State of the Union

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
However it is sad to watch the dems portray themselves on national tv as the obstructionist party when they were dumb enough to actually stand and applaud the fact that they “blocked” reforms to social security. Their great big accomplishment is that they were able stop reforms, not that they have a plan of their own, but that they stoped Bush. They have no direction and no vision and are a party on defense. Sad.

Blocking the White House’s social security plan was not a “dumb” move at all. That said, the Dems need to get off of their collective ass and at least take a position because at a bare minimum the social security program requires some adjustment in its wording so that, if it the present structure is left in place, there is no requirement that the government fund beneifts at a loss beyond 2042. We will have more than enough national debt by then.

Just wanted to let you know I like your style. I agree with them not passing any type of plan. I did, however, think it was a tad classless for such a forum to give themselves a standin O.

[/quote]

When talking about class, keep in mind they are all politicians.

163

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
However it is sad to watch the dems portray themselves on national tv as the obstructionist party when they were dumb enough to actually stand and applaud the fact that they “blocked” reforms to social security. Their great big accomplishment is that they were able stop reforms, not that they have a plan of their own, but that they stoped Bush. They have no direction and no vision and are a party on defense. Sad.

Blocking the White House’s social security plan was not a “dumb” move at all. That said, the Dems need to get off of their collective ass and at least take a position because at a bare minimum the social security program requires some adjustment in its wording so that, if it the present structure is left in place, there is no requirement that the government fund beneifts at a loss beyond 2042. We will have more than enough national debt by then.[/quote]

What I’m saying is that the dems actually gave themselves a standing ovation for doing nothing! If their biggest accomplishment is blocking a Bush innitiative, they’re in rough shape as a political party. They need to go on the offensive with ideas, talk about how they would do things better. Lately the only thing the dems stand for is that they don’t like Bush, and that’s not much of a platform.

If they didn’t like the proposed reforms that’s fine, however they need to come up with a plan of their own and push it. Instead we got to see them patting themselves on the back for being obstructionists.

As far as social security goes, I would love to see my money grow in a mutual fund rather than wasting away in a crappy government program. The stock market as far as I know has averaged 12.5% since 1920. I would love to see the comparisons as far as money invested in SS, verses money invested in an average mutual fund. I would wager that the difference would be staggering. Social security sucks IMO.

164

[quote]But then he’d sound like a retard, and no one would respect someone who sounds like an idiot when he talks in public.

Wait a second… [/quote]

Yeah, if he could lick his own nuts he’d be a shoo-in for sure.

165

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magister Ludi wrote:
Vroom, Thanks for mentioning the Cindy Sheehan incident.

I’m appauled by the whole thing. If she were shouting and disrupting the proceedings then sure, eject her. But a T-shirt? Come on!

I don’t agree with her viewpoint, but I sure as hell agree with her right to express it. For Christ’s sake, we’ve got good men and women dying overseas right now in the name of such freedom.

The recurring theme throughout this thread has been that actions speak louder than words. And rightly so. How can we claim the moral highground after a stunt like that?

So the cameras and commentators spend more time on her than the speech. Big deal. That would have done more to show the world that we practice what we preach than any political retoric from the podium.

I’m embarrased.

If Bush had said anything different than what he has said for years, maybe someone would give a flying fuck about his speech.

Instead, we get more rhetoric, more 9/11 references (never mentions the two states that were most affected never, ever vote Republican and rejected him…twice), and more shit to keep us all trembling under our desks waiting for the next attack, praying to our George II idols in hopes that he can protect us.

As for ejecting Sheehan, I think today’s strong wordes are appropriate:

Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost. --Jean Jacques Rousseau

Tell me Irish, what would your candidate say in an address to the Nation?

I’ll bet he would say ‘fuck’ like 100 times or so. And real angry like.

But then he’d sound like a retard, and no one would respect someone who sounds like an idiot when he talks in public.

Wait a second…[/quote]

What would your candidate say?

166

[quote]vroom wrote:
But then he’d sound like a retard, and no one would respect someone who sounds like an idiot when he talks in public.

Wait a second…

Yeah, if he could lick his own nuts he’d be a shoo-in for sure.[/quote]

Brilliant assessment. Can’t wait to hear what you have next…

168

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magister Ludi wrote:
Vroom, Thanks for mentioning the Cindy Sheehan incident.

I’m appauled by the whole thing. If she were shouting and disrupting the proceedings then sure, eject her. But a T-shirt? Come on!

I don’t agree with her viewpoint, but I sure as hell agree with her right to express it. For Christ’s sake, we’ve got good men and women dying overseas right now in the name of such freedom.

The recurring theme throughout this thread has been that actions speak louder than words. And rightly so. How can we claim the moral highground after a stunt like that?

So the cameras and commentators spend more time on her than the speech. Big deal. That would have done more to show the world that we practice what we preach than any political retoric from the podium.

I’m embarrased.

If Bush had said anything different than what he has said for years, maybe someone would give a flying fuck about his speech.

Instead, we get more rhetoric, more 9/11 references (never mentions the two states that were most affected never, ever vote Republican and rejected him…twice), and more shit to keep us all trembling under our desks waiting for the next attack, praying to our George II idols in hopes that he can protect us.

As for ejecting Sheehan, I think today’s strong wordes are appropriate:

Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost. --Jean Jacques Rousseau

Tell me Irish, what would your candidate say in an address to the Nation?

I’ll bet he would say ‘fuck’ like 100 times or so. And real angry like.

But then he’d sound like a retard, and no one would respect someone who sounds like an idiot when he talks in public.

Wait a second…

What would your candidate say?

About which one?

The war? You know how I feel about that. I’d want the troops out as soon as possible. We won this war didn’t we? So give the country back to them. How long are we going to sit there? Because the insurgents don’t seem to be fading. Are we going to stay until there aren’t any left? Irrational. Make sure the Iraqis are as ready as we can make them. Then get out. They are going to have to handle themselves alone eventually.

Everything stems out of this war. We are in debt because of it, and now we’re cutting medicade, medicare, and student benefits for college. When we get out of this war, then we can pursue issues here, and at home. You can’t run the government when its broke. It is broke because of this war.

[/quote]

What makes you think we are not doing the exact thing you describe in your first paragraph already?

Do you think Medical expenses are cut to pay for the war? Listen war costs money but it also stimulates the economy in ways. Don’t blame everything on the war.

It cost us just as much to send a fuckinmg spece probe to jupiter just so we can see what the fucking elements and surface is like. Let’s blame shit like that instead of bashing our leader and cause.

You should support our kids out there fighting for us, or at least pretend to support them. Your consistent angry rhetoric does nothing for them or us as a country at all. I’m not saying join the conservitive view, I’m just saying get a little more down to earth and subjective.

169

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
vroom wrote:
But then he’d sound like a retard, and no one would respect someone who sounds like an idiot when he talks in public.

Wait a second…

Yeah, if he could lick his own nuts he’d be a shoo-in for sure.

Brilliant assessment. Can’t wait to hear what you have next…[/quote]

LOL.

171

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It cost us just as much to send a fuckinmg spece probe to jupiter just so we can see what the fucking elements and surface is like. Let’s blame shit like that instead of bashing our leader and cause.

Blame science? Instead of an unjust war? Not happening. The things we do in space are for the good of humanity. The war in Iraq is certainly not.[/quote]

Irish,

I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. Alot of people, including myself, think that going into Iraq was much more beneficial to humanity than the chemical makeup of Mars. I think it’s fair to criticize the crappy intelligence and the way postwar Iraq was run, however it’s been shown on this board many times that the whole world thought it was very plausible that saddam had WMD’s. But that argument has been hashed out too many times already and probably no need to hash it out again.

My point is that I think the benefits to humanity from what has been done in Iraq infineately outweigh what’s being done in space. Makes me think of the Jimmy Buffet song, Fruitcakes:

[i]"We spent ninety jillion dollars just to get a look at Mars

I hear universal laughter coming out among the stars…[/i]

Alot of the shit we do in space really pisses me off. We don’t even know what’s in the deepest parts of our oceans and were pissing away money to let the computor wonks at NASA play with overpriced R/C gadgets on the Mars surface.

173

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
As far as social security goes, I would love to see my money grow in a mutual fund rather than wasting away in a crappy government program. The stock market as far as I know has averaged 12.5% since 1920. I would love to see the comparisons as far as money invested in SS, verses money invested in an average mutual fund. I would wager that the difference would be staggering. Social security sucks IMO.
[/quote]

Stocks that have survived since 1920 have averaged something significant like that (I have the exact number at home - I’ll find it if I ever get away from work). When failed stocks and those of companies that have been consumed by others and mutual funds (surviving and failed) are factored in the figure is much lower, something like 5% or 6% (again I’ll get the real numbers later). The rate of return on social security is about 1.72% for the last decade’s retirees.

There are many issues with respect to investing social security payments - administrative costs, transition costs, varried outcomes for different investors - lots of stuff that will limit the return ultimately realized by the investor, stuff that needs to be worked out and figured in to a reform program.

I will try to ammend my numbers within the space of the next couple hours.

174

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Just wanted to let you know I like your style. I agree with them not passing any type of plan. I did, however, think it was a tad classless for such a forum to give themselves a standin O.
[/quote]

I try, I can be even handed when the issues are important, just don’t expect such tact from me all the time.

It was prety classless, I agree, but that is the nature of politics - a bunch of self-righteous jackasses who would rather whine, argue, and see themselves on TV (how many more Democrats, and republicans for that matter got on TV this past week that would not have been otherwise) than get shit done.

175

My guess, and I’m only half serious so relax, but just when everyone is depending on the stock market to retire, there will be a massive depression and devaluation.

Remember, average doesn’t mean that good things have to happen during your own lifetime.

176

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
As far as social security goes, I would love to see my money grow in a mutual fund rather than wasting away in a crappy government program. The stock market as far as I know has averaged 12.5% since 1920. I would love to see the comparisons as far as money invested in SS, verses money invested in an average mutual fund. I would wager that the difference would be staggering. Social security sucks IMO.

Stocks that have survived since 1920 have averaged something significant like that (I have the exact number at home - I’ll find it if I ever get away from work). When failed stocks and those of companies that have been consumed by others and mutual funds (surviving and failed) are factored in the figure is much lower, something like 5% or 6% (again I’ll get the real numbers later). The rate of return on social security is about 1.72% for the last decade’s retirees.

There are many issues with respect to investing social security payments - administrative costs, transition costs, varried outcomes for different investors - lots of stuff that will limit the return ultimately realized by the investor, stuff that needs to be worked out and figured in to a reform program.

I will try to ammend my numbers within the space of the next couple hours.[/quote]

I really would like to know what the comparison would be. I’ve always benn told, and have also read that the average rate of return is in the neighborhood of 12.5%.

177

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
As far as social security goes, I would love to see my money grow in a mutual fund rather than wasting away in a crappy government program. The stock market as far as I know has averaged 12.5% since 1920. I would love to see the comparisons as far as money invested in SS, verses money invested in an average mutual fund. I would wager that the difference would be staggering. Social security sucks IMO.

Stocks that have survived since 1920 have averaged something significant like that (I have the exact number at home - I’ll find it if I ever get away from work). When failed stocks and those of companies that have been consumed by others and mutual funds (surviving and failed) are factored in the figure is much lower, something like 5% or 6% (again I’ll get the real numbers later). The rate of return on social security is about 1.72% for the last decade’s retirees.

There are many issues with respect to investing social security payments - administrative costs, transition costs, varried outcomes for different investors - lots of stuff that will limit the return ultimately realized by the investor, stuff that needs to be worked out and figured in to a reform program.

I will try to ammend my numbers within the space of the next couple hours.

I really would like to know what the comparison would be. I’ve always benn told, and have also read that the average rate of return is in the neighborhood of 12.5%.
[/quote]

Big Paul

Once again–very heady stuff. I too would like to see where you got these numbers and look forward to any modifications. What is your background. Is this a hobby/interest or tied in with your carreer?

Good stuff–nice thread

178

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It cost us just as much to send a fuckinmg spece probe to jupiter just so we can see what the fucking elements and surface is like. Let’s blame shit like that instead of bashing our leader and cause.

Blame science? Instead of an unjust war? Not happening. The things we do in space are for the good of humanity. The war in Iraq is certainly not.

Irish,

I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. Alot of people, including myself, think that going into Iraq was much more beneficial to humanity than the chemical makeup of Mars. I think it’s fair to criticize the crappy intelligence and the way postwar Iraq was run, however it’s been shown on this board many times that the whole world thought it was very plausible that saddam had WMD’s. But that argument has been hashed out too many times already and probably no need to hash it out again.

My point is that I think the benefits to humanity from what has been done in Iraq infineately outweigh what’s being done in space. Makes me think of the Jimmy Buffet song, Fruitcakes:

[i]"We spent ninety jillion dollars just to get a look at Mars

I hear universal laughter coming out among the stars…[/i]

Alot of the shit we do in space really pisses me off. We don’t even know what’s in the deepest parts of our oceans and were pissing away money to let the computor wonks at NASA play with overpriced R/C gadgets on the Mars surface.

But how incredible would it be if they found life on another planet- even in any other form?

I understand what you mean. But I really do enjoy the sciences, and I think that’s just man’s curiousity coming out. I think the potential finding of evidence of life on Mars really could have an impact…to show that maybe we aren’t all that different here. Or maybe I’m just too much of an idealist.[/quote]

I don’t want to paint scientific exploration as a bad thing, I think that exploration is great. But I think our oceans deserve some more exploration before we start heading too far out in space.

I read not too long ago that a team of scientists just got some live footage of a giant squid. This is after a long time of knowing they exist, and only being able too examine dead washed up specimins. Maybe I just have a bigger interest in the deep sea than I do in space.

179

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
As far as social security goes, I would love to see my money grow in a mutual fund rather than wasting away in a crappy government program. The stock market as far as I know has averaged 12.5% since 1920. I would love to see the comparisons as far as money invested in SS, verses money invested in an average mutual fund. I would wager that the difference would be staggering. Social security sucks IMO.

Stocks that have survived since 1920 have averaged something significant like that (I have the exact number at home - I’ll find it if I ever get away from work). When failed stocks and those of companies that have been consumed by others and mutual funds (surviving and failed) are factored in the figure is much lower, something like 5% or 6% (again I’ll get the real numbers later). The rate of return on social security is about 1.72% for the last decade’s retirees.

There are many issues with respect to investing social security payments - administrative costs, transition costs, varried outcomes for different investors - lots of stuff that will limit the return ultimately realized by the investor, stuff that needs to be worked out and figured in to a reform program.

I will try to ammend my numbers within the space of the next couple hours.

I really would like to know what the comparison would be. I’ve always benn told, and have also read that the average rate of return is in the neighborhood of 12.5%.
[/quote]

I have also seen the 5% to 6% figures with what appears to be valid reasoning behind them.

I look forward to seeing Big Pauls numbers.

180

[quote]vroom wrote:
My guess, and I’m only half serious so relax, but just when everyone is depending on the stock market to retire, there will be a massive depression and devaluation.

Remember, average doesn’t mean that good things have to happen during your own lifetime.[/quote]

I always wondered about that. I mean, I know a large percentage of the stocks are owned by institutions/corporations, but what happens when the baby boom generation needs to liquidate their stocks for retirement? There are not that many stocks that pay a substantial dividend.

181

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
As far as social security goes, I would love to see my money grow in a mutual fund rather than wasting away in a crappy government program. The stock market as far as I know has averaged 12.5% since 1920. I would love to see the comparisons as far as money invested in SS, verses money invested in an average mutual fund. I would wager that the difference would be staggering. Social security sucks IMO.

Stocks that have survived since 1920 have averaged something significant like that (I have the exact number at home - I’ll find it if I ever get away from work). When failed stocks and those of companies that have been consumed by others and mutual funds (surviving and failed) are factored in the figure is much lower, something like 5% or 6% (again I’ll get the real numbers later). The rate of return on social security is about 1.72% for the last decade’s retirees.

There are many issues with respect to investing social security payments - administrative costs, transition costs, varried outcomes for different investors - lots of stuff that will limit the return ultimately realized by the investor, stuff that needs to be worked out and figured in to a reform program.

I will try to ammend my numbers within the space of the next couple hours.[/quote]

The number is closer to 10% annual return for the last 80 yrs. Investing early and on a regular basis is one of the most proven ways to accumulate wealth.

If individuals were allowed to invest privat SS accounts in stocks many think it would drive prices upward.

I wouldn’t be overly concerned with a devaluation when baby boomers start to retire. The elderly are one of the most consistent groups of savers and investors. A lot of that wealth will get passed on rather then liquidated. The markets are also likely to exapand further reducing any impact.

182

Personally, I wasn’t talking about the market going south due to sales by retirees – though if retirees were living off their investments, they would have to sell some of it on a regular basis.

No, I’m talking about random fluctuations in the market. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, many people find they need their money most when the market is at a low point. Setting up each generation in turn for an unhappy accident in this way is also a disaster in the making.

My own parents were caught in the last down turn. Luckily, not that terribly, but several key industries have devalued greatly and show no signs of imminent recovery.

When you are old, and don’t have much by way of earning potential, you will want to be protected against risk. This will entail removing your investments from the market over time or ending up with some generation at some point facing disaster.

However, I guess we can easily write off the people that make poor decisions. You are too stupid to invest wisely and predict the market moves, you deserve to live on the street, right?

183

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Did you notice that Hillary seemed to be getting a lot of “face” time on the screen?

Yeah, she did. Once when W. Bush mentioned that Clinton and W. Bush were two of G.W. Bush’s favorite baby boomers. The cameras panned to her and showed her gritting her teeth.

Then she got more when she did the standing O thing and applauded Congress’ killing off of any attempt to fix Social Security…[/quote]

It wasn’t an attempt to fix S.S. hence the applause. Remember the admin said privatized accounts do nothing to increase the viability of S.S. (oh, and it’s still not broken)

184

[quote]vroom wrote:
I wouldn’t be overly concerned with a devaluation when baby boomers start to retire. The elderly are one of the most consistent groups of savers and investors. A lot of that wealth will get passed on rather then liquidated. The markets are also likely to exapand further reducing any impact.

Personally, I wasn’t talking about the market going south due to sales by retirees – though if retirees were living off their investments, they would have to sell some of it on a regular basis.

No, I’m talking about random fluctuations in the market. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, many people find they need their money most when the market is at a low point. Setting up each generation in turn for an unhappy accident in this way is also a disaster in the making.

My own parents were caught in the last down turn. Luckily, not that terribly, but several key industries have devalued greatly and show no signs of imminent recovery.

When you are old, and don’t have much by way of earning potential, you will want to be protected against risk. This will entail removing your investments from the market over time or ending up with some generation at some point facing disaster.

However, I guess we can easily write off the people that make poor decisions. You are too stupid to invest wisely and predict the market moves, you deserve to live on the street, right?[/quote]

Nobody can predict the market consistently over time. At best you can only level off the highs and lows.
However, if you do the math and earn 8-10% over your working life as opposed to 1-2% that S.S. returns, you will be far ahead when you retire. You are insulated from random fluctuations by virtue of the increased return above SS. Regardless private accounts were only a portion of the reform not a complete replacement for S.S. It was also optional.