On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:06:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/04/2010 11:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:

notice how the right tells us the middle class DESERVES to get ****ed
because they're not rich BUT that that wall street is composed of
upstanding citizens

****, even alan greenspan doesn't believe THAT bull**** anymore. but
the right does!

Alan Greenspan even admited he is part of why this whole debt mess
f---ed the economy. I would rather pick Ron Paul who predicted it 5
years in advance as congressional debt management was not sustainable.

yep. greenspan sold the entire political class on 'free market'
friedman monetarist economics. it was all bull****


Want to be rich? Change your thinking. It is all about attitude.
Think like a loser, be a loser. Think like a rich winner, get off your
ass and make it happen. All about attitude.

gee. i guess you haven't noticed. what do you think i'm bitching
about? the unregulated free market that trashed this country.


Here is a hint:

Debtors think about how to welsh on debt.
Rich think about managing money.

no. the rich dont think about managing money. they think about
stealing itl

you really are a sock puppet for wall street arent you?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:57:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:39:54 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:03:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


another measure of how much the right HATES the middle class and
worships wall street


You still didn't answer the question, why didn't you allocate your
401k into the safer low return low risk government security basket?

because the free market fundamentalists on wall street said they were
infallible...just like you say they are...and i work for a living so
dont have the time to babysit wall street


Was it greed?

no. i'm not a right winger

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:16:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:53:57 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Bubba I have been retired for 14 years. My 401k has recovered nicely.

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

Hey I worked hard, paid off all my bills and saved a lot of money so I
could be lazy and shiftless for the rest of my life, too bad you
didn't.

if you worked hard you wouldnt hate people who do.

you seem to think i'm unique. guess you havent kept up with the news.

On 18/04/2010 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:07:37 -0600,
wrote:

In my case, I left NorTel in 1995. I could smell the company changing
and I didn't like what I saw.

When IBM downsized me out in 1996 I knew it was the right thing to do
from a business sense so I kept their stock. It was a good investment
over the years.
We became a Wal-Mart country and nobody is willing to pay for service,
quality or customer satisfaction. Good for the bottom line but
terrible for the people who used to provide that.

I wouldn't say it is all peoples faults from an individuals perspective.
Part of it is competition. If you can drop your prices by 2% and
reduce costs by 4%, then 2% more profit. So the company might offshore
support for their insert computer product here.

Then you have complexities and costs of hiring people. Insane. Get
sued because you farted. Why bother? Just import it from companies
that don't have over paid dead weigh like Wagoner (GM).

Then you get companies like GM, pawning of "quality" but not delivering.
Might as well buy the Tata Nano for $4K as in 3 years I will not feel
so bad or siffed if it dies. Plus, they make them so simple there is
less to go wrong.

Walmart has great service, bought Tires from Sams, moved around and the
local Walmart took care of me free when I had a flat. That little thing
nets them my business. No union belly aching and crooked types, I like
that.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

On 4/18/10 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:28 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/18/10 4:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:26:13 -0400,
wrote:

That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities.

Good thing you weren't a steel worker. They defaulted on their pension
plan. (before the PBGC)



What? The Steelworkers Union trust has assets of more than two billion
dollars. Are you talking about a pension fund administered and
controlled by corporate management?

I am not sure I just know my father in law's brother is a retired
union steel worker and he only gets his SS. The pension is gone.


In the good old days when steel corporations controlled the pensions,
the corporate crooks underfunded them and stole the money in them for
other purposes. If my memory is correct, the USW took over steelworker
pensions with the help of the pension guarantee corp.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On 4/18/10 5:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 18/04/2010 11:26 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/18/10 1:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 18/04/2010 9:49 AM, hk wrote:

It's best to have available a variety of pensions and pension saving
devices.

Maybe. But always good to keep any eye on them and take them with you.


There are a long list of companies that messed up pensions, Enron,
NorTel, GM, Chrysler, Delco...


That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities. Further, we through our elected officers
control the fund, not the employers, and our fund officers select our
qpams. The employers do have "represenation" on the fund board, but they
are in the minority.

The fund's contributions are comprised entirely of the money the members
have put into it, and it is portable, so long as the member is working
for a signatory contractor. Now, there have been occasions when a
contractor has failed to forward the funds for the previous week's
contributions, but he is quickly convinced *that* is not a good idea.

This method of operations is fairly typical for building trades unions.
Our predecessors learned early on not to trust management when it is
holding your money.



Then you are one of the very few in that spot. Most either don't have
one or are bamboozeled by companies and even unions. GMers for example.
By luck and not by design I suspect then you are better off.

The most secure penions are government. If the screw up, they just
create more debt onto future taxpayers to pay the bills, in at least up
to this date. Nice inflation indexing too. Like inflation 70's that
screwed many a retired that pensions were not indexed.

But for most, it is a carrot they will never see.

I'm sure my net worth and future worth exceed yours, but of course it is
all by luck. D'oh.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On 18/04/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:53:33 -0600,
wrote:

401K/IRA are not ponzi.

They are when you look at the impact of millions of boomers making a
run on the funds all at one time. There is simply not enough liquidity
in the system to sustain that. I predict the government will remove
the requirement that you have to draw down these funds in hopes that
the boomers will stay in there until they die.

Market opportunity for the wise. I bought so many cheap stocks at the
begining of last year. Can't remember which book I read it from, but it
said the best money in the market is in not doing what everyone else was
doing.

Now if everyone wants to be run like a herd of sheep, there is
opportunities in realising that.

I agree with letting boomers keep it in. Why not? Forcing them to
liquidate is anal retentive BS.

But I also would not doubt to raise cash in a hyper-debt situation the
government offers lower tax rates to withdraw to raise cash on taxes.
The government is in a debt spiral. How that unfolds is anyones guess
but will not be pretty when Greece issues migrate to USA through Japan,
Spain, Germany ...

Because in essense our governemnts are bankrupt and debt spending, not
sustainable.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:16:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:53:57 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Bubba I have been retired for 14 years. My 401k has recovered nicely.

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

Hey I worked hard, paid off all my bills and saved a lot of money so I
could be lazy and shiftless for the rest of my life, too bad you
didn't.

Ain't bein' lazy and shiftless great? :)

This Wednesday will be even greater - I can play a round of golf again. Support
the economy and all.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

On 18/04/2010 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.

I just see the irony in someone who has all of his future dreams and
aspirations tied to wall street and then demonizes it as much as he
does.
I would think a guy like that would be 100% invested in government
guaranteed paper. I bet that is an option in his 401K. I know I have
several options in how I allocate my money and one is a low yield,
high security basket of bonds and other government paper.
My bet, he took the fund allocation that was first offered as the
default without ever really reading it.

What a wrong place to be, government paper locked in. At todays rates,
you can be 100% they will devalue on any rise in rates, and lower rates
are not possible.

If I could, I would put a 5 year short on them if I could. That goes
for any lending instrument that isn't 100% liquid without penalty.
Loaning money is stupid in this enviroment unless it is reasonably
secure and 7% or better.

Debtors want money but are not willing to pay fair market value hidding
behind low government rates. That will not last forever.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

On 18/04/2010 11:39 AM, bpuharic wrote:

what choice did i have. the 'chicago school' of reagan and friedman
told the middle class that if we unregulated the free market, our
401k's would be safe. we wouldnt need pensions because the rich needed
our pension money, and our 401k'd would be fine

Born yesterday? But you believe Obama today? Doomed to repeat.

or, i guess you're too stupid to realize george bush proposed to to do
for social security what was done to 401k's.

Uh? Social security will be broke before too long, I wouldn't count on
it being increased to keep up with inflation. Obama has other ideas for
the money than to shore up social security. Besides Obama is in a debt
spiral.

I would think a guy like that would be 100% invested in government
guaranteed paper.

i love it. the right wing ignores the fact 100,000,000 middle class
wage earners got raped by wall street. after all, wall street NEVER
makes mistakes. it's infallible because it's free market

another measure of how much the right HATES the middle class and
worships wall street

Raped by corruption, yes. Again, Wall Street is just a 10 month mirror
into the economic outlook of the markets. Don't be such a simpltom
sheeples.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?