Dems find voters don't care about the Mueller report

[daveman]

Yet, all you Trump hating turds claim Hillary was exonerated but Trump is guilty.

you boobs believe all kinds of phony scandals about Hillary Obama the FBI learner holder etc etc.everything about the clintons has been investigated multiple times and nobody's found anything worth mentioning. The trumps and the lying thieving GOP are the swamp, dumbass doops. It isn't a giant conspiracy, it's a giant propaganda machine that has turned half the country into zombies. When Hillary etcetera's crimes reach real journalists or law enforcement, give us a call, conspiracy nut jobs....

Yet, you believe in the biggest most ridiculous conspiracy theory of all time: Russian collusion.

Plenty has been found on Hillary. The only difference is that the corrupt Obama FBI obstructed justice and refused to prosecute.

Actually I don't think the Russians are stupid enough to think the trumps could help them. The trumps are totally incompetent.

Yet, they whipped Hillary's ass.

Yep the Russians sure did. With help from Big mouth Republican James Comey.

Hillary defeated herself. She was a terrible candidate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't see how because that's the way we did it years ago. People use to have bumper stickers on their car that read BUY AMERICAN OR BYE-BYE AMERICA. Union bumper stickers were also all around, and union workers only bought products made by other union companies.

What America should be doing, as well as all nations, is buying the best products at the best price regardless of where they come from without the interference of government. When you do that manufactures are able to buy the best parts and raw materials for the products they produce. Consumers get the best products at the best price.

When we try to protect workers with trade barriers we end up hurting the workers and everyone else.

Well all businesses have to cater to the consumer. Consumers just don't care about quality anymore, they care only about price. That's why Walmart is number one and places like Sears and JC Penny's closed down many of their stores.

I prefer quality. I hate buying things that break all the time. It's one of the reasons I only buy Apple products. Their computers last for many years, while PC brands break the day you bring them home. The computer I'm on right now is over ten years old. To replace this computer would cost me over $1,700. And if I could justify spending the money, I would do it tomorrow. But again, the computer (while slow going to sites) works just fine.

And do you know why Apple products are quality products? They buy the best parts from producers all over the world and they they have most of their products assemble by Chinese manufacturing plants who are the greatest mass producers in the world and can produce high quality products if required to do so and Apple requires it.

If the iPhone and it's parts were manufactured in the US, the finish product would sell between $2000 and $3000.

Yes, but how many Apple users are there in the US? Most people choose the cheapest computers. Apple doesn't make cheap computers or phones. As you stated, higher quality of parts and engineering.

It's the same thing that happened with our automotive industry. The unions forced the auto makers to pay superior money and benefits to their employees along with a very early retirement plans. The Japanese companies didn't go that route. They put money into quality parts and engineering. The US companies then had to use cheaper parts to compete, and the Japanese auto makers took over.

I've been a Toyota owner for over ten years. I've never been happier with an automobile than I am with my Japanese car. It doesn't break down, it's dependable, and the bodies last virtually forever. That's why Toyota can over a 7year 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty and US can only offer a three year 30,000 mile warranty.

I agree with you on Toyota. My family has had Toyotas for over 50 years. The fact that almost all the Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US today in it's 8 manufacturing plants, dispels the myth that Americans can't built great cars. The CEO of Toyota North America and all but 3 of the top officers are American, not Japanese.

There's a book out that explains Toyota's success is due two overriding management concepts:

• Just in Time meaning "Making only what is needed, only when it is needed, and only in the amount that is needed"
• Autonomation meaning "Automation with a human touch"

Toyota Production Systems (yes, that IS what a TPS report actually is) have been the model for manufacturing since the 1960's. Lean and Six Sigma are built on the TPS foundation. The Theory of Constraints is founded on the Toyota systems.

 

[bripat9643]

Yet, all you Trump hating turds claim Hillary was exonerated but Trump is guilty.

you boobs believe all kinds of phony scandals about Hillary Obama the FBI learner holder etc etc.everything about the clintons has been investigated multiple times and nobody's found anything worth mentioning. The trumps and the lying thieving GOP are the swamp, dumbass doops. It isn't a giant conspiracy, it's a giant propaganda machine that has turned half the country into zombies. When Hillary etcetera's crimes reach real journalists or law enforcement, give us a call, conspiracy nut jobs....

Yet, you believe in the biggest most ridiculous conspiracy theory of all time: Russian collusion.

Plenty has been found on Hillary. The only difference is that the corrupt Obama FBI obstructed justice and refused to prosecute.

Actually I don't think the Russians are stupid enough to think the trumps could help them. The trumps are totally incompetent.

Yet, they whipped Hillary's ass.

Yep the Russians sure did. With help from Big mouth Republican James Comey.

You just said the Russians aren't stupid enough to help Trump. Now you're saying they did.

 

[McRocket]

As the Mueller report looms, Democrats find voters would rather talk 'kitchen-table' issues


LEESBURG, Va. — House Democrats pushing for the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference say they are not hearing much interest on the subject from their constituents back home...…



Now that the public is realizing just how bad they've been duped into this hoax...…..they don't care anymore. The people are more interested in what really effects their own daily lives and maybe, just maybe the DC Dumocrats might get their heads out of their asses and get on with real issues instead of trying to fester the TDS pimple on their noses.

You do realize that that is great news for Dems. It means either way they cannot lose.

If they somehow got Trump booted out (highly unlikely, IMO)...they win.

And if they fail to get any charges against Trump...they win because it will not cost them any votes because few care.

Sounds like a perfect strategy...they should keep going with it since it cannot harm them in the polls - according to your own link.

If I was a Dem (and not an Indy), I would thank you for the good news.

 

[francoHFW]

you boobs believe all kinds of phony scandals about Hillary Obama the FBI learner holder etc etc.everything about the clintons has been investigated multiple times and nobody's found anything worth mentioning. The trumps and the lying thieving GOP are the swamp, dumbass doops. It isn't a giant conspiracy, it's a giant propaganda machine that has turned half the country into zombies. When Hillary etcetera's crimes reach real journalists or law enforcement, give us a call, conspiracy nut jobs....

Yet, you believe in the biggest most ridiculous conspiracy theory of all time: Russian collusion.

Plenty has been found on Hillary. The only difference is that the corrupt Obama FBI obstructed justice and refused to prosecute.

Actually I don't think the Russians are stupid enough to think the trumps could help them. The trumps are totally incompetent.

Yet, they whipped Hillary's ass.

Yep the Russians sure did. With help from Big mouth Republican James Comey.

Hillary defeated herself. She was a terrible candidate.

Pretty bad. I'm sorry she didn't become president so she could f****** relax. Russian even concentrated on those four states that killed Hillary.
And unlike Republicans I don't like Russians messing with our election...

 

[Flopper]

You mad Bro? I just want credible proof. Barr is not credible. Why are you so afraid to have the facts revealed? If Trump did nothing wrong, Mueller's report will show that.

What do you want to bet that the Democrats will not concede that Trump did nothing wrong after they get the report tomorrow?

That's the problem. Not the report itself. It's how the Democrats will play politics with it.

Yep, and even though Mewler exonerated Trump, no collusion, not obstruction, he still put in stink bombs to feed the Marxist feeding frenzy.

That's how these scumbags work.

We all knew this is how it would turn out......at least those of us that live in reality.

Of course if Mueller said Trump was as innocent as the Pope, then their new line would be how Mueller is a Republican and taking care of his own.

It might have turned out that way, but Trump counter-attacked Mueller on several occasions, and Muller (wth the power vested) wouldn't walk out of the ring a loser without throwing one last punch. He's quite aware that the Democrat strategy is to try and stretch this out until 2020. So he threw them a bone.

Mueller said, there was not enough evidence to charge Trump.
Comey said, there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton.
The opposing party in both cases did just what we would expect them to do, they went nuts, they investigated, they threatened, and claim the person was guilty of everything they could think of
Politics as usually

The difference between the two cases is that there was plenty of evidence Hillary did break the law, and zero evidence Trump did. Comey had more than enough evidence against Hillary, but Comey was part of the cabal. When was the last time an Attorney General took prosecution tips from the director of the FBI? It was all a stage show.

The FBI does make recommendations to the AG in regard to prosecution because as the principal investigative arm of the Justice Department, they are closest to the case and the most knowledgeable of the evidence and the investigation. Commonly, at the conclusion of any major federal investigation, the investigative team will meet with the prosecution to discuss the investigation, evaluate the strength of evidence, and will make recommendations concerning prosecution. The final decision of course rests with the AG.

Comey said he could not recommend prosecution of Clinton because, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

Mueller said the Justice Department policy forbids the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Because Mueller was acting as a special prosecutor within the Justice Department, he said he had to follow this policy. This suggests Mueller believed that no matter what the evidence showed, he did not have the authority to charge the president with a crime. Although there was certainly evidence of obstruction of justice, he left the decision of charges to Congress.

If Democrats try to impeach Trump, Republicans would probably respond by charging Clinton. However, the likelihood that the Democratic leadership will pass a bill of impeachment with what is known at this time is about zero. A far better strategy is to continue to expose Trump as an incompetent president totally lacking in common decency. To have both the president and his opposition exposed as incompetent and morally bankrupt would drive voters toward independent candidates in 2020. This would hurt both parties but probably democrats more than republicans since there are likely to be several liberal independents running.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't see how because that's the way we did it years ago. People use to have bumper stickers on their car that read BUY AMERICAN OR BYE-BYE AMERICA. Union bumper stickers were also all around, and union workers only bought products made by other union companies.

What America should be doing, as well as all nations, is buying the best products at the best price regardless of where they come from without the interference of government. When you do that manufactures are able to buy the best parts and raw materials for the products they produce. Consumers get the best products at the best price.

When we try to protect workers with trade barriers we end up hurting the workers and everyone else.

Well all businesses have to cater to the consumer. Consumers just don't care about quality anymore, they care only about price. That's why Walmart is number one and places like Sears and JC Penny's closed down many of their stores.

I prefer quality. I hate buying things that break all the time. It's one of the reasons I only buy Apple products. Their computers last for many years, while PC brands break the day you bring them home. The computer I'm on right now is over ten years old. To replace this computer would cost me over $1,700. And if I could justify spending the money, I would do it tomorrow. But again, the computer (while slow going to sites) works just fine.

And do you know why Apple products are quality products? They buy the best parts from producers all over the world and they they have most of their products assemble by Chinese manufacturing plants who are the greatest mass producers in the world and can produce high quality products if required to do so and Apple requires it.

If the iPhone and it's parts were manufactured in the US, the finish product would sell between $2000 and $3000.

Yes, but how many Apple users are there in the US? Most people choose the cheapest computers. Apple doesn't make cheap computers or phones. As you stated, higher quality of parts and engineering.

It's the same thing that happened with our automotive industry. The unions forced the auto makers to pay superior money and benefits to their employees along with a very early retirement plans. The Japanese companies didn't go that route. They put money into quality parts and engineering. The US companies then had to use cheaper parts to compete, and the Japanese auto makers took over.

I've been a Toyota owner for over ten years. I've never been happier with an automobile than I am with my Japanese car. It doesn't break down, it's dependable, and the bodies last virtually forever. That's why Toyota can over a 7year 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty and US can only offer a three year 30,000 mile warranty.

I agree with you on Toyota. My family has had Toyotas for over 50 years. The fact that almost all the Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US today in it's 8 manufacturing plants, dispels the myth that Americans can't built great cars. The CEO of Toyota North America and all but 3 of the top officers are American, not Japanese.

There's a book out that explains Toyota's success is due two overriding management concepts:

• Just in Time meaning "Making only what is needed, only when it is needed, and only in the amount that is needed"
• Autonomation meaning "Automation with a human touch"

My last American made car was my last American made car. After 30,000 miles, my mechanic drove it more than I did. He was the person who told me about how dependable Toyota vehicles are.

Who would know more than him? He told me that in his entire career, he never worked on a Toyota with under 80,000 miles. He said the parts they use are so superior to American made cars because of the quality. On top of that, one of my earlier jobs made parts for UAW plants, so I had plenty of interaction with those lazy MF's at American car companies. I don't want anybody with their union attitude building my car.

Several years ago I ran into a guy I knew as a kid. He told me he stayed in contact with one of the other guys we hung around with all these years. He got out of school and went to the UAW plant and was hired as a painter. According to this guy who still knows him, he retired well over ten years ago. The guy had to be in his mid to later 40s.

It's the legacy costs that killed American cars. When you buy an American made car, you are paying to have my former friend sit home and snorting coke. From what I understand, he got on dope after he retired because of the substantial income he had and his ample time off. I guess he must have gotten bored.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do you want to bet that the Democrats will not concede that Trump did nothing wrong after they get the report tomorrow?

That's the problem. Not the report itself. It's how the Democrats will play politics with it.

Yep, and even though Mewler exonerated Trump, no collusion, not obstruction, he still put in stink bombs to feed the Marxist feeding frenzy.

That's how these scumbags work.

We all knew this is how it would turn out......at least those of us that live in reality.

Of course if Mueller said Trump was as innocent as the Pope, then their new line would be how Mueller is a Republican and taking care of his own.

It might have turned out that way, but Trump counter-attacked Mueller on several occasions, and Muller (wth the power vested) wouldn't walk out of the ring a loser without throwing one last punch. He's quite aware that the Democrat strategy is to try and stretch this out until 2020. So he threw them a bone.

Mueller said, there was not enough evidence to charge Trump.
Comey said, there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton.
The opposing party in both cases did just what we would expect them to do, they went nuts, they investigated, they threatened, and claim the person was guilty of everything they could think of
Politics as usually

The difference between the two cases is that there was plenty of evidence Hillary did break the law, and zero evidence Trump did. Comey had more than enough evidence against Hillary, but Comey was part of the cabal. When was the last time an Attorney General took prosecution tips from the director of the FBI? It was all a stage show.

The FBI does make recommendations to the AG in regard to prosecution because as the principal investigative arm of the Justice Department, they are the closest to the case and the most knowledgeable of the evidence. Commonly, at the conclusion of any major federal investigation, the investigative team will meet with the prosecution to discuss the investigation, evaluate the strength of evidence, and will make recommendations concerning prosecution. The final decision of course rests with the AG.

Comey said he could not recommend prosecution of Clinton because, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

Mueller said the Justice Department policy forbids the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Because Mueller was acting as a special prosecutor within the Justice Department, he said he had to follow this policy. This suggests Mueller believed that no matter what the evidence showed, he did not have the authority to charge the president with a crime. Although there was certainly evidence of obstruction of justice, he left the decision of charges to Congress.

Both the AG and the director of the FBI made public announcements of their intent. That's never happened before. It was like a stage show.

Sure, they interact with each other on cases, however the AG never placed the responsibility of prosecution on the FBI director, and the FBI director never made an announcement as to what to do with the evidence and the AG's duty.

The investigative agency hands their work to the AG, and it's the AG that solely makes the choice of charges or prosecution. However Lynch had her back against the wall. She knew there was plenty of evidence to bring forward which would have knocked Hillary right out of the race. So Comey decided to help her out.

Lynch and Comey worked together to protect Hillary. They were part of the cabal. Lynch was a die hard NY Democrat who wanted to see Hillary win the election.

 

[Flopper]

Him and ray would never be able to retire without social security.

And I don’t believe they would have done better not paying into the program. Chances are they would have spent the money and either they would live in their kids basement, and blame democrats, or they’d become welfare seniors.

And they would justify by saying they paid into the system and never took out. No shit losers most people will never take out. You’re not supposed to take out. But they’ll swallow their pride and take the handout.

And still they’ll blame liberals

Try this: Every other year or so, SS sends out a pamphlet with a history of your (and your employers) contributions, and gives you an amount of what you will receive upon retirement. Now take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask what you would be worth at retirement had you invested all that money in a conservative growth fund.

Then tell me how great SS is.

I plan on retiring at 62. But if I decide to work until 65, and on my birthday, I drop dead of a heart attack blowing out my candles, my family will financially benefit.

My nephew and niece will get my rental property. They will get my car. They will get anything I have in my bank accounts. They will get my IRA fund. What they won't see is one penny of the thousands I put into Social Security; not one dime.

So who gets my money? People I've never met, perhaps people that don't even live in my state, people that can never say thank you for all the money me and my employers put in for them. My family? They get nothing.

That depends. your spouse will be able to draw your social security for life and if you have dependents, they will be able to draw survivors benefits.

You can't compare social security returns with that of an investment company because they are completely different. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Social Security includes disability benefits and provides survivor benefits for both your spouse and all your children in the event of your death. These are very significant benefits. My daughter's husband died about 6 years ago. She and her 4 children are each receiving over a thousand dollars a month. That's more than he has ever paid into Social Security and it can continue throughout her life and for the kids until they are 18.

Social Security is risk free compared any other investment. It requires no knowledge of investments and is recession proof. You can lose your investments because of bad decisions but you can't lose your social security.

The downside is that it will not build an estate and will never allow you to live a life of luxury. For that you need to invest.

Everything has a risk to it. The difference between government and private industry is the risk is passed on to the taxpayers.

If you invest in a family fund; that is to say, an investment company who moves your money around based on the economy, you won't lose anything, and if you do, it would only be temporary.

For instance in this last recession, yes, my IRA account did suffer. But I wasn't going to need my retirement account for many years to come. What happened is it was a great benefit to me in the long run because my investment company was able to buy more shares per pay period. It was like getting in on a three-for-one sale.

Social Security is much less risk, but also pays much less if you live to the average lifespan in the US. If you live longer, you made out. If you live shorter, you lose just like in the market.

No, you don't necessarily lose it if you die early because your spouse can draw survivor benefits for life and if you have minor children they can draw survivor benefits till there're 18. And if you happen to become disable before you die, you can draw disability benefits. However, one of the greatest benefits of social security is it is protect your retirement from the biggest danger of all, you. Millions of Americans find compelling reasons to raid their retirement account time after time, leaving nothing but social security to live on.

Social Security is not a retirement plan and was never meant to be. It provides a bare bones existence. Without it millions of older Americans would be destitute.

So what happens when you die early with no dependents? And from what I understand, the spouse only gets a fraction of her (or his) spouses SS check. That's besides the fact most spouses have their own SS account, and them benefiting off their spouses benefits only drains the system even faster.

Social Security is a long-term Ponzi scheme. Eventually, people in the end are going to lose out because there won't be any money left.

If a person dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse and or dependent children both the spouse and the children receive survivor benefits. Yes, it is a fraction of the accumulated benefits but a large one.

My daughter with 4 kids lost her husband 6 years ago. The total survivor benefit for her and the kids was just short of $55,000 a year. They have received that amount for 6 years. This year it will go down because one child has reached age 18. Without that benefit, the family would have lost their home, my daughter would have had 2 jobs and would have never been able to raise her kids properly, complete her education, and have the good paying job she has today.

Survivor benefits as well as disability benefits are huge benefits to working class families. You won't find any mutual fund family providing those benefits nor any guarantee of any specific benefit. It all depends on financial markets.

If you die when retired, your spouse has the option of drawing your retirement or hers, depending on which is greater.

You keep thinking of social security as a retirement plan. It is not. It is neither a retirement plan nor a pension plan. It's a government program providing economic security for millions of Americans—retirees, disabled persons, and families of retired, disabled or deceased workers. It is financed by employee and employer contributions.

Without Social Security millions of Americans would make no provisions for disability, survivor benefits for spouse and family, and subsistence in old age. Government would have to provide assistance leaving the taxpayer on the hook.

Retirement plans that take into account social security is the best answer to a problem we all face, growing older and the possibly of disability or death leaving our families with no financial support.

The tax benefits of retirement plans coupled with employer contributions make it possible for every working American to have a secure retirement and depending on financial markets, a very comfortable retirement.

 

[Flopper]

What America should be doing, as well as all nations, is buying the best products at the best price regardless of where they come from without the interference of government. When you do that manufactures are able to buy the best parts and raw materials for the products they produce. Consumers get the best products at the best price.

When we try to protect workers with trade barriers we end up hurting the workers and everyone else.

Well all businesses have to cater to the consumer. Consumers just don't care about quality anymore, they care only about price. That's why Walmart is number one and places like Sears and JC Penny's closed down many of their stores.

I prefer quality. I hate buying things that break all the time. It's one of the reasons I only buy Apple products. Their computers last for many years, while PC brands break the day you bring them home. The computer I'm on right now is over ten years old. To replace this computer would cost me over $1,700. And if I could justify spending the money, I would do it tomorrow. But again, the computer (while slow going to sites) works just fine.

And do you know why Apple products are quality products? They buy the best parts from producers all over the world and they they have most of their products assemble by Chinese manufacturing plants who are the greatest mass producers in the world and can produce high quality products if required to do so and Apple requires it.

If the iPhone and it's parts were manufactured in the US, the finish product would sell between $2000 and $3000.

Yes, but how many Apple users are there in the US? Most people choose the cheapest computers. Apple doesn't make cheap computers or phones. As you stated, higher quality of parts and engineering.

It's the same thing that happened with our automotive industry. The unions forced the auto makers to pay superior money and benefits to their employees along with a very early retirement plans. The Japanese companies didn't go that route. They put money into quality parts and engineering. The US companies then had to use cheaper parts to compete, and the Japanese auto makers took over.

I've been a Toyota owner for over ten years. I've never been happier with an automobile than I am with my Japanese car. It doesn't break down, it's dependable, and the bodies last virtually forever. That's why Toyota can over a 7year 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty and US can only offer a three year 30,000 mile warranty.

I agree with you on Toyota. My family has had Toyotas for over 50 years. The fact that almost all the Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US today in it's 8 manufacturing plants, dispels the myth that Americans can't built great cars. The CEO of Toyota North America and all but 3 of the top officers are American, not Japanese.

There's a book out that explains Toyota's success is due two overriding management concepts:

• Just in Time meaning "Making only what is needed, only when it is needed, and only in the amount that is needed"
• Autonomation meaning "Automation with a human touch"

My last American made car was my last American made car. After 30,000 miles, my mechanic drove it more than I did. He was the person who told me about how dependable Toyota vehicles are.

Who would know more than him? He told me that in his entire career, he never worked on a Toyota with under 80,000 miles. He said the parts they use are so superior to American made cars because of the quality. On top of that, one of my earlier jobs made parts for UAW plants, so I had plenty of interaction with those lazy MF's at American car companies. I don't want anybody with their union attitude building my car.

Several years ago I ran into a guy I knew as a kid. He told me he stayed in contact with one of the other guys we hung around with all these years. He got out of school and went to the UAW plant and was hired as a painter. According to this guy who still knows him, he retired well over ten years ago. The guy had to be in his mid to later 40s.

It's the legacy costs that killed American cars. When you buy an American made car, you are paying to have my former friend sit home and snorting coke. From what I understand, he got on dope after he retired because of the substantial income he had and his ample time off. I guess he must have gotten bored.

I believe the fall of the American Automotive Industry is due to the shear arrogance of top management. They believed Americans would never buy small cars. They ignored the growing power of unions until it was too lake. They totally dismissed the trend of Americans attraction to reliability. They believed they could get away with amortizing their operating deficits indefinitely. And finally, they thought they were "too big to fail", believing Wall Street would continue to buy their worthless debt instruments.

In the US in the 1950's, there were 24 major makes of US automobiles.
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Chrysler
Continental
DeSoto
Dodge
Edsel
Ford
Frazer
Henry J
Hudson
Imperial
Kaiser
Lincoln
Mercury
Nash
Oldsmobile
Packard
Plymouth
Pontiac
Rambler
Studebaker
Willys

Today there are 8 major makes of US
automobiles.
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Chrsyler
Dodge
Ford
Jeep
Lincoln

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe the fall of the American Automotive Industry is due to the shear arrogance of top management. They believed Americans would never buy small cars. They ignored the growing power of unions until it was too lake. They totally dismissed the trend of Americans attraction to reliability. They believed they could get away with amortizing their operating deficits indefinitely. And finally, they thought they were "too big to fail", believing Wall Street would continue to buy their worthless debt instruments.

In the US in the 1950's, there were 24 major makes of US automobiles.

It was actually cost cutting that killed them. It started many years ago before the Japanese invasion.

A friend of mine had a father that used to work at the steel mills here in Cleveland. One of his jobs was an inspector. He sat on a folding chair and watched steel being rolled out looking for imperfections. Of course back then, almost the entire car was steel. He told me that they only applied rust proofing on one side of the rolled steel for the UAW plants.

The Dodge bodies were renown for quick deterioration. They used to joke that a Dodge will start rusting the day you drive it off the lot, and the joke was almost true.

I remember rust proofing shops were as big as muffler shops back then. If you cared about your car, you drove it from the dealership to the rustproofing shop. We had one guy in the area who had a used car lot, and the attraction was that all the cars he sold were from the south where none of the vehicles seen rock salt.

Even though much of the vehicles are plastic today, I don't know of one rustproofing place in the area. The Japanese cars came totally rustproofed, and it forced American makers to do the same. My Camry is ten years old, and with the exception of one tiny spot, there is no rust on the vehicle.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Try this: Every other year or so, SS sends out a pamphlet with a history of your (and your employers) contributions, and gives you an amount of what you will receive upon retirement. Now take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask what you would be worth at retirement had you invested all that money in a conservative growth fund.

Then tell me how great SS is.

I plan on retiring at 62. But if I decide to work until 65, and on my birthday, I drop dead of a heart attack blowing out my candles, my family will financially benefit.

My nephew and niece will get my rental property. They will get my car. They will get anything I have in my bank accounts. They will get my IRA fund. What they won't see is one penny of the thousands I put into Social Security; not one dime.

So who gets my money? People I've never met, perhaps people that don't even live in my state, people that can never say thank you for all the money me and my employers put in for them. My family? They get nothing.

That depends. your spouse will be able to draw your social security for life and if you have dependents, they will be able to draw survivors benefits.

You can't compare social security returns with that of an investment company because they are completely different. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Social Security includes disability benefits and provides survivor benefits for both your spouse and all your children in the event of your death. These are very significant benefits. My daughter's husband died about 6 years ago. She and her 4 children are each receiving over a thousand dollars a month. That's more than he has ever paid into Social Security and it can continue throughout her life and for the kids until they are 18.

Social Security is risk free compared any other investment. It requires no knowledge of investments and is recession proof. You can lose your investments because of bad decisions but you can't lose your social security.

The downside is that it will not build an estate and will never allow you to live a life of luxury. For that you need to invest.

Everything has a risk to it. The difference between government and private industry is the risk is passed on to the taxpayers.

If you invest in a family fund; that is to say, an investment company who moves your money around based on the economy, you won't lose anything, and if you do, it would only be temporary.

For instance in this last recession, yes, my IRA account did suffer. But I wasn't going to need my retirement account for many years to come. What happened is it was a great benefit to me in the long run because my investment company was able to buy more shares per pay period. It was like getting in on a three-for-one sale.

Social Security is much less risk, but also pays much less if you live to the average lifespan in the US. If you live longer, you made out. If you live shorter, you lose just like in the market.

No, you don't necessarily lose it if you die early because your spouse can draw survivor benefits for life and if you have minor children they can draw survivor benefits till there're 18. And if you happen to become disable before you die, you can draw disability benefits. However, one of the greatest benefits of social security is it is protect your retirement from the biggest danger of all, you. Millions of Americans find compelling reasons to raid their retirement account time after time, leaving nothing but social security to live on.

Social Security is not a retirement plan and was never meant to be. It provides a bare bones existence. Without it millions of older Americans would be destitute.

So what happens when you die early with no dependents? And from what I understand, the spouse only gets a fraction of her (or his) spouses SS check. That's besides the fact most spouses have their own SS account, and them benefiting off their spouses benefits only drains the system even faster.

Social Security is a long-term Ponzi scheme. Eventually, people in the end are going to lose out because there won't be any money left.

If a person dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse and or dependent children both the spouse and the children receive survivor benefits. Yes, it is a fraction of the accumulated benefits but a large one.

My daughter with 4 kids lost her husband 6 years ago. The total survivor benefit for her and the kids was just short of $55,000 a year. They have received that amount for 6 years. This year it will go down because one child has reached age 18. Without that benefit, the family would have lost their home, my daughter would have had 2 jobs and would have never been able to raise her kids properly, complete her education, and have the good paying job she has today.

Survivor benefits as well as disability benefits are huge benefits to working class families. You won't find any mutual fund family providing those benefits nor any guarantee of any specific benefit. It all depends on financial markets.

If you die when retired, your spouse has the option of drawing your retirement or hers, depending on which is greater.

You keep thinking of social security as a retirement plan. It is not. It is neither a retirement plan nor a pension plan. It's a government program providing economic security for millions of Americans—retirees, disabled persons, and families of retired, disabled or deceased workers. It is financed by employee and employer contributions.

Without Social Security millions of Americans would make no provisions for disability, survivor benefits for spouse and family, and subsistence in old age. Government would have to provide assistance leaving the taxpayer on the hook.

Retirement plans that take into account social security is the best answer to a problem we all face, growing older and the possibly of disability or death leaving our families with no financial support.

The tax benefits of retirement plans coupled with employer contributions make it possible for every working American to have a secure retirement and depending on financial markets, a very comfortable retirement.

I've known several people who went on disability, and most of them could work, it's just they had an excuse not to. Like all government benefits, they are easily abused. It's the people that really need them that can't get them.

A former coworker of mine is a good example. Surgery after surgery, he kept having more medical problems. He couldn't support himself, and without his family reluctantly helping the guy, I don't know what he would have done. In fact my employer still takes him grocery shopping because he lives with his brother out in the sticks, and he lost his drivers license because of vision problems and surgeries.

He spent that last couple of years trying to get on SS. He worked his entire life, and he's too young for retirement. He had no income whatsoever. He can't work, he can't drive, and the government kept telling him to go pound a salt bag when he applied for disability.

Finally last month, they approved his disability. Yes, they will give him backpay from the time he applied, but now he's buried with lawyer fees and money owed to his family. His dream was to return to work, but my employer said that's extremely unlikely. The guy really loves working because it gets him out with the people. He's single and never had children; a very lonely guy.

He didn't know how to play the system. He's too child like to be aggressive. My employer once told me he feared the guy committing suicide because he didn't know what else he could do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well all businesses have to cater to the consumer. Consumers just don't care about quality anymore, they care only about price. That's why Walmart is number one and places like Sears and JC Penny's closed down many of their stores.

I prefer quality. I hate buying things that break all the time. It's one of the reasons I only buy Apple products. Their computers last for many years, while PC brands break the day you bring them home. The computer I'm on right now is over ten years old. To replace this computer would cost me over $1,700. And if I could justify spending the money, I would do it tomorrow. But again, the computer (while slow going to sites) works just fine.

And do you know why Apple products are quality products? They buy the best parts from producers all over the world and they they have most of their products assemble by Chinese manufacturing plants who are the greatest mass producers in the world and can produce high quality products if required to do so and Apple requires it.

If the iPhone and it's parts were manufactured in the US, the finish product would sell between $2000 and $3000.

Yes, but how many Apple users are there in the US? Most people choose the cheapest computers. Apple doesn't make cheap computers or phones. As you stated, higher quality of parts and engineering.

It's the same thing that happened with our automotive industry. The unions forced the auto makers to pay superior money and benefits to their employees along with a very early retirement plans. The Japanese companies didn't go that route. They put money into quality parts and engineering. The US companies then had to use cheaper parts to compete, and the Japanese auto makers took over.

I've been a Toyota owner for over ten years. I've never been happier with an automobile than I am with my Japanese car. It doesn't break down, it's dependable, and the bodies last virtually forever. That's why Toyota can over a 7year 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty and US can only offer a three year 30,000 mile warranty.

I agree with you on Toyota. My family has had Toyotas for over 50 years. The fact that almost all the Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US today in it's 8 manufacturing plants, dispels the myth that Americans can't built great cars. The CEO of Toyota North America and all but 3 of the top officers are American, not Japanese.

There's a book out that explains Toyota's success is due two overriding management concepts:

• Just in Time meaning "Making only what is needed, only when it is needed, and only in the amount that is needed"
• Autonomation meaning "Automation with a human touch"

My last American made car was my last American made car. After 30,000 miles, my mechanic drove it more than I did. He was the person who told me about how dependable Toyota vehicles are.

Who would know more than him? He told me that in his entire career, he never worked on a Toyota with under 80,000 miles. He said the parts they use are so superior to American made cars because of the quality. On top of that, one of my earlier jobs made parts for UAW plants, so I had plenty of interaction with those lazy MF's at American car companies. I don't want anybody with their union attitude building my car.

Several years ago I ran into a guy I knew as a kid. He told me he stayed in contact with one of the other guys we hung around with all these years. He got out of school and went to the UAW plant and was hired as a painter. According to this guy who still knows him, he retired well over ten years ago. The guy had to be in his mid to later 40s.

It's the legacy costs that killed American cars. When you buy an American made car, you are paying to have my former friend sit home and snorting coke. From what I understand, he got on dope after he retired because of the substantial income he had and his ample time off. I guess he must have gotten bored.

I believe the fall of the American Automotive Industry is due to the shear arrogance of top management. They believed Americans would never buy small cars. They ignored the growing power of unions until it was too lake. They totally dismissed the trend of Americans attraction to reliability. They believed they could get away with amortizing their operating deficits indefinitely. And finally, they thought they were "too big to fail", believing Wall Street would continue to buy their worthless debt instruments.

In the US in the 1950's, there were 24 major makes of US automobiles.
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Chrysler
Continental
DeSoto
Dodge
Edsel
Ford
Frazer
Henry J
Hudson
Imperial
Kaiser
Lincoln
Mercury
Nash
Oldsmobile
Packard
Plymouth
Pontiac
Rambler
Studebaker
Willys

Today there are 8 major makes of US
automobiles.
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Chrsyler
Dodge
Ford
Jeep
Lincoln

Your 50's list is really just 4 car makers. Edsel was never a brand, nor was Continental. Edsel was model by Ford, Continental a model by Lincoln (still made) which is produced by Ford. Likewise, Imperial is a model of Chrysler, which also made Plymouth, Dodge and Jeep, which you improperly listed as "Willy's" which had been folded into Chrysler in 48'. Hudson and Nash were both brands of American Motors (AMC).

No idea where you dug up or fabricated that nonsense list. I keep telling people, this is not Facebook, it is not the place to bullshit.

 

[Flopper]

I believe the fall of the American Automotive Industry is due to the shear arrogance of top management. They believed Americans would never buy small cars. They ignored the growing power of unions until it was too lake. They totally dismissed the trend of Americans attraction to reliability. They believed they could get away with amortizing their operating deficits indefinitely. And finally, they thought they were "too big to fail", believing Wall Street would continue to buy their worthless debt instruments.

In the US in the 1950's, there were 24 major makes of US automobiles.

It was actually cost cutting that killed them. It started many years ago before the Japanese invasion.

A friend of mine had a father that used to work at the steel mills here in Cleveland. One of his jobs was an inspector. He sat on a folding chair and watched steel being rolled out looking for imperfections. Of course back then, almost the entire car was steel. He told me that they only applied rust proofing on one side of the rolled steel for the UAW plants.

The Dodge bodies were renown for quick deterioration. They used to joke that a Dodge will start rusting the day you drive it off the lot, and the joke was almost true.

I remember rust proofing shops were as big as muffler shops back then. If you cared about your car, you drove it from the dealership to the rustproofing shop. We had one guy in the area who had a used car lot, and the attraction was that all the cars he sold were from the south where none of the vehicles seen rock salt.

Even though much of the vehicles are plastic today, I don't know of one rustproofing place in the area. The Japanese cars came totally rustproofed, and it forced American makers to do the same. My Camry is ten years old, and with the exception of one tiny spot, there is no rust on the vehicle.

Yeah, now you mention it, I remember undercoating shops. It seems like Midas was big into undercoating for a while. You'd see cars with rust holes in fenders. My car has so much plastic or fiberglass, there's not much to rust. I think they dip steel panels in zinc, or galvanized them. Whatever they do today seems to have solved most of the rust problem.

 

[daveman]

Yet, you believe in the biggest most ridiculous conspiracy theory of all time: Russian collusion.

Plenty has been found on Hillary. The only difference is that the corrupt Obama FBI obstructed justice and refused to prosecute.

Actually I don't think the Russians are stupid enough to think the trumps could help them. The trumps are totally incompetent.

Yet, they whipped Hillary's ass.

Yep the Russians sure did. With help from Big mouth Republican James Comey.

Hillary defeated herself. She was a terrible candidate.

Pretty bad. I'm sorry she didn't become president so she could f****** relax. Russian even concentrated on those four states that killed Hillary.
And unlike Republicans I don't like Russians messing with our election...

 

[sealybobo]

Try this: Every other year or so, SS sends out a pamphlet with a history of your (and your employers) contributions, and gives you an amount of what you will receive upon retirement. Now take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask what you would be worth at retirement had you invested all that money in a conservative growth fund.

Then tell me how great SS is.

I plan on retiring at 62. But if I decide to work until 65, and on my birthday, I drop dead of a heart attack blowing out my candles, my family will financially benefit.

My nephew and niece will get my rental property. They will get my car. They will get anything I have in my bank accounts. They will get my IRA fund. What they won't see is one penny of the thousands I put into Social Security; not one dime.

So who gets my money? People I've never met, perhaps people that don't even live in my state, people that can never say thank you for all the money me and my employers put in for them. My family? They get nothing.

That depends. your spouse will be able to draw your social security for life and if you have dependents, they will be able to draw survivors benefits.

You can't compare social security returns with that of an investment company because they are completely different. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Social Security includes disability benefits and provides survivor benefits for both your spouse and all your children in the event of your death. These are very significant benefits. My daughter's husband died about 6 years ago. She and her 4 children are each receiving over a thousand dollars a month. That's more than he has ever paid into Social Security and it can continue throughout her life and for the kids until they are 18.

Social Security is risk free compared any other investment. It requires no knowledge of investments and is recession proof. You can lose your investments because of bad decisions but you can't lose your social security.

The downside is that it will not build an estate and will never allow you to live a life of luxury. For that you need to invest.

Everything has a risk to it. The difference between government and private industry is the risk is passed on to the taxpayers.

If you invest in a family fund; that is to say, an investment company who moves your money around based on the economy, you won't lose anything, and if you do, it would only be temporary.

For instance in this last recession, yes, my IRA account did suffer. But I wasn't going to need my retirement account for many years to come. What happened is it was a great benefit to me in the long run because my investment company was able to buy more shares per pay period. It was like getting in on a three-for-one sale.

Social Security is much less risk, but also pays much less if you live to the average lifespan in the US. If you live longer, you made out. If you live shorter, you lose just like in the market.

No, you don't necessarily lose it if you die early because your spouse can draw survivor benefits for life and if you have minor children they can draw survivor benefits till there're 18. And if you happen to become disable before you die, you can draw disability benefits. However, one of the greatest benefits of social security is it is protect your retirement from the biggest danger of all, you. Millions of Americans find compelling reasons to raid their retirement account time after time, leaving nothing but social security to live on.

Social Security is not a retirement plan and was never meant to be. It provides a bare bones existence. Without it millions of older Americans would be destitute.

So what happens when you die early with no dependents? And from what I understand, the spouse only gets a fraction of her (or his) spouses SS check. That's besides the fact most spouses have their own SS account, and them benefiting off their spouses benefits only drains the system even faster.

Social Security is a long-term Ponzi scheme. Eventually, people in the end are going to lose out because there won't be any money left.

If a person dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse and or dependent children both the spouse and the children receive survivor benefits. Yes, it is a fraction of the accumulated benefits but a large one.

My daughter with 4 kids lost her husband 6 years ago. The total survivor benefit for her and the kids was just short of $55,000 a year. They have received that amount for 6 years. This year it will go down because one child has reached age 18. Without that benefit, the family would have lost their home, my daughter would have had 2 jobs and would have never been able to raise her kids properly, complete her education, and have the good paying job she has today.

Survivor benefits as well as disability benefits are huge benefits to working class families. You won't find any mutual fund family providing those benefits nor any guarantee of any specific benefit. It all depends on financial markets.

If you die when retired, your spouse has the option of drawing your retirement or hers, depending on which is greater.

You keep thinking of social security as a retirement plan. It is not. It is neither a retirement plan nor a pension plan. It's a government program providing economic security for millions of Americans—retirees, disabled persons, and families of retired, disabled or deceased workers. It is financed by employee and employer contributions.

Without Social Security millions of Americans would make no provisions for disability, survivor benefits for spouse and family, and subsistence in old age. Government would have to provide assistance leaving the taxpayer on the hook.

Retirement plans that take into account social security is the best answer to a problem we all face, growing older and the possibly of disability or death leaving our families with no financial support.

The tax benefits of retirement plans coupled with employer contributions make it possible for every working American to have a secure retirement and depending on financial markets, a very comfortable retirement.

Middle class republicans really hav no business voting republican. Theyre ******* themselves just to stop other people from having abortions. Or because they think gays blacks and immigrants are invading.

Meanwhile republicans are going to pass the policies that spoil their hopes of ever retiring.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That depends. your spouse will be able to draw your social security for life and if you have dependents, they will be able to draw survivors benefits.

You can't compare social security returns with that of an investment company because they are completely different. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Social Security includes disability benefits and provides survivor benefits for both your spouse and all your children in the event of your death. These are very significant benefits. My daughter's husband died about 6 years ago. She and her 4 children are each receiving over a thousand dollars a month. That's more than he has ever paid into Social Security and it can continue throughout her life and for the kids until they are 18.

Social Security is risk free compared any other investment. It requires no knowledge of investments and is recession proof. You can lose your investments because of bad decisions but you can't lose your social security.

The downside is that it will not build an estate and will never allow you to live a life of luxury. For that you need to invest.

Everything has a risk to it. The difference between government and private industry is the risk is passed on to the taxpayers.

If you invest in a family fund; that is to say, an investment company who moves your money around based on the economy, you won't lose anything, and if you do, it would only be temporary.

For instance in this last recession, yes, my IRA account did suffer. But I wasn't going to need my retirement account for many years to come. What happened is it was a great benefit to me in the long run because my investment company was able to buy more shares per pay period. It was like getting in on a three-for-one sale.

Social Security is much less risk, but also pays much less if you live to the average lifespan in the US. If you live longer, you made out. If you live shorter, you lose just like in the market.

No, you don't necessarily lose it if you die early because your spouse can draw survivor benefits for life and if you have minor children they can draw survivor benefits till there're 18. And if you happen to become disable before you die, you can draw disability benefits. However, one of the greatest benefits of social security is it is protect your retirement from the biggest danger of all, you. Millions of Americans find compelling reasons to raid their retirement account time after time, leaving nothing but social security to live on.

Social Security is not a retirement plan and was never meant to be. It provides a bare bones existence. Without it millions of older Americans would be destitute.

So what happens when you die early with no dependents? And from what I understand, the spouse only gets a fraction of her (or his) spouses SS check. That's besides the fact most spouses have their own SS account, and them benefiting off their spouses benefits only drains the system even faster.

Social Security is a long-term Ponzi scheme. Eventually, people in the end are going to lose out because there won't be any money left.

If a person dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse and or dependent children both the spouse and the children receive survivor benefits. Yes, it is a fraction of the accumulated benefits but a large one.

My daughter with 4 kids lost her husband 6 years ago. The total survivor benefit for her and the kids was just short of $55,000 a year. They have received that amount for 6 years. This year it will go down because one child has reached age 18. Without that benefit, the family would have lost their home, my daughter would have had 2 jobs and would have never been able to raise her kids properly, complete her education, and have the good paying job she has today.

Survivor benefits as well as disability benefits are huge benefits to working class families. You won't find any mutual fund family providing those benefits nor any guarantee of any specific benefit. It all depends on financial markets.

If you die when retired, your spouse has the option of drawing your retirement or hers, depending on which is greater.

You keep thinking of social security as a retirement plan. It is not. It is neither a retirement plan nor a pension plan. It's a government program providing economic security for millions of Americans—retirees, disabled persons, and families of retired, disabled or deceased workers. It is financed by employee and employer contributions.

Without Social Security millions of Americans would make no provisions for disability, survivor benefits for spouse and family, and subsistence in old age. Government would have to provide assistance leaving the taxpayer on the hook.

Retirement plans that take into account social security is the best answer to a problem we all face, growing older and the possibly of disability or death leaving our families with no financial support.

The tax benefits of retirement plans coupled with employer contributions make it possible for every working American to have a secure retirement and depending on financial markets, a very comfortable retirement.

Middle class republicans really hav no business voting republican. Theyre ******* themselves just to stop other people from having abortions. Or because they think gays blacks and immigrants are invading.

Meanwhile republicans are going to pass the policies that spoil their hopes of ever retiring.

ANYONE who votes for a democrat, after the attempted coup, after the obstruction of justice by Obama/Comey, et al. is a ******* pig.

You CANNOT be a good person and vote for a democrat at any level. If you caste a vote for this filthy and evil party, you are scum. No way around it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That depends. your spouse will be able to draw your social security for life and if you have dependents, they will be able to draw survivors benefits.

You can't compare social security returns with that of an investment company because they are completely different. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Social Security includes disability benefits and provides survivor benefits for both your spouse and all your children in the event of your death. These are very significant benefits. My daughter's husband died about 6 years ago. She and her 4 children are each receiving over a thousand dollars a month. That's more than he has ever paid into Social Security and it can continue throughout her life and for the kids until they are 18.

Social Security is risk free compared any other investment. It requires no knowledge of investments and is recession proof. You can lose your investments because of bad decisions but you can't lose your social security.

The downside is that it will not build an estate and will never allow you to live a life of luxury. For that you need to invest.

Everything has a risk to it. The difference between government and private industry is the risk is passed on to the taxpayers.

If you invest in a family fund; that is to say, an investment company who moves your money around based on the economy, you won't lose anything, and if you do, it would only be temporary.

For instance in this last recession, yes, my IRA account did suffer. But I wasn't going to need my retirement account for many years to come. What happened is it was a great benefit to me in the long run because my investment company was able to buy more shares per pay period. It was like getting in on a three-for-one sale.

Social Security is much less risk, but also pays much less if you live to the average lifespan in the US. If you live longer, you made out. If you live shorter, you lose just like in the market.

No, you don't necessarily lose it if you die early because your spouse can draw survivor benefits for life and if you have minor children they can draw survivor benefits till there're 18. And if you happen to become disable before you die, you can draw disability benefits. However, one of the greatest benefits of social security is it is protect your retirement from the biggest danger of all, you. Millions of Americans find compelling reasons to raid their retirement account time after time, leaving nothing but social security to live on.

Social Security is not a retirement plan and was never meant to be. It provides a bare bones existence. Without it millions of older Americans would be destitute.

So what happens when you die early with no dependents? And from what I understand, the spouse only gets a fraction of her (or his) spouses SS check. That's besides the fact most spouses have their own SS account, and them benefiting off their spouses benefits only drains the system even faster.

Social Security is a long-term Ponzi scheme. Eventually, people in the end are going to lose out because there won't be any money left.

If a person dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse and or dependent children both the spouse and the children receive survivor benefits. Yes, it is a fraction of the accumulated benefits but a large one.

My daughter with 4 kids lost her husband 6 years ago. The total survivor benefit for her and the kids was just short of $55,000 a year. They have received that amount for 6 years. This year it will go down because one child has reached age 18. Without that benefit, the family would have lost their home, my daughter would have had 2 jobs and would have never been able to raise her kids properly, complete her education, and have the good paying job she has today.

Survivor benefits as well as disability benefits are huge benefits to working class families. You won't find any mutual fund family providing those benefits nor any guarantee of any specific benefit. It all depends on financial markets.

If you die when retired, your spouse has the option of drawing your retirement or hers, depending on which is greater.

You keep thinking of social security as a retirement plan. It is not. It is neither a retirement plan nor a pension plan. It's a government program providing economic security for millions of Americans—retirees, disabled persons, and families of retired, disabled or deceased workers. It is financed by employee and employer contributions.

Without Social Security millions of Americans would make no provisions for disability, survivor benefits for spouse and family, and subsistence in old age. Government would have to provide assistance leaving the taxpayer on the hook.

Retirement plans that take into account social security is the best answer to a problem we all face, growing older and the possibly of disability or death leaving our families with no financial support.

The tax benefits of retirement plans coupled with employer contributions make it possible for every working American to have a secure retirement and depending on financial markets, a very comfortable retirement.

Middle class republicans really hav no business voting republican. Theyre ******* themselves just to stop other people from having abortions. Or because they think gays blacks and immigrants are invading.

Meanwhile republicans are going to pass the policies that spoil their hopes of ever retiring.

Gays, blacks and immigrants are not invading?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[daveman]

That depends. your spouse will be able to draw your social security for life and if you have dependents, they will be able to draw survivors benefits.

You can't compare social security returns with that of an investment company because they are completely different. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Social Security includes disability benefits and provides survivor benefits for both your spouse and all your children in the event of your death. These are very significant benefits. My daughter's husband died about 6 years ago. She and her 4 children are each receiving over a thousand dollars a month. That's more than he has ever paid into Social Security and it can continue throughout her life and for the kids until they are 18.

Social Security is risk free compared any other investment. It requires no knowledge of investments and is recession proof. You can lose your investments because of bad decisions but you can't lose your social security.

The downside is that it will not build an estate and will never allow you to live a life of luxury. For that you need to invest.

Everything has a risk to it. The difference between government and private industry is the risk is passed on to the taxpayers.

If you invest in a family fund; that is to say, an investment company who moves your money around based on the economy, you won't lose anything, and if you do, it would only be temporary.

For instance in this last recession, yes, my IRA account did suffer. But I wasn't going to need my retirement account for many years to come. What happened is it was a great benefit to me in the long run because my investment company was able to buy more shares per pay period. It was like getting in on a three-for-one sale.

Social Security is much less risk, but also pays much less if you live to the average lifespan in the US. If you live longer, you made out. If you live shorter, you lose just like in the market.

No, you don't necessarily lose it if you die early because your spouse can draw survivor benefits for life and if you have minor children they can draw survivor benefits till there're 18. And if you happen to become disable before you die, you can draw disability benefits. However, one of the greatest benefits of social security is it is protect your retirement from the biggest danger of all, you. Millions of Americans find compelling reasons to raid their retirement account time after time, leaving nothing but social security to live on.

Social Security is not a retirement plan and was never meant to be. It provides a bare bones existence. Without it millions of older Americans would be destitute.

So what happens when you die early with no dependents? And from what I understand, the spouse only gets a fraction of her (or his) spouses SS check. That's besides the fact most spouses have their own SS account, and them benefiting off their spouses benefits only drains the system even faster.

Social Security is a long-term Ponzi scheme. Eventually, people in the end are going to lose out because there won't be any money left.

If a person dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse and or dependent children both the spouse and the children receive survivor benefits. Yes, it is a fraction of the accumulated benefits but a large one.

My daughter with 4 kids lost her husband 6 years ago. The total survivor benefit for her and the kids was just short of $55,000 a year. They have received that amount for 6 years. This year it will go down because one child has reached age 18. Without that benefit, the family would have lost their home, my daughter would have had 2 jobs and would have never been able to raise her kids properly, complete her education, and have the good paying job she has today.

Survivor benefits as well as disability benefits are huge benefits to working class families. You won't find any mutual fund family providing those benefits nor any guarantee of any specific benefit. It all depends on financial markets.

If you die when retired, your spouse has the option of drawing your retirement or hers, depending on which is greater.

You keep thinking of social security as a retirement plan. It is not. It is neither a retirement plan nor a pension plan. It's a government program providing economic security for millions of Americans—retirees, disabled persons, and families of retired, disabled or deceased workers. It is financed by employee and employer contributions.

Without Social Security millions of Americans would make no provisions for disability, survivor benefits for spouse and family, and subsistence in old age. Government would have to provide assistance leaving the taxpayer on the hook.

Retirement plans that take into account social security is the best answer to a problem we all face, growing older and the possibly of disability or death leaving our families with no financial support.

The tax benefits of retirement plans coupled with employer contributions make it possible for every working American to have a secure retirement and depending on financial markets, a very comfortable retirement.

Middle class republicans really hav no business voting republican. Theyre ******* themselves just to stop other people from having abortions. Or because they think gays blacks and immigrants are invading.

Meanwhile republicans are going to pass the policies that spoil their hopes of ever retiring.

PEOPLE WHO VOTE REPUBLICAN ARE VOTING AGAINST THEIR BEST INTERESTS WHAT IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTED IS VOTING DEMOCRAT I KNOW BECAUSE DEMOCRATS TOLD ME SO

 

[sealybobo]

Everything has a risk to it. The difference between government and private industry is the risk is passed on to the taxpayers.

If you invest in a family fund; that is to say, an investment company who moves your money around based on the economy, you won't lose anything, and if you do, it would only be temporary.

For instance in this last recession, yes, my IRA account did suffer. But I wasn't going to need my retirement account for many years to come. What happened is it was a great benefit to me in the long run because my investment company was able to buy more shares per pay period. It was like getting in on a three-for-one sale.

Social Security is much less risk, but also pays much less if you live to the average lifespan in the US. If you live longer, you made out. If you live shorter, you lose just like in the market.

No, you don't necessarily lose it if you die early because your spouse can draw survivor benefits for life and if you have minor children they can draw survivor benefits till there're 18. And if you happen to become disable before you die, you can draw disability benefits. However, one of the greatest benefits of social security is it is protect your retirement from the biggest danger of all, you. Millions of Americans find compelling reasons to raid their retirement account time after time, leaving nothing but social security to live on.

Social Security is not a retirement plan and was never meant to be. It provides a bare bones existence. Without it millions of older Americans would be destitute.

So what happens when you die early with no dependents? And from what I understand, the spouse only gets a fraction of her (or his) spouses SS check. That's besides the fact most spouses have their own SS account, and them benefiting off their spouses benefits only drains the system even faster.

Social Security is a long-term Ponzi scheme. Eventually, people in the end are going to lose out because there won't be any money left.

If a person dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse and or dependent children both the spouse and the children receive survivor benefits. Yes, it is a fraction of the accumulated benefits but a large one.

My daughter with 4 kids lost her husband 6 years ago. The total survivor benefit for her and the kids was just short of $55,000 a year. They have received that amount for 6 years. This year it will go down because one child has reached age 18. Without that benefit, the family would have lost their home, my daughter would have had 2 jobs and would have never been able to raise her kids properly, complete her education, and have the good paying job she has today.

Survivor benefits as well as disability benefits are huge benefits to working class families. You won't find any mutual fund family providing those benefits nor any guarantee of any specific benefit. It all depends on financial markets.

If you die when retired, your spouse has the option of drawing your retirement or hers, depending on which is greater.

You keep thinking of social security as a retirement plan. It is not. It is neither a retirement plan nor a pension plan. It's a government program providing economic security for millions of Americans—retirees, disabled persons, and families of retired, disabled or deceased workers. It is financed by employee and employer contributions.

Without Social Security millions of Americans would make no provisions for disability, survivor benefits for spouse and family, and subsistence in old age. Government would have to provide assistance leaving the taxpayer on the hook.

Retirement plans that take into account social security is the best answer to a problem we all face, growing older and the possibly of disability or death leaving our families with no financial support.

The tax benefits of retirement plans coupled with employer contributions make it possible for every working American to have a secure retirement and depending on financial markets, a very comfortable retirement.

Middle class republicans really hav no business voting republican. Theyre ******* themselves just to stop other people from having abortions. Or because they think gays blacks and immigrants are invading.

Meanwhile republicans are going to pass the policies that spoil their hopes of ever retiring.

PEOPLE WHO VOTE REPUBLICAN ARE VOTING AGAINST THEIR BEST INTERESTS WHAT IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTED IS VOTING DEMOCRAT I KNOW BECAUSE DEMOCRATS TOLD ME SO

It’s obvious. Are you middle class? Are you struggling to save? Then keep voting republican. That will change.

Let me know when you’ve maga