the point entirely.

Add to that the fact that those accounts have now recovered (something you trumpet when the shit economy is brought up but are now ignoring) so those accounts recover that lost income. Essentially, it was akin to drawing double during the downturn.

Sure they are!
Corporate America and the financial wizards behind the past three decades of so-called retirement innovations, most notably titans of the pension benefits consulting and mutual fund 401(k) industries, are down-playing just how bad things are already and how much worse they are going to get.
The Greatest Retirement Crisis In American History - Forbes

The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away. Savings sucks in this nation and we rely on a bullshit system to help us out of it.

You have to recognize the natural tendencies of people and meet them where they are.

YES you do! Finally something that we can build upon. So what is the solution? We know that putting grandma on the street is a bad idea; we are going to have to foot that bill. We know that the proper solution, self-planning and family, tends to end up with too many cases of the first so where does that leave us? It leaves us with forced retirement. Now, are we be better off with SS where the government takes 15 percent of your income, spends it on bombs and then claims that there is a magical ‘trust fund’ of IOU’s and the government can change your benefits, payouts or retirement age at will and if you die early, oops, we don’t have to give you shit? Or are we better off with controlled personal accounts where the government can’t steal the money, change the benefits, gain actual real world returns (as well as something that can be passed down) and basic introductions to saving and retirement accounts. Part of the problem with taking the cash at the start is that no one even goes through the process of saving; they are never introduced to compounded interest or how to save for retirement. Instead, they sit there letting the government do it for them all the while getting some of the poorest returns possible. It is terrible.

I never advocated for a completely free system, to many simply have no knowledge in saving or investing. The reality is though that you are going to get better returns on the open market for almost any investment strategy no matter how cautious. CD’s would be a better investment. Instead, we cling to SS when the system is no longer sufficient. The worst part of it all is that it was never designed to be. Instead, they set a retirement age when PEOPLE DIED. That is the real burn here. Most people were never supposed to actually pull SS for any reasonable length of time. Instead, the government would pilfer from all to pay the few that actually live to an old age. That is asinine.

 

[AmazonTania]

Is it fair to say the rich Democrats and rich Republicans serve the same 1% of US voters?

"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001).

"It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

"With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do realize that Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with any sort of financial breakdowns. Most of the act is very much in place, including the institution which was created under Glass-Steagall, the FDIC. Only two provisions were actually removed. Glass-Steagall is just a red herring, drummed up by individual not economically avast to know better.

 

[georgephillip]

"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company."

Your saying that allowing the rich to collude in combinations of banks, securities companies, and insurance companies had no effect on Lehman Brothers?

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AmazonTania]

"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company."

Your saying that allowing the rich to collude in combinations of banks, securities companies, and insurance companies had no effect on Lehman Brothers?

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lehman Brothers was a pure investment bank which never step foot on the commercial side of banking. So, thanks for confirming the obvious. You really don't understand what you are saying.

 

[georgephillip]

"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company."

Your saying that allowing the rich to collude in combinations of banks, securities companies, and insurance companies had no effect on Lehman Brothers?

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lehman Brothers was a pure investment bank which never step foot on the commercial side of banking. So, thanks for confirming the obvious. You really don't understand what you are saying.

Show me how much you know:

"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression. Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.[22]"

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AmazonTania]

Show me how much you know:

"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression. Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.[22]"

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And many would be wrong. You can quote all the wikipedia articles you'd like and appeal to consensus all you want. It's not going to make you more knowledgeable. The Glass-Steagall act of 1933 was a preventive measure to keep Investment Banks and Commercial Banks from merging with one another. You fail to look at all the banks which failed or had financial trouble as a result of this crisis.

Three out of Four institutions which were at the heart of the crisis: Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch. What did all of these institution have in common, aside from the fact that they're all bankrupt? They were all pure investment banks, and they never set foot on Commercial soil. The same goes for Goldman Sachs, another pure investment bank which got into big trouble and never merged with any Commercial Banks.

What about New Century Financial? A Real Estate Investment Trust Firm. Nothing to do with banking. What about AIG? An insurance firm. Also, nothing to do with banking and never merged with any banking institutions.

The companies which did go under, Washington Mutual Inc. (not a bank, but a savings bank holding company) and Wachovia got in trouble by simply lending out mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back. The same thing almost happened to Bank of America, but not because they bought an investment bank, but because they bought Countrywide Financial, a mortgage lender.

What you fail to understand that this crisis was centered around mortgage backed securities and the significant amount of leverage the financial sector had in these securities. This was very much a problem with the banks which chose to merge as well as the banks which decided to stay independent. Most of the commercial banks got in trouble because they held large portfolios of mortgage backed securities. The investment banks got in trouble because they also held large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities funded by very short term commercial paper. Glass-Steagall didn't prohibit commercial banks from investing in securities, nor did it prevent investment banks from issuing commercial paper or investing in securities. Not a single provision of Glass Steagall would have prevented this crisis. In fact, if the FDIC (which was created under the Glass Steagall Act of 1933) wasn't insuring Government Backed Securities, this mess probably wouldn't have gotten as far as it did. But the fact remains that not a single provision under the Glass Steagall Act would have prevented this.

In order to come up with the solutions to these problems, it helps to actually understand the problem. As I have said before, Glass Steagall is a red herring. It is drummed up by people who are not well avast in economic to know better. Some people do not understand the mis-regulation, central planning and marketplace distortion are the source of all your problems.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.

But intelligent people know that the liberal Fed policy of printing money to inflate housing industry caused inflated housing industry to eventually burst. Do you think the money to inflate the bubble came from the Girl Scouts???

Who can say the facts aren't true except a pure idiot or a liberal????

 

[Interpol]

Both parties are not the same.

Democrats today are what Republicans used to be 40 years ago.

Republicans today are just fucking crazy.

 

[georgephillip]

"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.

But intelligent people know that the liberal Fed policy of printing money to inflate housing industry caused inflated housing industry to eventually burst. Do you think the money to inflate the bubble came from the Girl Scouts???

Who can say the facts aren't true except a pure idiot or a liberal????

Why did rich people, including Republicans, create the Fed?
Are they greedy?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.

But intelligent people know that the liberal Fed policy of printing money to inflate housing industry caused inflated housing industry to eventually burst. Do you think the money to inflate the bubble came from the Girl Scouts???

Who can say the facts aren't true except a pure idiot or a liberal????

Why did rich people, including Republicans, create the Fed?
Are they greedy?

Dear, the Fed was created to control monetary policy. As a liberal you will lack the IQ to understand what monetary policy is. Sorry.

 

[Mertex]

But intelligent people know that the liberal Fed policy of printing money to inflate housing industry caused inflated housing industry to eventually burst. Do you think the money to inflate the bubble came from the Girl Scouts???

Who can say the facts aren't true except a pure idiot or a liberal????

Why did rich people, including Republicans, create the Fed?
Are they greedy?

Dear, the Fed was created to control monetary policy. As a liberal you will lack the IQ to understand what monetary policy is. Sorry.

The problem started way back with the de-regulation of the banks. All pushed by Republicans who think companies will regulate themselves.

We know how well that worked out.

 

[AmazonTania]

The problem started way back with the de-regulation of the banks. All pushed by Republicans who think companies will regulate themselves.

We know how well that worked out.

One or two provisions removed from the registrar does not constitute a de-reguation. No matter how unrelated those provisions might have been, as I have already explained that with George boy who doesn't understand heads or tales about what he is posting.

I'm beginning to think people don't understand the difference between de-regulation, mis-regulation and no-regulation.