Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Oct 18, 2012 7:39pm
Yes, I can.Ty Webb;1298583 wrote:You cannot be serious believing that can you?
BTW, Bill Clinton in Ohio is about the most notable sign that the obama ship is sinking that I have seen to date.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 18, 2012 7:40pm
You're kidding me right? He is the best surrogate in the Democratic Party...QuakerOats;1298586 wrote:Yes, I can.
BTW, Bill Clinton in Ohio is about the most notable sign that the obama ship is sinking that I have seen to date.
That PA poll is like the one where President Obama was leading Arizona
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Oct 18, 2012 7:43pm
Ty,
There is still time to see the light and join the winning team. Please come over to our side and be happy on Nov 6th.
'Oats
There is still time to see the light and join the winning team. Please come over to our side and be happy on Nov 6th.
'Oats
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 18, 2012 7:45pm
I'll be plenty happy when we re-elect President ObamaQuakerOats;1298589 wrote:Ty,
There is still time to see the light and join the winning team. Please come over to our side and be happy on Nov 6th.
'Oats
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 18, 2012 7:52pm
We should start another thread guessing which poll might actually be remotely accurate.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 18, 2012 8:39pm
I will right after you answer how many times the US Gov has gone bankrupt. Even after that horrible horrible FDR.gut;1298501 wrote:Great point. Ask Rome if there's any flaw in your logic. Ask the USSR.
I can go on and on. That is a completely idiotic position for you to take. There's a lot of research out there that there is a tipping point (to which we are perilously close) where a nearly irreversible slide toward default begins.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 18, 2012 9:18pm
Is it not 0? And your argument is because it's never happened that it can't and won't happen? Seriously? That's the height of stupid irresponsibility.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298627 wrote:I will right after you answer how many times the US Gov has gone bankrupt. Even after that horrible horrible FDR.
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Oct 18, 2012 9:58pm
Didn't Standard & Poors send a shot across our bow regarding going bankrupt? Should we at least listen to creditors for once?gut;1298661 wrote:Is it not 0? And your argument is because it's never happened that it can't and won't happen? Seriously? That's the height of stupid irresponsibility.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Oct 18, 2012 10:24pm
Ben's got us covered. Crank up the gubmint printing presses. Time for some old fashioned quantitative easing to fix the problem.BGFalcons82;1298689 wrote:Didn't Standard & Poors send a shot across our bow regarding going bankrupt? Should we at least listen to creditors for once?
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 18, 2012 10:25pm
And every day in history before 9/10/2001, how many planes had flown into the World Trade Center Towers?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298627 wrote:I will right after you answer how many times the US Gov has gone bankrupt. Even after that horrible horrible FDR.
Your logic is so broken it's embarrassing.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 18, 2012 11:11pm
IMO...a great article about the state of the race
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82604.html?hp=t1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82604.html?hp=t1
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 19, 2012 6:00am
A government can't go bankrupt. Bankruptcy is a formal process with a legal outcome that leads to discharging debts. It’s only available only to individuals and certain classes of organizations. Individuals, most private companies, and local governments can go bankrupt but state and federal governments, banks, and insurers can’t. Banks and insurers “become insolvent” and have government-run or mandated insurers pay some or all what they owe. Basically all the US government can do is say we're not paying your pensions or Social Security because we can't afford to. They can't go through bankruptcy.gut;1298661 wrote:Is it not 0? And your argument is because it's never happened that it can't and won't happen? Seriously? That's the height of stupid irresponsibility.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 19, 2012 6:47am
Very true zwick. It's not the government going "bankrupt" that's the concern but rather the lack of organization in commerce and confidence in the currency that would create chaos and disrupt people's lives.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Oct 19, 2012 8:18am
As an engineer who understands math I would hope you understand the stock market a LITTLE better than looking at a snapshot of a few months.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298471 wrote:I vote Republican b/c I think privatizing everything is a really great idea with no risks whatsoever.
Especially since no ones investments tanked 4 years ago.
Look at the market over many years, it is ALWAYS trending up, SS right now gets pretty much 0%. Anything positive over time is better than 0. Its compound interest, they teach that in pre-calculus which I assume you had in 11th grade.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 19, 2012 9:04am
jmog;1298853 wrote:As an engineer who understands math I would hope you understand the stock market a LITTLE better than looking at a snapshot of a few months.
Look at the market over many years, it is ALWAYS trending up, SS right now gets pretty much 0%. Anything positive over time is better than 0. Its compound interest, they teach that in pre-calculus which I assume you had in 11th grade.
The math is very simple.. There were people who were ready to retire that lost 100,000-300,000 on their 401k who no longer could afford to retire and are still working today. Trending upwards means very little when the market crashes and you lose at a much larger/faster rate.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 19, 2012 9:09am
The people who were "ready to retire" should not have had their assets in volatile equities. That was a mistake.
Why were they not reducing their exposure as their magical date drew near?
Why were they not reducing their exposure as their magical date drew near?
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 19, 2012 9:13am
Probably b/c everything was a volatile equity. If you had some magical equity 4 years ago that didn't lose you a great deal of money I'd like to hear what it was b/c you're the first person I've heard from that didn't.Con_Alma;1298880 wrote:The people who were "ready to retire" should not have had their assets in volatile equities. That was a mistake.
Why were they not reducing their exposure as their magical date drew near?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 19, 2012 9:15am
They should not have had assets in equities that they were counting on to use as income in the short term.
There's nothing magical about that. They chose poorly.
There's nothing magical about that. They chose poorly.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 19, 2012 9:33am
What if you were close to retirement. You were 60. Planned on going at 65 and the market crashed. With the market crashing meant loss of jobs. With the loss off jobs your position was eliminated. You're no longer retiring at 65 or you are with a much lower balance as you try to find a job in the next years.Con_Alma;1298884 wrote:They should not have had assets in equities that they were counting on to use as income in the short term.
There's nothing magical about that. They chose poorly.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 19, 2012 9:37am
5 years is too close to have assets in equities that you will rely upon for income although it's getting close.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298897 wrote:What if you were close to retirement. You were 60. Planned on going at 65 and the market crashed. With the market crashing meant loss of jobs. With the loss off jobs your position was eliminated. You're no longer retiring at 65 or you are with a much lower balance as you try to find a job in the next years.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 19, 2012 9:40am
Really? b/c financial advisors are telling you to take advantage of the extra 5500 pre-tax contribution.Con_Alma;1298901 wrote:5 years is too close to have assets in equities that you will rely upon for income although it's getting close.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 19, 2012 9:43am
I didn't say not contribute. I said the assets shouldn't be in an equity....those that would be relied upon for income in the near future.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298905 wrote:Really? b/c financial advisors are telling you to take advantage of the extra 5500 pre-tax contribution.
If a cash equivalent isn't available in the plan then the risk reward must be evaluated. It is still a risk they must ultimately decide. In the case you provided. They chose poorly.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 19, 2012 9:45am
We also don't know what kind of options we'd have in a privatized social security system.Con_Alma;1298907 wrote:I didn't say not contribute. I said the assets shouldn't be in an equity....those that would be relied upon for income in the near future.
If a cash equivalent isn't available in the plan then the risk reward must be evaluated. It is still a risk they must ultimately decide. In the case you provided. They chose poorly.
Belly35
Posts: 9,716
Oct 19, 2012 9:47am
I'm 63 and because of the Obama failure I and many like me will have to take our retirement at 65 but continue to work for additional 10 years to make up for loses. I never planned or truely retiring I will alway work at something just not as hard.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298897 wrote:What if you were close to retirement. You were 60. Planned on going at 65 and the market crashed. With the market crashing meant loss of jobs. With the loss off jobs your position was eliminated. You're no longer retiring at 65 or you are with a much lower balance as you try to find a job in the next years.
What once was successful buinesses able to be sold with a profitable income to me is now not hold the same value they once had four years ago.
I have to rebuild what I built that Obama didn't build
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 19, 2012 9:54am
It is not the privatized SS program I was speaking of but I agree, we do not know what it may or may not have as an option.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298911 wrote:We also don't know what kind of options we'd have in a privatized social security system.