Fishing - This is good

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - This is good (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=32862)

OT: Political, "This is good"

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

They came within a
hairsbreadth of the biggest fleecing in American history.

Horse caca. If I had invested my SS payments when I first started
paying them sixty six years ago, I would be a helluva lot better off
than I am now. No one loses in the stock market unless they panic or
make foolish investments.

I wish to hell I would have had the option to invest in the market
instead of SS when I first started to work/pay into the fund.

If you had bought stocks in 87 when the market "crashed", you would
be even richer today. Today is the time to buy, not worry about the
market losing everything.

Dave

OT: Political, "This is good"

On Oct 28, 1:27*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
SNIP Snip

Hooray for you. Of course you understand that the majority of working
people are so pressed that they cannot even see their way to max their
matched 401k accounts?

Dave
The stock market is a figment. Real investment is when a society and
an economy saves and builds needed physical, scientific and social
infrastructure, plant and equipment, soil fertility and a healthy,
educated, and safe working population, which can be engaged freely
in the production of needed goods, services and new technologies in a
sustainable way. That is why even Wall Street calls it the "REAL
ECONOMY" And that is why almost all really significant investment
involves government in some way.

We have just seen the effect of more and more money pursuing equities
that represent fewer and fewer real productive assets. Many companies
are just hollowed out shells, mere marketing and distribution arms of
Red Chinese conglomerates. You put your money into Commisar/General
One Hung Low's hands. I think I'll put my money on America.

For most people the best returns on their money come from 1. their own
education, 2. their health and the health of their family, 3. the
education of their children, 4 their own house and property, 5. Tools
and equipment for your own or a family business.

OT: Political, "This is good"

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:53:18 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

For most people the best returns on their money come from 1. their own
education, 2. their health and the health of their family, 3. the
education of their children, 4 their own house and property, 5. Tools
and equipment for your own or a family business.

Well, duh. That goes without saying, Dave. I started saving when I
got back from Japan in 1960. The market has been nothing but good to
me ever since. Dips, mini-crashes? Sure. But for the long term, you
can not do better.

On Oct 29, 3:57*am, wrote:

Other than the gratuitius comment ("...a ****ed-up socialist mess with
a scam added, too....") you are factually correct.

Con cuidado Richard, between this thread and the Uzi posts, the forces
of the Fascist Conspiracy might call you in for "questioning" as to
"emerging moderate tendencies of a reasoned nature."

Dave
Do they still use the rusty jumper cables?

OT: US Election: "This is good"

On Oct 29, 9:04*am, DaveS wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:57*am, wrote:

Other than the gratuitius comment ("...a ****ed-up socialist mess with
a scam added, too....") you are factually correct.

Con cuidado Richard, between this thread and the Uzi posts, the forces
of the Fascist Conspiracy might call you in for "questioning" as to
"emerging moderate tendencies of a reasoned nature."

Dave
Do they still use the rusty jumper cables?

OT: Political, "This is good"

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements will
need to be found well before then.

Bob Weinberger

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"

Richard I don't know if that was your intention, but the first sentance of
your post (which was a reply to my post)seems to be aimed at disparaging
what I said. Then you go and simply reinforce the points I made.
If I read your intention correctly, you might go back and re-read what I
said and tell me where what I said and what you said differ in fundamental
terms.

Bob weinberger

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:36:41 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

Richard I don't know if that was your intention, but the first sentance of
your post (which was a reply to my post)seems to be aimed at disparaging
what I said.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "disparaging" it, but it is incorrect.
There is money out there earning interest and the size is very relevant.
The money via "SS tax" is flowing in all the time, but (essentially) it
immediately flows back out, "loaned" to other budget items/agencies/etc.
as an "investment," therefore, the size is VERY relevant. Some actually
flows back in when some new bureaucrat actually pays attention to this
kind of everyday business stuff and pays down "short-term non-capital
badcompany debt," but it is immediately "loaned" back out again.

Then you go and simply reinforce the points I made.
If I read your intention correctly, you might go back and re-read what I
said and tell me where what I said and what you said differ in fundamental
terms.

See above.

TC,
R

Bob weinberger

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **