Archive

Electoral College Guess

  • QuakerOats
    Ty Webb;1298583 wrote:You cannot be serious believing that can you?
    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.
  • Ty Webb
    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.
    You're kidding me right? He is the best surrogate in the Democratic Party...

    That PA poll is like the one where President Obama was leading Arizona
  • QuakerOats
    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
  • Ty Webb
    QuakerOats;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
    I'll be plenty happy when we re-elect President Obama
  • gut
    We should start another thread guessing which poll might actually be remotely accurate.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    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.
    I will right after you answer how many times the US Gov has gone bankrupt. Even after that horrible horrible FDR.
  • gut
    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.
    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.
  • BGFalcons82
    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.
    Didn't Standard & Poors send a shot across our bow regarding going bankrupt? Should we at least listen to creditors for once?
  • believer
    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?
    Ben's got us covered. Crank up the gubmint printing presses. Time for some old fashioned quantitative easing to fix the problem.
  • sleeper
    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.
    And every day in history before 9/10/2001, how many planes had flown into the World Trade Center Towers?

    Your logic is so broken it's embarrassing.
  • Ty Webb
    IMO...a great article about the state of the race





    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82604.html?hp=t1
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    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.
    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.
  • Con_Alma
    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.
  • jmog
    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.
    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.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    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.
  • Con_Alma
    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?
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    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?
    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
    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.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    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.
    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
    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.
    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
    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.
    Really? b/c financial advisors are telling you to take advantage of the extra 5500 pre-tax contribution.
  • Con_Alma
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298905 wrote:Really? b/c financial advisors are telling you to take advantage of the extra 5500 pre-tax contribution.
    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.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    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.
    We also don't know what kind of options we'd have in a privatized social security system.
  • Belly35
    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.
    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.
    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
  • Con_Alma
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298911 wrote:We also don't know what kind of options we'd have in a privatized social security system.
    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.