|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Your mindset is typical of the problem with government in this country
today. Somehow you think it is your responsibility to make sure everyone
has a good retirement. It isn't.
And no one who advocates privatizing Socialist Security wants the money
turned over to Merrill-Lynch or Goldman-Sachs. The plan for privatization
is for people to own and run their own accounts they same way they run IRA's
and 401k's. I own my 401k and IRA's. Should those be turned over to the
government?
I've been doing pretty well with them especially when you compare it to the
return from Socialist Security. Sure they have been down for the past 2
years. But they were up for the 10 years that preceded that. And they will
be up in the future. And if they aren't, it's not your responsibility to
make up the difference.
There is a certain group of Democrats in Congress who want to put Socialist
Security money into the stock market and still have it run by the
government. THAT I totally oppose. That would be the camel's nose into the
tent on having government control over corporations. Certain Democrats
crave that.
You said it best yourself: "I have never seen anything that the government
does end up with a benefit for the people it is supposed to govern." That's
why I want to control my "social security" money.
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: "ira" <mr.ira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [RT] One dummy down, more to go....
The stock market is no place for social security investment. What would
have happened to the pool the last 3 years? How do you think those on
social security would like a 30% cut in there income. Many would be living
under bridges right now. If you were 70 to 75, no social security, depended
upon your assets to live on, how much of your assets would you have in the
market? Consider that the majority of the investment geniuses are losing
money and have been in any market except a one way up market. Who would
they get to run it? Some idiot from academia, an economist or someone with
a lot of letters after their name. Then they would proceed to lose the
equity and blame everyone and everything but themselves. There are 800 +/-
in this group and I would be willing to bet that there is less then 20%
that can consistently make money and the rest are trying to glean a way to
do it.
In the financial statements of the big brokerage firms. I don't believe
that any of them made anything in their trading accounts. Look at the firms
that do billions of dollars worth of business in their own arena and their
investment accounts are all suffering.
The first thing that the government would do is what they did with IRAs and
retirement accounts and say that you can't own puts, you can't short, you
can't do anything that would allow anyone to think that stocks could go down
and hedge against it. You are a traitor and un-American if you bet against
the stock markets rise. Sorry didn't mean to get carried away, but I have
never seen anything that the government does end up with a benefit for the
people it is supposed to govern. Look at the congresses retirement package
and look at ours. Look at who benefits from most of the legislation. The
lobbyists with the most money to wave around get their clients the laws that
benefit them. If Merrill or Goldman lobbied hard enough, who do you think
would end up managing Social Security? Not with my money.
----- Original Message -----
From: "dom1_1998" <dominick@xxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] One dummy down, more to go....
> Hi Ira:
>
> Privatization of Social Security does not have to be a disaster.
> Limits to what one can invest in and percentages can be in place to
> protect the investor.
>
> For ex:
> - Limit of 30% of SS for investing.
> -Investment products are limited to CD's,Treasuries, Spy, QQQ and DIA.
> -up to 100% in Treasurys and CD's
> -up to 25% in any of the other products.
>
> No mutual funds or brokers are favored, no money managers and no AMTRAK.
>
> Dominick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In realtraders@xxxx, "ira" <mr.ira@xxxx> wrote:
> > Privatizing Social Security would be a disaster. I don't want some
> slick
> > Enron or Anderson type exec. handling anything I could depend on. The
> > government is bad, but most privately run agencies are a disaster. With
> > luck Social Security could be lucky like Amtrac
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kent Rollins" <kentr@xxxx>
> > To: <realtraders@xxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 5:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [RT] One dummy down, more to go....
> >
> >
> > > Exactly what is so bad about W's economic team? I would like to
> hear some
> > > specifics from Simms and Johnson. Specifics.
> > >
> > > They got a massive tax cut though a Democratic Senate and they are
> working
> > > to make them permanent and enact some more. They are working to
> privatize
> > > Socialist Security. They are working to expand free trade.
> > >
> > > Those are positives. What are the negatives?
> > >
> > > Kent
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Johnson" <jejohn@xxxx>
> > > To: "M. Simms" <prosys@xxxx>
> > > Cc: <realtraders@xxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:29 PM
> > > Subject: Re[2]: [RT] One dummy down, more to go....
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello M.,
> > >
> > > I do agree with you that W's domestic team, esp the econ team, is weak
> > > and ineffectual. I hope he cleans house for the good of the US and his
> > > administration. But your assessment of there pressure on W is wishful
> > > thinking. He is bullet proof for longer than 6 months. The Pitt
> > > resignation would have had more political advantage for Bush had it
> > > been done the <day before> the election. It would have shown W to be
> > > concerned about corp corruption and all that blather the libs spout.
> > >
> > > In my opinion W is perfectly situated for re-election. Market has
> > > declined in first two years, rates get slashed. year 3 of election
> > > cycle clicks in soon, maybe already. market rallies into Nov, 04.
> > > Dem's will put Pelosi in as minority leader. she will embarrass the
> > > Dem's every day. Gray Davis will be a persona non grata by Nov, 04
> > > and W will attempt to retake California. Dem's are already switching
> > > parties in the Georgia house. This looks to me like a replay of
> > > Reagan's reign--tax cuts, economy pops, deficit that doesn't really
> > > matter
> > >
> > > W's vulnerability is that the economy is so broken it won't respond
> > > normally or there's another terror incident that can be traced to
> > > missteps of his administration.
> > >
> > > that's my wishful thinking :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@x...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|