"Jim" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:34:01 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

So, my retirement fund loses $80,000 due to Dem Chris Dodd of the
banking comitttee and Barney Frank and the other dems who refused to
take action in 2005 when they were warned their actions were
endangering the economy
No - you lost $85,000 because you were stupid enough to keep your
funds in whatever type of account you had it in.

Cash dude - been saying that for years - in fact, since 2004.

Haven't lost a thing because I recognized the bubble and kept my
powder dry.

Another couple of months, I'm ready to get back in.
Except the 2% LOST to inflation every year. or about 100/1000 over the
four years. With the twit going to be in the White House expect that
to double hopefully not the double digit inflation during the Carter
years.

Good point, as I am at about 2005 valuations, at least I got more than 1%
return using Jan 2005 as a base. And in the bank, you might not get your
money. The last place to put it is the bank, find a brokerage account
where the broker does not do loans, mortgages and the like.
Please explain. I think you got it backwards.

Lets see, $100,000 in the bank for 5 years @ 2% is a little over $110,000.
Inflation was 3% or higher for most of the period. So today, to have the
same buying power you need at least $115,000. So, in the bank you lost
$5,000 in buying power.

Which leads into the "liquidity crisis". What a line of bunk. There is no
liquidity crisis, there is a shortage of people who will supply money at
below inflation and lose value. That is, a bankrupt bank wants to borrow at
a rate lower than inflation and might not pay you back. Hardly a good
investment. But I digress.

You would be best to buy gold, platinum or silver even. Banks are bad long
term places for money.

wrote in message
...

Just think what a Democratic Administration might accomplish if it
didn't have to expend all it's time and energy correcting Republican
messes. We might be in a much better position in so many areas that
they can't even get to.

Last time I checked the democratic congress works the Fed, not the
president. So in faact the democrats gave the republican Bush all the money
to start a war that the democrats voted for. That sounds more acccurate.

wrote in message
...

Toyota would being trying to emulate Chrysler, and Michigan would be
swamped with work and not enough workers to fill all the positions.

Toyota isn't trying to emulate Chrysler, Toyota makes better cars.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:10:06 GMT, JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:16:57 -0500, wrote:


Just think what a Democratic Administration might accomplish if it
didn't have to expend all it's time and energy correcting Republican
messes.
Getting in your excuses early?

Stick with what's on your pedo mind.

You snipped a lot of what I wrote because you know its the truth, and
your position is unsupportable.

Here is my post again in its entirety:


When the last Democratic President took office there was what was
considered an insurmountable deficit. Wghen he left office, eight
years later, he handed over a country that had a surplus, to a
Republican President. What';s the current deficit or surplus after 8
years of Republicans? Don't worry, the Democrats will fix your massive
screw ups AGAIN. Just bear in muind that they cant fix yuoru 8 years
of hard work in the wrong direction, overnight. We may need to
maintain Democratic control for the next 30 years or so to make sure
you don't go stupid on us again.

Just think what a Democratic Administration might accomplish if it
didn't have to expend all it's time and energy correcting Republican
messes. We might be in a much better position in so many areas that
they can't even get to. We'd probably still be the world leader in
manufacturing, and be
admired and respected around the world.

Toyota would being trying to emulate Chrysler, and Michigan would be
swamped with work and not enough workers to fill all the positions.


Your thoughts mimic Krause's. Are you related?

Unions, regulation, taxes, un-motivated, expensive, work forces, greed and
corruption. Killed our industrial complex. Granted, there were republicans
and democrats who were involved.

That was exquisitely stated.

Guess GM is done for. If everyone in GM worked for nothing, GM could sell
what they produce, they would still lose money. Ditto Chrysler. These two
turkeys days of abusing shareholders and customers is coming to a close.
The brands may be resold, but the old GM and old Chrysler be flushing down
the toilet.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
snip...
Unions, regulation, taxes, un-motivated, expensive, work forces, greed
and corruption. Killed our industrial complex. Granted, there were
republicans and democrats who were involved.


Unions?? Only a small fraction of the US workforce is unionized, yet
clowns like you still blame them for your situation.
Wake up & blame the greedy *******s who run the companies.

I think it was meant not at one particular union, but in general.

For example, union employees are into my utility bill all over. City
workers are even union. So the price doubles. I need to make more to
afford it even if I am non-union. I also get taxed more so the union
government employee gets more and it inflates the prices to the moon. Then
we need to pay for union priced cars.

Then the bubble breaks. GM goes down right after Christmas. At their burn
rate the creditors must be getting ants in their pants.

But I agree, management is the ultimate culprit here. They should have had
their asses kicked a long time ago.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...



You snipped a lot of what I wrote because you know its the truth, and
your position is unsupportable.

Here is my post again in its entirety:


When the last Democratic President took office there was what was
considered an insurmountable deficit. Wghen he left office, eight
years later, he handed over a country that had a surplus, to a
Republican President. What';s the current deficit or surplus after 8
years of Republicans? Don't worry, the Democrats will fix your massive
screw ups AGAIN. Just bear in muind that they cant fix yuoru 8 years
of hard work in the wrong direction, overnight. We may need to
maintain Democratic control for the next 30 years or so to make sure
you don't go stupid on us again.

Just think what a Democratic Administration might accomplish if it
didn't have to expend all it's time and energy correcting Republican
messes. We might be in a much better position in so many areas that
they can't even get to.

We'd probably still be the world leader in manufacturing, and be
admired and respected around the world.

Toyota would being trying to emulate Chrysler, and Michigan would be
swamped with work and not enough workers to fill all the positions.




I no longer participate in political discussions. If I did, I would
probably suggest that most financial experts
consider Clinton's "balanced budget" to be nothing more than the result of
some v e rrrrr y creative accounting.

The deficit actually increased. Spending per the budget *was* getting
under better control, but Clinton really can't take the credit, although
he still tries to this day. You can actually thank Ronald Regan and a
Republican controlled Congress, as hard as that may be for some to accept.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6107

But, it doesn't matter because I don't get involved in political
discussions.

Eisboch

Good point. If the government had to account for money like businesses,
they would panic.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
snip...
Unions, regulation, taxes, un-motivated, expensive, work forces, greed
and corruption. Killed our industrial complex. Granted, there were
republicans and democrats who were involved.


Unions?? Only a small fraction of the US workforce is unionized, yet
clowns like you still blame them for your situation.
Wake up & blame the greedy *******s who run the companies.

I think it was meant not at one particular union, but in general.

For example, union employees are into my utility bill all over. City
workers are even union. So the price doubles. I need to make more to
afford it even if I am non-union. I also get taxed more so the union
government employee gets more and it inflates the prices to the moon.
Then we need to pay for union priced cars.

Then the bubble breaks. GM goes down right after Christmas. At their
burn rate the creditors must be getting ants in their pants.

But I agree, management is the ultimate culprit here. They should have
had their asses kicked a long time ago.


Instead they and the board of directors just kept rewarding themselves more
& more.
Wonder how much the top people at GM & Ford made in total last year & this
year.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...


Good point. If the government had to account for money like businesses,
they would panic.



I got a kick out of some local debates that went on here in MA during the
election cycle.
The "official" MA operating budget, as reported by the state accounting
office was approximately $28B last year.
However, that does not include a couple of other categories that do not get
officially reported, yet funding is required for through taxes. The real MA
budget was in excess of $40B for the same time period. One of the
unreported budgets is called, (believe it or not) the "Budget for
non-budgeted items".

We are all nuts. We just keep paying. A referendum question to cut the
state sales tax in half as a means to force state government to re-evaluate
all expenditures and eliminate non-essential, pork barrel programs failed.

Eisboch

Canuck57 wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:34:01 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

So, my retirement fund loses $80,000 due to Dem Chris Dodd of the
banking comitttee and Barney Frank and the other dems who refused to
take action in 2005 when they were warned their actions were
endangering the economy
No - you lost $85,000 because you were stupid enough to keep your
funds in whatever type of account you had it in.

Cash dude - been saying that for years - in fact, since 2004.

Haven't lost a thing because I recognized the bubble and kept my
powder dry.

Another couple of months, I'm ready to get back in.
Except the 2% LOST to inflation every year. or about 100/1000 over the
four years. With the twit going to be in the White House expect that
to double hopefully not the double digit inflation during the Carter
years.
Good point, as I am at about 2005 valuations, at least I got more than 1%
return using Jan 2005 as a base. And in the bank, you might not get your
money. The last place to put it is the bank, find a brokerage account
where the broker does not do loans, mortgages and the like.
Please explain. I think you got it backwards.

Lets see, $100,000 in the bank for 5 years @ 2% is a little over $110,000.
Inflation was 3% or higher for most of the period. So today, to have the
same buying power you need at least $115,000. So, in the bank you lost
$5,000 in buying power.

Which leads into the "liquidity crisis". What a line of bunk. There is no
liquidity crisis, there is a shortage of people who will supply money at
below inflation and lose value. That is, a bankrupt bank wants to borrow at
a rate lower than inflation and might not pay you back. Hardly a good
investment. But I digress.

You would be best to buy gold, platinum or silver even. Banks are bad long
term places for money.


Thanks. Thought you were talking about stocks.

Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

Good point. If the government had to account for money like businesses,
they would panic.



I got a kick out of some local debates that went on here in MA during the
election cycle.
The "official" MA operating budget, as reported by the state accounting
office was approximately $28B last year.
However, that does not include a couple of other categories that do not get
officially reported, yet funding is required for through taxes. The real MA
budget was in excess of $40B for the same time period. One of the
unreported budgets is called, (believe it or not) the "Budget for
non-budgeted items".

We are all nuts. We just keep paying. A referendum question to cut the
state sales tax in half as a means to force state government to re-evaluate
all expenditures and eliminate non-essential, pork barrel programs failed.

Eisboch




Speaking of Massachusetts, I had a pretty good time there Thursday and
Friday, despite the really crappy rainy weather. Stayed at a hotel right
across from the Commons, got to visit some interesting construction
sites, talk to some construction workers, and even went out to the
Franklin Park area, where my grandfather and I used to go to the zoo.

Boston's always been one of my favorite American cities.