S&P Hits 5-Year High

[TruthOut10]

S&P 500 has longest winning streak since '04; Friday's close first above 1,500 since start of recession

NEW YORK — The Standard & Poor’s closed above 1,500 for the first time since the start of the Great Recession in 2007, lifted by strong earnings from Procter & Gamble and Starbucks.

The S&P 500 closed at 1,502, up eight points, or half a percent. It was the eighth straight gain, the longest winning streak since November 2004.

The Dow Jones industrial average closed at 13,825, up 46 points. The Nasdaq gained 19 points to 3,149.

S&P 500 has longest winning streak since ?04; first close above 1,500 since start of recession - The Washington Post

Merged.

 

[uscitizen]

So "where's the beef" for workers?

 

[TruthOut10]

So "where's the beef" for workers?

Good question indeed, so maybe this article can shed some light on that topic.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...se-than-in-many-latin-american-countries.html also another article that might explain it can be found here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...overqualified-for-their-jobs.html#post6735883

 

[Rshermr]

So "where's the beef" for workers?

Good question indeed, so maybe this article can shed some light on that topic.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...se-than-in-many-latin-american-countries.html also another article that might explain it can be found here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...overqualified-for-their-jobs.html#post6735883

Even the central planners in china recognize the requirement for a healthy middle class. They are putting emphasis on it, and that has resulted in a large increase in middle class size and annual earning. Here, republicans see no issue with distributing income to the wealthy. Kind of a reversal of what we knew as the american economy, and the american way of life. In china, the future is seen as having the requirement of lessening the income gap between wealthy and poor. And they are putting a major effort into decreasing that gap, though as hear, the wealthy are fighting it hard.
China Releases New Data Suggesting Income Inequality Has Lessened

 

[Mr. H.]

That cash should be circulating in the economy, not on Wall Street.

 

[asterism]

So "where's the beef" for workers?

Good question indeed, so maybe this article can shed some light on that topic.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...se-than-in-many-latin-american-countries.html also another article that might explain it can be found here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...overqualified-for-their-jobs.html#post6735883

Even the central planners in china recognize the requirement for a healthy middle class. They are putting emphasis on it, and that has resulted in a large increase in middle class size and annual earning. Here, republicans see no issue with distributing income to the wealthy. Kind of a reversal of what we knew as the american economy, and the american way of life. In china, the future is seen as having the requirement of lessening the income gap between wealthy and poor. And they are putting a major effort into decreasing that gap, though as hear, the wealthy are fighting it hard.
China Releases New Data Suggesting Income Inequality Has Lessened

Middle Class in China is $8500 per year. It's easy to build a robust middle class when it's that low. Middle Class in the US is $40K per year.

China has a higher GINI Coefficient than the US.

 

[Oddball]

The 1% are cleaning up!!!

 

[Rshermr]

You made the ridiculous claim and half truth about Bush wanting to "partially priviatize" Social Security. If he would've succeeded, there would have been alot more people hurting big time in this Country.

Sounds like you have no 401k plan and that is why it was so easy for you to make such a stupid statement to begin with and then comeback and post again looking for a response. Finally you get one and then, cry look at the OP.....

SS is a giant scam. If you make 40K and put 15% into a private account you retire with $1.5 million and $6K a month. With SS welfare you retire with nothing and get only 1.2k a month if you live long enough to collect any of it!

That's living well? The Democratic scams should just be made illegal. What does this say about liberalism?
Imagine how the Democrats have impoverished America?

Ed does not understand that ss is insurance, not investment.
Ed does not understand that to put sufficient money into a ss investment scheme would cost americans trillions, just to get it started.
Ed does not understand that americans, even the crazy tea party folks, want the gov to keep their hands off of ss.]
Ed missed it that W became about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl when he pushed to privatize ss.
Because ed wants the brokerages to get rich trading stocks and bonds for ss recipients.

 

[tjvh]

The mad dash to make a quick buck before we all go over the cliff... And?

 

[asterism]

The 1% are cleaning up!!!

Rich people doing the things that make them rich. That said, the 1% is not a static group. There are LOTS of new one percenters and plenty of former one percenters.

 

[UseCaution]

You made the ridiculous claim and half truth about Bush wanting to "partially priviatize" Social Security. If he would've succeeded, there would have been alot more people hurting big time in this Country.

Sounds like you have no 401k plan and that is why it was so easy for you to make such a stupid statement to begin with and then comeback and post again looking for a response. Finally you get one and then, cry look at the OP.....

SS is a giant scam. If you make 40K and put 15% into a private account you retire with $1.5 million and $6K a month. With SS welfare you retire with nothing and get only 1.2k a month if you live long enough to collect any of it!

That's living well? The Democratic scams should just be made illegal. What does this say about liberalism?
Imagine how the Democrats have impoverished America?

Ed does not understand that ss is insurance, not investment.
Ed does not understand that to put sufficient money into a ss investment scheme would cost americans trillions, just to get it started.
Ed does not understand that americans, even the crazy tea party folks, want the gov to keep their hands off of ss.]
Ed missed it that W became about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl when he pushed to privatize ss.
Because ed wants the brokerages to get rich trading stocks and bonds for ss recipients.

most can't connect dots. SS is run by non profit rules vs for profit specultors with no rules.

 

[Oddball]

The 1% are cleaning up!!!

Rich people doing the things that make them rich. That said, the 1% is not a static group. There are LOTS of new one percenters and plenty of former one percenters.

I know that...I'm just throwing all that !%-er crap back in the faces of the ignorant nitwits, who now turn around and cheer when the markets go nuts and the 1%-ers make bank, as a way to cheer for their socialist central planner Boiking.

 

[Toro]

You made the ridiculous claim and half truth about Bush wanting to "partially priviatize" Social Security. If he would've succeeded, there would have been alot more people hurting big time in this Country.

Sounds like you have no 401k plan and that is why it was so easy for you to make such a stupid statement to begin with and then comeback and post again looking for a response. Finally you get one and then, cry look at the OP.....

SS is a giant scam. If you make 40K and put 15% into a private account you retire with $1.5 million and $6K a month. With SS welfare you retire with nothing and get only 1.2k a month if you live long enough to collect any of it!

That's living well? The Democratic scams should just be made illegal. What does this say about liberalism?
Imagine how the Democrats have impoverished America?

Ed does not understand that ss is insurance, not investment.
Ed does not understand that to put sufficient money into a ss investment scheme would cost americans trillions, just to get it started.
Ed does not understand that americans, even the crazy tea party folks, want the gov to keep their hands off of ss.]
Ed missed it that W became about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl when he pushed to privatize ss.
Because ed wants the brokerages to get rich trading stocks and bonds for ss recipients.

"Insurance" is an investment.

Insurance companies take your money then invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity, hedge funds, infrastructure, timber, etc.

Yet, only SS invests in government debt obligations.

SS is, in fact, an annuity, which is pretty much the same thing as a defined benefit pension obligation, i.e. it's a pension

SS wouldn't pass ERISA standards if it were anything other than SS, which is pathetic.

SS invests solely in government obligations, which compounds over time at about 4%-5% a year, though its 2%-3% today. A typical pension plan is invested 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds and compounds over time at 8% per year. $100 million invested at 4% is worth $460 million in 50 years. $100 million invested at 8% is worth $4.6 billion in 50 years. We can secure SS for centuries and give people a tax cut if we start treating SS like other countries do, and start investing it like every single other pension plan in the country.

It's not 1930 anymore. It's time to stop acting like it when it comes to SS.

BTW "keep government off my SS" is about as ridiculous as "keep government out of my Medicare."

 

[Rshermr]

SS is a giant scam. If you make 40K and put 15% into a private account you retire with $1.5 million and $6K a month. With SS welfare you retire with nothing and get only 1.2k a month if you live long enough to collect any of it!

That's living well? The Democratic scams should just be made illegal. What does this say about liberalism?
Imagine how the Democrats have impoverished America?

Ed does not understand that ss is insurance, not investment.
Ed does not understand that to put sufficient money into a ss investment scheme would cost americans trillions, just to get it started.
Ed does not understand that americans, even the crazy tea party folks, want the gov to keep their hands off of ss.]
Ed missed it that W became about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl when he pushed to privatize ss.
Because ed wants the brokerages to get rich trading stocks and bonds for ss recipients.

"Insurance" is an investment.

Insurance companies take your money then invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity, hedge funds, infrastructure, timber, etc.

Yet, only SS invests in government debt obligations.

SS is, in fact, an annuity, which is pretty much the same thing as a defined benefit pension obligation, i.e. it's a pension

SS wouldn't pass ERISA standards if it were anything other than SS, which is pathetic.

SS invests solely in government obligations, which compounds over time at about 4%-5% a year, though its 2%-3% today. A typical pension plan is invested 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds and compounds over time at 8% per year. $100 million invested at 4% is worth $460 million in 50 years. $100 million invested at 8% is worth $4.6 billion in 50 years. We can secure SS for centuries and give people a tax cut if we start treating SS like other countries do, and start investing it like every single other pension plan in the country.

It's not 1930 anymore. It's time to stop acting like it when it comes to SS.

BTW "keep government off my SS" is about as ridiculous as "keep government out of my Medicare."

Sure it is. But you see, we live in a representative republic. Most of the time people get what they want and what they pay for. Funny how that works.

So, sorry you do not like it. No, actually i could care less.

But here is the deal. People want their money safe. They could care less if you have a better scheme for THEIR money. They want the insurance to pay back while they live. They do not want another great republican recession of 2008 to happen to them, and the gov to say "Damn, if only you had retired last year, we would have had a million for you. But, now, well, you are on your own".

But, if you are a politician, the financial industry is pushing for you to change SS to an investment program, so that they can make a few Trillion bucks over time. And you just have to try to get interest. And you will get interest from the voters, if you push it. And you can find a new job.
Then, you can post about how stupid SS is. And how it is not insurance, but an annuity. An annuity that goes to zero, if you die before you are paid. Or if the market tanks again. And you can talk about how stupid ss is, and that the public still wants it. Maybe you should look in the mirror, and see if you see stupid there.

 

[Toro]

Ed does not understand that ss is insurance, not investment.
Ed does not understand that to put sufficient money into a ss investment scheme would cost americans trillions, just to get it started.
Ed does not understand that americans, even the crazy tea party folks, want the gov to keep their hands off of ss.]
Ed missed it that W became about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl when he pushed to privatize ss.
Because ed wants the brokerages to get rich trading stocks and bonds for ss recipients.

"Insurance" is an investment.

Insurance companies take your money then invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity, hedge funds, infrastructure, timber, etc.

Yet, only SS invests in government debt obligations.

SS is, in fact, an annuity, which is pretty much the same thing as a defined benefit pension obligation, i.e. it's a pension

SS wouldn't pass ERISA standards if it were anything other than SS, which is pathetic.

SS invests solely in government obligations, which compounds over time at about 4%-5% a year, though its 2%-3% today. A typical pension plan is invested 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds and compounds over time at 8% per year. $100 million invested at 4% is worth $460 million in 50 years. $100 million invested at 8% is worth $4.6 billion in 50 years. We can secure SS for centuries and give people a tax cut if we start treating SS like other countries do, and start investing it like every single other pension plan in the country.

It's not 1930 anymore. It's time to stop acting like it when it comes to SS.

BTW "keep government off my SS" is about as ridiculous as "keep government out of my Medicare."

Sure it is. But you see, we live in a representative republic. Most of the time people get what they want and what they pay for. Funny how that works.

So, sorry you do not like it. No, actually i could care less.

But here is the deal. People want their money safe. They could care less if you have a better scheme for THEIR money. They want the insurance to pay back while they live. They do not want another great republican recession of 2008 to happen to them, and the gov to say "Damn, if only you had retired last year, we would have had a million for you. But, now, well, you are on your own".

But, if you are a politician, the financial industry is pushing for you to change SS to an investment program, so that they can make a few Trillion bucks over time. And you just have to try to get interest. And you will get interest from the voters, if you push it. And you can find a new job.
Then, you can post about how stupid SS is. And how it is not insurance, but an annuity. An annuity that goes to zero, if you die before you are paid. Or if the market tanks again. And you can talk about how stupid ss is, and that the public still wants it. Maybe you should look in the mirror, and see if you see stupid there.

SS is not "safe." It is being eroded by inflation.

The current system exists because of peoples' ignorance and it suits the politicians' interests.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Bush was right to want to partially privatize Social Security.

Go figure

Well, it would certainly have been a great thing for all of the brokerage firms that would have handled the trades. But not sure anyone would have been real happy with what happened to their retirement holdings as Bush was leaving and the market was tanking. Ya think, Crusader?

You would do great with some real life experience. You don't seem to really know anything. People put money to work over the course of their life and don't withdraw it all on one day when the market tanks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bonds are a graveyard of capital, but shorting bonds is the widowmaker trade

Buy put options on bond futures. They do not cost much. Volatility is low so options are cheap.

The Fed is more liquid than I. There will be a time to short bonds, but I don't think its right to take a position now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No he wasn't.

I lost 50K in my 401K in the last year of Bush's second term.

That's alot of ducats.

Did you read the OP?

Why refer him to read the OP now? You made the ridiculous claim and half truth about Bush wanting to "partially priviatize" Social Security. If he would've succeeded, there would have been alot more people hurting big time in this Country.

Sounds like you have no 401k plan and that is why it was so easy for you to make such a stupid statement to begin with and then comeback and post again looking for a response. Finally you get one and then, cry look at the OP.....

It's plain to see which people are totally uneducated about investing and markets. I referred back to the OP because it contradicted Sallow's point about he lost value at some point along the way

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Insurance" is an investment.

Insurance companies take your money then invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity, hedge funds, infrastructure, timber, etc.

Yet, only SS invests in government debt obligations.

SS is, in fact, an annuity, which is pretty much the same thing as a defined benefit pension obligation, i.e. it's a pension

SS wouldn't pass ERISA standards if it were anything other than SS, which is pathetic.

SS invests solely in government obligations, which compounds over time at about 4%-5% a year, though its 2%-3% today. A typical pension plan is invested 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds and compounds over time at 8% per year. $100 million invested at 4% is worth $460 million in 50 years. $100 million invested at 8% is worth $4.6 billion in 50 years. We can secure SS for centuries and give people a tax cut if we start treating SS like other countries do, and start investing it like every single other pension plan in the country.

It's not 1930 anymore. It's time to stop acting like it when it comes to SS.

BTW "keep government off my SS" is about as ridiculous as "keep government out of my Medicare."

Sure it is. But you see, we live in a representative republic. Most of the time people get what they want and what they pay for. Funny how that works.

So, sorry you do not like it. No, actually i could care less.

But here is the deal. People want their money safe. They could care less if you have a better scheme for THEIR money. They want the insurance to pay back while they live. They do not want another great republican recession of 2008 to happen to them, and the gov to say "Damn, if only you had retired last year, we would have had a million for you. But, now, well, you are on your own".

But, if you are a politician, the financial industry is pushing for you to change SS to an investment program, so that they can make a few Trillion bucks over time. And you just have to try to get interest. And you will get interest from the voters, if you push it. And you can find a new job.
Then, you can post about how stupid SS is. And how it is not insurance, but an annuity. An annuity that goes to zero, if you die before you are paid. Or if the market tanks again. And you can talk about how stupid ss is, and that the public still wants it. Maybe you should look in the mirror, and see if you see stupid there.

SS is not "safe." It is being eroded by inflation.

The current system exists because of peoples' ignorance and it suits the politicians' interests.

Twice now Obama has threatened to withhold Social Security payments. Had a Republican President said that there's be blood in the street with the AARP handing out AK-47's to all their members

 

[Rshermr]

Sure it is. But you see, we live in a representative republic. Most of the time people get what they want and what they pay for. Funny how that works.

So, sorry you do not like it. No, actually i could care less.

But here is the deal. People want their money safe. They could care less if you have a better scheme for THEIR money. They want the insurance to pay back while they live. They do not want another great republican recession of 2008 to happen to them, and the gov to say "Damn, if only you had retired last year, we would have had a million for you. But, now, well, you are on your own".

But, if you are a politician, the financial industry is pushing for you to change SS to an investment program, so that they can make a few Trillion bucks over time. And you just have to try to get interest. And you will get interest from the voters, if you push it. And you can find a new job.
Then, you can post about how stupid SS is. And how it is not insurance, but an annuity. An annuity that goes to zero, if you die before you are paid. Or if the market tanks again. And you can talk about how stupid ss is, and that the public still wants it. Maybe you should look in the mirror, and see if you see stupid there.

SS is not "safe." It is being eroded by inflation.

The current system exists because of peoples' ignorance and it suits the politicians' interests.

Twice now Obama has threatened to withhold Social Security payments. Had a Republican President said that there's be blood in the street with the AARP handing out AK-47's to all their members

Really. When did obama threaten to withhold ss??? I did not know he had the power. In fact, I am absolutely certain he does not. So, when did he say he was going to do so??? (I am sure I know to what you are referring. I just want to see you make a fool of yourself).