|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I have seen this thread spread like a virus. I wish to offer my
observations.
1. Pitt is no dummy as I see it because he had a prepared
statement...and he did make eye contact as he went along. To compare
this to an executive who can present his company extemporaneously is
not fair. Pitt had a problem that destroyed his credibility and
stepped down to avoid the enbarrassment of being dismissed. IMHO, he
did it graciously.
2. As far as Social Security {FDR's Deal] goes, the real fact of the
matter is that with life expectancies having increased since Social
Security started, most of us will receive far more than we put into
the system. In my case it may even exceed a 12% average annual return
had I dollar cost averaged my contributions over the time of Social
Security deductions assuming I reach the minimum average longevity of
my genes which has exceeded 80 on both sides. And in my medical
practice days I always had the max deducted for Social Security. Just
request your cumulative deduction sheet and you will see the same
thing. Premature death is where one loses out but there are survivor
benefits.
In my wife's case, she will even have a better return on her money
since she stopped working sooner and I calculated that she would have
complete payback in about 3 years.
Social Security has been in surplus and used as a lender to the
Government and fears of its demise have always been overdone. Rates
of deductions have always kept it ahead.
3. And yes, I believe that if one has the acumen of Kent and others
there should be the option for them to invest that money on their
own. For my part, I likely would be less better off because I was a
speculative type individual during my deduction days. If one chose
that option then they should be stuck with it for better or worse.
4. It is Medicare {LBJ's Deal] and Medicaid that are going to have
the biggest problem in keeping up.
I hope this thread ends soon because even I was sucked into it.
Facetiously,
john
------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
Originally From: "Kent Rollins" <kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RT] One dummy down, more to go....
Date: 11/09/2002 10:43am
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/
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/
|