Hope lingers to save U.S. autos from econ crisis

[top gun]

Are you telling me that putting money in the stock market, even in a crash, results in a worse return that SS gets you? (SS gets about 1%)

Further, if people have any idea how to actually invest, they will keep portions in cash, bonds, funds, stocks, and CDs. Sure the market downturn has hurt a lot of people, but how about people who are now buying at these discounts?

If I make the same argument when the market has turned around that "hey look we are up 10% this year" it still means little. The market swings in cycles, but over a 40 year period, it is pretty hard to not turn a profit. Further, splitting your money between stocks and guaranteed investments means you will not go broke when a down cycle comes.

What you are doing is talking from a position of someone who knows what to do and are trying to project that same thing will happen with everyone. This would not be the case.

And what of those that didn't invest perfectly and are elderly and retired without income and need that money right then when the market tanks? Screw them they just weren't smart enough to survive!

I've said this a 100 times before. If your Bushie plan (scheme) is so safe just FDIC it. Make it where the elderly can't loose their retirement money and I'm totally onboard... but ya can't because there is enormous risk... or they would have already offered that plan.


S.S. is a program set up to ensure the principle. And would have always easily been very capable at doing that were it not for repeated raiding of that fund (tells ya where the money was in hard times).

Again... it's not going to be dissolved it's going to be adjusted for age & shored up so this is all mute.

 

[top gun]

Who? I don't know anyone who did. I assume you do? What stock was it that is now worthless?

How bout ENRON or WORLDCOM for a now zero example. How bout the US automaker stocks being cut down to almost nothing. You do realize that in the markets it's not if the stock price drops to zero anyway. It's the relationship of what you paid going in to what you can get back out if you sell.

FDIC it and it's a fine & retirement plan for me. If it's not safe enough to insure though it's not safe enough for our elderly to rely on either.

 

[top gun]

LOL!!! Prove that! What a silly joke! There is only two ways to do this. Increase taxes on us, or reduce benefits. If he increases taxes, the resulting economic fallout will enhance the already sad situation we're in. If he reduces benefits, which is what is planned, the already awful $12K /year income will be worse. How retarded is that!

Let's see in this hand I have $12 thousand dollars per person so a couple could have say $24 thousand dollars.

In this hand I might have nothing.

Yep I'm going with the 12K.

 

[Andy]

Let's see in this hand I have $12 thousand dollars per person so a couple could have say $24 thousand dollars.

In this hand I might have nothing.

Yep I'm going with the 12K.

And spend the rest of your life worried about it going broke (which it will do), or you benefits being reduced (which has happened and will again), and what your going to do, and wishing you had been a bit smarter, and less trusting of government to take care of you when you were younger.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for any evidence that the elderly just rolled over and died in the streets. Have not seen support of that lame straw man theory yet.

 

[top gun]

And spend the rest of your life worried about it going broke (which it will do), or you benefits being reduced (which has happened and will again), and what your going to do, and wishing you had been a bit smarter, and less trusting of government to take care of you when you were younger.

The fact is is it not that had not S.S. been raided several times it would be just fine from any solvency perspective because you would have had both the extra raided principle plus its coresponding interest over all those many decades?

That being the case then it's not the system that was dysfunctional. It would be the exact same thing as if the politicians said sure... here... invest your own money... and then 10 years down the line said... hey we need a little money, we're running short we're going to now tax that retirement investment money and it's compounded interest at 50%.

You can screw up anything Andy if you want too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for any evidence that the elderly just rolled over and died in the streets. Have not seen support of that lame straw man theory yet.

Okaaaaaaaaay... You do know that when FDR signed S.S. into law he said... This will give people some small safeguard against poverty-ridden old age.

Furthermore you might have also heard of the Great Depression back in the 30's.

Before S.S. if you had little to no money (which was the majority of people) or a family that would take you in and were too old or disabled to work there was some church help in some places that couldn't even begin to cover the total need... or you were, let's call it... a camper. Those were the options.

Another big difference was the way families lived back then. Things were much more rural. If the grandfather/grandmother say had started the family farm and several generations lived there together... then they had a place to stay when they got older.

As people broke away from multi-generational cohabitation and moved as individual family units to the cities this of course changed the whole dynamic.

Social Security As FDR Defined It
by L. Wolfe

This is adapted from New Federalist newspaper, Dec. 20, 2004.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on Aug. 14, 1935, only a relative handful of citizens were covered by private pension funds. If you weren't wealthy, or didn't have an extended family with means, there was no place that you or your family could turn to if you were in economic distress, except charity. Most Americans faced a future full of economic hardship and uncertainty, and a "poverty-ridden old age," to use FDR's apt description.

Today, thanks to FDR's commitment to the principle of the General Welfare, one in six Americans—nearly 46 million people—receive a Social Security benefit. Social Security is more than a monthly check at retirement age. Nearly one in three beneficiaries are not retirees; such people receive disability benefits, including benefits for the blind. In addition, the Social Security Administration dispenses to the state, monies to cover unemployment benefits, while also administering funding for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

 

[Andy]

The fact is is it not that had not S.S. been raided several times it would be just fine from any solvency perspective because you would have had both the extra raided principle plus its coresponding interest over all those many decades?

That being the case then it's not the system that was dysfunctional. It would be the exact same thing as if the politicians said sure... here... invest your own money... and then 10 years down the line said... hey we need a little money, we're running short we're going to now tax that retirement investment money and it's compounded interest at 50%.

You can screw up anything Andy if you want too.

That's fine. IF... social security had stayed in a bank fund, it would have gained interest, and it would have been solvent for as long as we could see.

IF... That's the key word. IF. Welcome to reality Top Gun. When politicians are given control of your retirement, they are perfect angelic beings, that act in the best interest of the public, and will always do what is perfect and wholesome, and would never betray the trust of those who gave the money because they are our ever truthful, never lying, government bureaucrats.

No... They lie... they spend money they don't have... they take money from S.S. they were not supposed to... they blame others for the things they did. Welcome to government. Your government spent your money, and it's gone. This is why conservatives want to take as much control away from government as possible.

You can debate on what should have, could have, would have, worked until the end of time. When you want to talk about the real world, let us know.

Okaaaaaaaaay... You do know that when FDR signed S.S. into law he said... This will give people some small safeguard against poverty-ridden old age.

Furthermore you might have also heard of the Great Depression back in the 30's.

Communism was designed with the best of intentions. The results were mass deaths, gulags, and a 66% poverty rate. FDR could have said he was making the law to fight alien chickens from mars. That doesn't change the results.

Yeah, and if you did any research on economics, you'd find that S.S. caused a massive nation wide recession that left us in the depression right as things were turning for the better. S.S. caused the depression to last years longer than it would have otherwise.

Before S.S. if you had little to no money (which was the majority of people) or a family that would take you in and were too old or disabled to work there was some church help in some places that couldn't even begin to cover the total need... or you were, let's call it... a camper. Those were the options.

The first person to receive S.S., had her own home, car, and lived alone. Quite a contrast to the 3 seniors crammed into a tiny apartment with roaches all over the place. You can make these claims, I need evidence. If you can show me clear evidence that, not your empty hearsay, that the elder were in fact far worse off before, then I'll agree it's done *SOME* good.

Social Security As FDR Defined It
by L. Wolfe

This is adapted from New Federalist newspaper, Dec. 20, 2004.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on Aug. 14, 1935, only a relative handful of citizens were covered by private pension funds. If you weren't wealthy, or didn't have an extended family with means, there was no place that you or your family could turn to if you were in economic distress, except charity. Most Americans faced a future full of economic hardship and uncertainty, and a "poverty-ridden old age," to use FDR's apt description.

Today, thanks to FDR's commitment to the principle of the General Welfare, one in six Americans—nearly 46 million people—receive a Social Security benefit. Social Security is more than a monthly check at retirement age. Nearly one in three beneficiaries are not retirees; such people receive disability benefits, including benefits for the blind. In addition, the Social Security Administration dispenses to the state, monies to cover unemployment benefits, while also administering funding for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

You are assuming that those 46 million people would be broke without it. Simply using a system does not mean that without it people would die, starve, or wander the streets.

That's simply not true. People take advantage of whatever system they can, whether they need it or not.

When welfare was reformed by the republicans, idiots all over claimed children would die in the streets. Single moms would die in the gutters with babies crawling all over them. Instead, something amazing and shocking happened. They got a job, and provided for themselves.

Further, if people would be allowed to invest that money whichever way they choose (you know that whole power to the people, freedom thing), they could earn for more return on their investment than S.S. could ever provide.

 

[top gun]

That's fine. IF... social security had stayed in a bank fund, it would have gained interest, and it would have been solvent for as long as we could see.

IF... That's the key word. IF. Welcome to reality Top Gun. When politicians are given control of your retirement, they are perfect angelic beings, that act in the best interest of the public, and will always do what is perfect and wholesome, and would never betray the trust of those who gave the money because they are our ever truthful, never lying, government bureaucrats.

And the very same thing could happen by these exact same people you're complaining about in an "invest for yourself" scenario. It could be set up just ducky and a few years later be taxed to death or anything else they wanted to do to it.

So you just can't get what you want. You can't just secede from the union because Andy doesn't want to pay Social Security taxes. Sorry.

We have a system that will be adjusted and shored up until the Baby Boomers get through the system and then the numbers start turning back around.

Hey a lot of things aren't great. I wish when we had the Clinton surplus we'd have targeted those savings into the system and not elected Bush and flushed $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH FOR MORE THAN 6 YEARS right down the toilet on a 100% made up lie... but we are where we are.

Mentally deal with it or don't and be aggravated.

Oh and FYI... Bill Clinton was President under Welfare Reform and It was successful because they didn't just completely end programs & pull the rug out and remove the safety net on ADC and Food Stamps like the Republicans originally wanted but rather put more regulations, time limits and Welfare to Work Programs in place.

It was a time when working together was beneficial. Hope we see some of that effort again under President Obama.

 

[Andy]

And the very same thing could happen by these exact same people you're complaining about in an "invest for yourself" scenario. It could be set up just ducky and a few years later be taxed to death or anything else they wanted to do to it.

Ok, show me a history of where CD, Bonds, mutual funds, or other types of investments, have had the same increasing cost, and declining benefit, as social security. Once again your using hearsay to fight historical evidence.

So you just can't get what you want. You can't just secede from the union because Andy doesn't want to pay Social Security taxes. Sorry.

No, but I can and will vote for those who support dismantling or allowing opt-out for it.

We have a system that will be adjusted and shored up until the Baby Boomers get through the system and then the numbers start turning back around.

Yeah, that worked so well in the past 3 times it's been "shored up".

Hey a lot of things aren't great. I wish when we had the Clinton surplus we'd have targeted those savings into the system and not elected Bush and flushed $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH FOR MORE THAN 6 YEARS right down the toilet on a 100% made up lie... but we are where we are.

Note that Obama plans to spend 1.8 Trillion in his first year. That's $150 Billion a month. Are you against Overspend Obama?

Btw, there was no surplus with Clinton. The "surplus" was the very borrowed cash from Social Security you claim he should not have taken. Also, in case you don't remember, Clinton spent the non-"surplus", and didn't shore up Social Security with it's own money, either.

Mentally deal with it or don't and be aggravated.

If anyone is living in a mentally unstable false reality, it's you. You didn't know the surplus was stolen funds from S.S., you can't prove historically any of your points, you complain about $12 Billion a month in spending, when your own guy plans to spend $150 Billion a month. You are practically a basket case living in your own made up world. Rather pathetic.

Oh and FYI... Bill Clinton was President under Welfare Reform and It was successful because they didn't just completely end programs & pull the rug out and remove the safety net on ADC and Food Stamps like the Republicans originally wanted but rather put more regulations, time limits and Welfare to Work Programs in place.

Oh and FYI, Clinton was so against the republican welfare reform, he openly claimed he would go back and fix it. Good thing he didn't, welfare reform worked perfectly.

It was a time when working together was beneficial. Hope we see some of that effort again under President Obama.

Which is why he voted the first 2 copies of the bill. The republicans had to cram it down his throat to force him to sign it. Oh and btw, it was the exact same bill. There was nothing different between the first 2 and the 3rd one he signed. So much for "working together". More like "beating into submission".

I'm all for Obama working together on conservative legislation. As long as he keep supporting conservative policies, I'll deal with him. The moment he starts his liberal crap, you can kiss that cooperation goodbye.

Btw, did you see his latest appointment to the VA office? A true war-hawk. I love it when Obama sticks it straight to his liberal pacifist wimps.

 

[top gun]

Ok, show me a history of where CD, Bonds, mutual funds, or other types of investments, have had the same increasing cost, and declining benefit, as social security. Once again your using hearsay to fight historical evidence.

Andy this is getting way to long so I'm going to shorten the individual questions OK?

The only thing that matters is would the investment be there AT ALL TIMES FOR EVERYBODY (because people are retiring every single day). Not would the "odds" of the long term investment be better.

The rest of your post was either inaccurate or more of just a rant against anything not in your Conservative mindset. You are entitled to your opinion.

But we've been down your road, stuck in your ditch, and we are going to try something different. I believe it will be a good deal better. We'll see...

 

[Andy]

The only thing that matters is would the investment be there AT ALL TIMES FOR EVERYBODY (because people are retiring every single day). Not would the "odds" of the long term investment be better. [/COLOR]

Yes, you support tyranny. So much for democracy, where people have options. No, instead the arrogant judgmental among us will dictate how our 'retirement' will be (blown by the government), instead of giving us options.

Yeah your investment that will be there 'at all times', has been for the last 50 some years, been spent. It isn't there 'at all times'. And history shows repeatedly, that it will cost more and reward less, 'at all times'. However, thanks to the left, we can be sure lower rewards and greater cost in the future, will be called "shoring up", and of course you'll buy it, 'at all times'.

The rest of your post was either inaccurate or more of just a rant against anything not in your Conservative mindset. You are entitled to your opinion.

But we've been down your road, stuck in your ditch, and we are going to try something different. I believe it will be a good deal better. We'll see...

Right, you couldn't answer, so now it's not worth answering. Next time, save us the trouble of debating it, and just admit you are wrong.

As for your better deal, yes I know. He's going to spend more money in one year, than the entire Iraq war cost to date. He's going to blow more money on bail-outs, and he got no problem with deficits, all by his own admission.

Yes, Bail-out Barack, Overspend Obama, clearly has "hope and change" for us all.

No we haven't been down my road for about 60 years. The nation got off this road before I was born. Now we're on the idiots road where we can actually have a surplus by stealing from Social Security, and have people think it's brilliant while at the same time complaining about stealing from Social Security. We are so far stuck on stupid, that we have people who complaining about deficits and bail outs, vote for someone who supports deficits and bail-outs and call it "hope and change".

No sir, we are not, nor have been on my road. You need logic and basic reasoning to get on this highway, and honestly, it's not well traveled.

 

[Pidgey]

No sir, we are not, nor have been on my road. You need logic and basic reasoning to get on this highway, and honestly, it's not well traveled.

Don't mince words, Andy... tell us how you really feel!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Maybe if the US car industry started making great cars with reasonable engine sizes that did not require in-flight fulleing they would not be in such a mess.

Anyone wonder why Americans who get rich rush out and buy a fleet of European cars?

 

[top gun]

Yes, you support tyranny. So much for democracy, where people have options. No, instead the arrogant judgmental among us will dictate how our 'retirement' will be (blown by the government), instead of giving us options.

Yeah your investment that will be there 'at all times', has been for the last 50 some years, been spent. It isn't there 'at all times'. And history shows repeatedly, that it will cost more and reward less, 'at all times'. However, thanks to the left, we can be sure lower rewards and greater cost in the future, will be called "shoring up", and of course you'll buy it, 'at all times'.

There's nothing tyrannical about creating a system to address the fact... If you weren't wealthy, or didn't have an extended family with means, there was no place that you or your family could turn to if you were in economic distress, except charity. Most Americans faced a future full of economic hardship and uncertainty, and a "poverty-ridden old age," to use FDR's apt description.

It's called compassion and doing something about a problem. A concept you and your ultra-Conservative cronies know little if anything about.

I'm sure you are too young Andy to understand the old saying... You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater but that's exactly the scenario you would have us follow. Instead of working to see the fund a fund that was originally properly set up could not be raided in the future... you just want to kill off the whole fund and tell elderly people just go out on the streets and fend for yourself.

I don't really completely hold this against you because of your very young age. Now I'm not saying you're living in Mommies basement eating Cheeto's (not saying you're not either) and thinking why they taking that $20 or $30 out of my $250 a week (gross) paycheck. But people that far away from retirement usually are completely out of touch and don't understand why the elderly really want that small little bit of secure money.

No sir, we are not, nor have been on my road. You need logic and basic reasoning to get on this highway, and honestly, it's not well traveled

That's because your road is the One Flew Over The CUCKOO'S Nest road Andy.

Oh and just a quick sidebar on your insane rants about President-elect Obama appointing a hawkish person to the VA. You see Andy we are in charge now after Jan. 20th. We unlike Bush and your Conservative love interest don't have to appoint clones.

President Obama will be fully in charge of his administrations agenda have no doubt. As far as your interpretation that President Obama is somehow sticking it to his "liberal pacifist wimps".

Couple clarifications on point:

First... I've been very satisfied with President Obama's picks and know that over the next 8 years he will continue to be steady and in total control of his administration's decision making process.

And secondly and most important & amusing to me... we so called "liberal pacifist wimps" stuck our boot so far up your ass kicking y'all out of office that you're still whining in pain.

 

[top gun]

Maybe if the US car industry started making great cars with reasonable engine sizes that did not require in-flight fulleing they would not be in such a mess.

Anyone wonder why Americans who get rich rush out and buy a fleet of European cars?

What are you trying to say... that coming out with the Excursion & the Hummer weren't forward thinking technical wonders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're dead on my friend. And here's the thing that really disappoints me most. There have been some great American car/engine combinations using very basic technology that were canned in favor of things like a 6 liter V8 in passenger cars.

One car that I owned in the past that I just loved was a 86 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coup... 2.3 liter 4 cylinder turbo. Nice 5 passenger car. Great ride comfort. Great gas mileage when driven normally and good punch when you wanted to turn it out.

But you know... it makes more sense to sell a military transport vehicle as a daily driver I guess. If gas hadn't spiked I'm sure they'd of soon come out with a full blown limousine and marketed it to the public as...

It's like driving your living room to soccer practice!

 

[Andy]

Maybe if the US car industry started making great cars with reasonable engine sizes that did not require in-flight fulleing they would not be in such a mess.

Anyone wonder why Americans who get rich rush out and buy a fleet of European cars?

The Chevy Aveo and Pontiac G3, gets 27/34 MPG. That's better than the Kia Rio, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Nissan Versa, and Toyota Corolla.

The Ford Focus gets 24/33 MPG. That's better than the Mazda 3, Nissan Sentra, MINI Cooper, Mitsubishi Lancer, and Suzuki SX4.

The idea that domestic cars are all gas hogs is a unsupportable myth. I'll give you credit that it's conventional wisdom, and thus not simply something you made up. Nevertheless, people who want to paint the picture that the big three automakers only make low milage cars, tend to one-sidedly point out things like comparing Hummers and Yukons to Insights and Prius.

But none of those are what the average buys is looking for. When you look into the average mid-size family sedan, domestics are very comparable, and in some cases better.

What is even more amusing, is that when you look at the worst MPG cars on the market, they are all foreign.
While the Suburban, Jeep Commander and Explorer, all get 14/20 MPG, the worst cars are:
Lamborghini Roadster 8/13 MPG
Aston Martin DB9 11/17 MPG
Bentley Azure 9/15 MPG
Ferrari 612 Scaglietti 9/16 MPG
Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG 13/18 MPG.

A suburban would be a step up, milage wise, from all of these.

Again, domestic cars are not as fuel inefficient as people would like to claim. Ironically the cars complained about as being gas hogs are the ones GM is making money on.

But what makes it even more amusing is that people like Top Gun, keep mindlessly complaining that GM should make more of the cars people want... but wait, GM is the number one auto manufacturer in the world. GM sells more than any other auto company on this planet. Obviously, if they were not selling cars people want, they would not be outselling everyone on the planet.