Re: OT - Thank you suckers

In article <Xns97629B7745C2Bdewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dewey
<dewey3kNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bush in 2008 <bush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:060220061148461787%bush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <Xns97625D08FC69Adewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dewey
<dewey3kNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bush in 2008 <bush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:030220061638259827%bush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <Xns975C7018C8EB7dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Dewey <dewey3kNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As someone who owns stock in Exxon/Mobile (originally purchased in
1986) I just want to give a heartfelt thanks to all you suckers
out there who paid in excess of $3 a gallon for Exxon/Mobile
gasoline last fall. Cha-Ching - cash in my pocket baby. 44 cents a
share in dividends for Q4 alone. I also want to encourage you all
to buy large, gas-guzzling SUVs so that you can make me even more
wealthy this summer when gasoline prices top $3 a gallon yet
again. So, once again, thank you very much. And make sure to
remember in November, when gas prices drop (temporarily) back to
$2.25 a gallon, to vote Republican because they are keeping you
safe from terrorists and doing everything they can to keep your
energy costs down.


Why are you investing your own money privately? Don't you know
how
risky that is? Don't you remember how those holders of Enron stock
lost everything? Didn't you see the SOTU address the other day?
Didn't you see the leaders of your party cheering and giving
themselves a standing ovation with having defeated President Bush's
partial privatization of Social Security plan? Why don't you put
your money in a federally insured savings account? It's nice and
safe, and you'll get a rate of return comparable to what you will
be getting with Social Security.


I have money in cash reserves. Who wouldn't?

How myopic can the idiot Left possibly be? How about those that
are living paycheck-to-paycheck? You know, the ones that those of you
on the left are always claiming to care so much about? How much "cash
reserves" do they have to invest?

What's your solution?

My solution is the Republican Party's solution -- to give people
5% of their money back and let them invest it privately. 5% is not
much, but it's a start, and you would slowly increase that amount over
decades until Social Security becomes only a small part of a person's
retirement fund, as it should be, and was always meant to be.


It's stupid not to have some liquidity. And why would I want to risk
my Social Security in addition to the money I am already risking?

A Treasury Bond is risky? A 30-year CD is risky? Both are zero
risk and provide several more times the interest than the 1-2% average
that you will be getting from Social Security.

I didn't see either of these options in BUsh's plan. In fact, BUsh's plan
didn't really have any options. It said "The money would go into a
conservative mix of bond and stock funds that would have the opportunity to
earn a higher rate of return than anything the current system could
provide."

The Bush plan is too conservative (limited) to me. It would be
better if they would just give people their money back and let them
invest it any way they choose. But even with its limitations, it's
still better than the current Social Security system. And if liberals
won't even accept Bush's conservative plan, there's no way in hell they
would accept something less conservative.


If the stock market tanks right before I am ready to retire (or after
I retire) it will be nice to know that SSI will keep me from being
utterly destitute. Well, assuming that the republicans dont' destroy
SSI.

How many times does it need to be repeated before you idiots on
the left understand it? The Republicans' privatization plan is only
meant for younger workers -- those that will not be retiring for at
least 20 years or more. Saving for retirement is a long-term process.

You use the word "idiot" a lot. I am not surprised. Why is someone who will
retire 20 years from today any more protected from a stock market crash
just before their retirement than someone retiring next year? Or who had
planned on retiring in 2002?

This is why I used the word "myopic." You don't see the difference
between someone that will be retiring next year with someone that will
be retiring 20 to 35 years from now?
Someone that will be retiring 20 to 35 years from now will be
collecting a higher rate of interest for 20 to 35 years. So even with a
severe market correction, they will still be far better off. Let me use
a real-life example to demonstrate:

My father's friend retired in 2000, right after the major market
correction. He had stock in the company he worked for for over 30
years. Before the correction, his stock was worth about $1 million.
After the correction, his stock was worth $500 thousand.
People like you would look at that and point out how bad it was
that he had lost half of his investment. People like me would point out
that the $500 thousand he built up over the thirty years was still far
better than the $1400 per month he will be collecting from Social
Security.
See the difference? Would you rather have a $500 thousand lump sum
upon retirement, or would you rather collect $1400 per month for the
next 357 months (29.8 years)? And keep in mind, this was money earned
from just his one company stock. Had he been properly diversified, he
would not have lost as much, and would probably have earned much more.
The same is true with those that lost everything with Enron. They were
not properly diversified.


So even if the market does "tank" right before you retire, assuming
you were properly diversified, you will have made much more money over

Large assumption. Since BUsh's plan would not have allowed individuals to
choose their own investment vehicles how would you guarantee this? With yet
another huge government beaurocracy?

What makes you think Bush's plan doesn't offer choices? Last I
heard, there were at least three different options to his plan.
Personally, I don't think that's enough, but it's a lot better than
what you will be getting from the current Social Security system, which
the leaders of your party apparently feel is the best option.


those 20 to 35 years than you will have with Social Security. And if
you happen to die before, or soon after, retirement age, the remaining
money will go to your family, instead of being stolen by the
government as it currently is.

Boy, talk about lying. That's a doozy. No, wait, you're right. My
grandmother didn't get anything from social security when my grandfather
died. Not a single penny. In fact, she ended up living on the street,
eating cat food out of a can because my parents couldn't afford to support
her and their kids. Oh wait - that was a made-for-TV movie I saw once.
Actually, my grandmother was able to keep her apartment and but her own
groceries and give me and my sister birthday and christmas presents - all
on her monthly *SURVIVOR BENEFIT* check from social security.

Are you stupid or something? Where did I ever say that your
Grandmother's benefits would disappear when your Grandfather died? What
I did say is that the surviving spouse would collect the higher of the
two benefits, but not both. The lower benefit would be lost to (stolen
by) the government.
On the other hand, if both funds were privatized, upon the death
of one spouse, the surviving spouse would collect both funds rather
than just one. Big difference.


It's funny how you idiot Liberals always claim to know what's
best for other peoples' lives, while contradicting those very
same claims with your own lives.

It's funny who you idiot whatever you ares don't know *** about
anything.

The only idiots around here are those that think it's a good idea
to keep those with no extra money to invest strapped to a system that
will only give them a 1-2% return on their investment, and will leave
their family with nothing if they die early.

Social security is insurance - not investment. Why don't you whine and cry
about how little interest you are earning on your auto insurance?

Social Security is "insurance" to most, but not all. To those that
are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and cannot afford to invest privately,
it will be their only source of income when they retire.
But even for those who can afford to invest privately, who are you
to say that they should be forced to pay into the current Social
Security system, with its 1 to 2% average return? If you want to ***
up your own retirement, go ahead and do so. But leave my retirement the
*** alone.


Cracks me up that in less that 10 minutes I've read posts accusing me
of being a radical conservative and an idiot liberal.

Anyone who thinks you're a "radical conservative" must be a
Communist.

You would know.

Lame.

---

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.