Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by Greatday LoL you don't trust anyone but yourself.
I have no problem trusting my government, but I'm not so gullible as those people who trust Dubya or who put all their faith in money.
Originally Posted by Noahma If you would not have gotten your student loan that would have been the same as not have gotten help.
Poor people generally don't get any loans because they don't have any collateral so banks generally don't wanna invest in them as they would in students.
Well, I was very very very far from wealth. I had about 300.00 to my name when I signed the loan documents. But, I had an 800 score on my credit record which meant that I could get any and all loans I could have wished for. Not all poor spend unwisely.
Well, I was very very very far from wealth. I had about 300.00 to my name when I signed the loan documents.
My point is that banks are willing to give loans to poor students because students are 'their own collateral' while poor uneducated people have nothing and therefore will never have anything.
In the capitalist world you have to have money (read: loan money) to make (more) money.
What is really not fair is for the grandchildren to have to pay what we are spending now. I would like to see a fund set up so you could pay ahead in years that are good and maybe skip a year if you are in need and keep a record of what you have paid extra in case you made a mistake.
If you want to take a lesson from the Bible, everybody pays 10% and anything over that is an offering.
Before any of this can be addressed, the unnecessary spending needs to stop. The system just has the wrong greedy attitude. Things need to change, but not the Obama way. His way is tax and spend. I would personally like to be in a group to look over the budget and make suggestions. As a mother, I have had to do major budget adjustments for years. I wouldn't want to go through what a candidate has to go through to get there though.
First question for each item is "Is it necessary? Will someone die if they don't get this."
First question for each item is "Is it necessary? Will someone die if they don't get this."
Many people who value their 'personal freedom' will object to your question.
And they will also object if it is the government who will enforce the result of your question because they happen to be against government interference.
Originally Posted by NCN Many people who value their 'personal freedom' will object to your question.
And they will also object if it is the government who will enforce the result of your question because they happen to be against government interference.
Then they need to be doing it for themselves and not asking the government to do it for them. I was speaking in general about every line in the budget. Somehow I get the idea that you are thinking of some particular question. I had no question in mind except looking at each budget request and saying is this really necessary. Would it cause a death if it doesn't happen. I bet the people on the bridge that broke would have liked to have had that question asked before they were killed.
I was speaking in general about every line in the budget.
so am I.
Quote:
I bet the people on the bridge that broke would have liked to have had that question asked before they were killed.
The reason the bridge collapsed is I guess because the federal government left it up to the local government and the local government reasoned that the people should pay for the bridge themselves. Unfortunately the local politicians either only acted in their best interest (read: want to be re-elected) and chose not to raise taxes or the locals didn't know what was in their best interest so the (local) taxes were never raised in order to strengthen the bridge and it collapsed.
Location: Oviedo, Fl formerly from the Philly Burbs!
1,016 posts, read 2,711,794 times
Reputation: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I merely posted the data that you did not. Feel free to cherry-pick to POV all you want.
You might want to re-research that statement. It's entirely false.
So is that one.
Perhaps there should have been laws against restating them as parts of acquisitions, mergers, and takeovers. A few more plans might still be solvent if such laws had existed and been enforced.
You're way off base. By both federal law and fiduciary responsibility, balances held in the SS Trust Fund are invested to earn competitive, market-based rates while keeping primary a strategy of conservation of principal. Like a substantial portion of President Bush's personal fortune, SSTF funds are invested in US Treasury securities, the safest, most secure investment vehicle in the history of the world. So safe are these that they are the standard against which all other forms of investment are measured. As with all bond sales, proceeds received by the seller are used for its own purposes. Proceeds from the sale of school bonds are used to build schools. Proceeds from corporate bond sales are used to purchase new plant and equipment. Proceeds from government bond sales are used for government projects. None of such uses of proceeds in any way diminishes the status of a bond as evidence of a debt. This is simply the way bonds work. Perhaps you should read up on it further. There are no sets of government accounting books that will report anything other than what I have just described.
You can reiterate it all you want. The facts remain the same, and those are at odds with a great deal of what you have said so far.
I suppose my point is, if you are ONLY invested in Treasury bonds over the long haul...that would not keep up with inflation - if you consider 3.99 and 4.35 over 30 years a sound profit making vehicle, then retirement is going to be very difficult. And I think it is misleading to say that Bush has a 'substantial' amount....I am sure his portion of treasury bills is more than I am worth...lol, but, it's probably, like most retirement vehicles, a relatively small portion, that grows as you reach retirement age, in treasury bills as a priciple conserving vehicle as you suggest. I was suggesting that the goverment borrows against SS for its drunken spending, not in the form of bonds, and uses several books to disguise its activities.
I am in total agreement with you on the mergers, acquisitions...etc....
Are you suggesting then, that the Government of the USA is a GOOD financial steward? Worthy of more money? That is does a good job of investing and spending our taxes?
I suppose my point is, if you are ONLY invested in Treasury bonds over the long haul...that would not keep up with inflation...
Yes, it would. Inflation risk is one component of long-term Treasury yields. Here are the REAL long-term Treasury yields that applied on selected dates over recent years. The fact that all values are positive indicates that a return in excess of inflation has been earned in all time periods...
Jan 2, 2003 = 2.75%
Jan 2, 2004 = 2.34%
Jan 3, 2005 = 1.93%
Jan 3, 2006 = 1.99%
Jan 2, 2007 = 2.33%
Jan 2, 2008 = 1.88%
Sep 2, 2008 = 2.15%
Oct 1, 2008 = 2.58%
Oct 10, 2008 = 3.01%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie
...if you consider 3.99 and 4.35 over 30 years a sound profit making vehicle, then retirement is going to be very difficult.
Nominal rates are not necessarily the most meaningful measure in this application. Real rates after adjustment for taxes and fees would represent a better one. But we can get at least an impression of the long-term situation by looking at the easily-available 10-year compound rate of return (net of fees) for funds invested in the tax-free TSP (401-k equivalent) investment program that serves as the primary retirement savings vehicle for federal workers. Those data for 1998-2007 show that the $86 billion government securities fund has earned a compound annual rate of return of 5.12%, while the figure for the $82 billion common stock fund is 5.88%. Some of the additional risk that is inherent in the higher stock yield will, of course, have been realized thus far in 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie
And I think it is misleading to say that Bush has a 'substantial' amount....I am sure his portion of treasury bills is more than I am worth...lol, but, it's probably, like most retirement vehicles, a relatively small portion, that grows as you reach retirement age, in treasury bills as a priciple conserving vehicle as you suggest.
Decide for yourself. His top five sources of income and top five assets can be found HERE. More complete listings taken from his 2004 financial disclosure forms may be found HERE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie
I was suggesting that the goverment borrows against SS for its drunken spending, not in the form of bonds, and uses several books to disguise its activities.
Then your suggestion would have no basis in fact whatsoever. 100% of what is characterized as borrowing from SS occurs as the result of the SSTF investing in US Treasury securities. There are no secret books to cover it up. The transactions are entirely transparent and perfectly ordinary. Keep in mind that the Treasury all but continuously markets securities as a means of financing deficits and for other purposes, and that SSTF is merely one investor in these securities among many. If you have recently purchased a US Savings Bond for a niece or nephew or some such, you are another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie
Are you suggesting then, that the Government of the USA is a GOOD financial steward? Worthy of more money? That is does a good job of investing and spending our taxes?
I'm suggesting that nearly all the claims you have posted have been at least substantially inaccurate. This includes those made with respect to financial stewardship. The propriety of US Government spending and the current wisdom of tax or other federal revenue increases would be political, not financial, matters.
L you don't trust anyone but yourself.
I have no problem trusting my government,
I KNOW how I want to live my life - I KNOW I know better than the government WHERE I want to live - I KNOW I know better than the government how, and where, I want to spend my retirement.
You need the Government to tell you how and where to live - that's not freedom.
You need the Government to tell you how and where to live - that's not freedom.
I myself have arrived at the same conclusions as my government, which is why I agree with them.
I don't ask my government where and how to live, but I agree with them that mixing people up is the best defence against extremism. Unlike you my personal freedom is not the end all and be all of my existence; sometimes you have to sacrifice things for the greater good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LoL you don't trust anyone but yourself.
If you would not have gotten your student loan that would have been the same as not have gotten help.
Many people who value their 'personal freedom' will object to your question.
Unfortunately the local politicians either only acted in their best interest (read: want to be re-elected) and chose not to raise taxes or the locals didn't know what was in their best interest so the (local) taxes were never raised in order to strengthen the bridge and it collapsed.
