In article  ,
greg1199{at}yahoo.com  wrote:

> Deborah Terreson wrote:
>> In article  ,
>> greg1199{at}yahoo.com  wrote:
>>
>> > Deborah Terreson wrote:
>> >> Gotta love Alan Greenspan. Here he was earlier last week, before
> the
>> >> congress.
> [...]
>
>> >  What am I, a frigging bank?  Actually no, because my borrower
> tells me
>> > what the interest and repayment terms are, and he'll jail me for
> not
>> > loaning him money.
>>
>> You can always quit working and find employment that pays under the
> table. I
>> work with several tradesmen that earn over 60k a year and pay no
> taxes. At
>> this point, I may just decide to chuck it all myself and join in that
>> movement.
>
> Right on.  I'd go for a deal like that.  It's too bad I don't know a
> trade.

Learn one! Are you at all creative and passionate about something you do?
>
>> > If I have to loan my money, I'd rather loan to someone who pays
> decent
>> > interest, and who pays off the loan before I die.  If a Wall Street
> Fat
>> > Cat can do that, I don't care what he makes, what he wears, what he
>> > drives, or how tall his Manhattan high rise is.
>>
>> Hey, then why then can I not take my money directly and put it in a
>> *savings* or an IRA or 401 then? Bank accounts and money markets are
>
> Good question.  It's your money, and you should be able to put your
> money where you think it should be.  Some in our government would give
> you that choice.
>
>> starting to pick up again, as the Fed raises the interest rates.
> Businesses
>
> Oh yeah they are.  I used to get 8 percent on a money market, which is
> of minimal risk.  I believe SS pays 2 percent, and I think SS is even
> riskier.  It's like loaning money to someone who is already in
> mountains of debt.
>
>> are not creating enough new investors with the new salary scale all
> too many
>> are paying. Take a look at how the numbers have a potential to shift
> - to
>> think that business will not be in the same boat as the government,
> with
>> more retirements being cashed out and less working americans with
> money left
>> over TO invest beyond what the SS accounts offer. I don't object to
> the
>
> Exactly.  When pay the SS tax, there's not much left to save, which is
> a case for SS privitization.
>
>> change, but in the direction it will only be allowed to go. Why the
> fuck
>> should Wall Street be the sole beneficiary of this new investment
> 'freedom'?
>
> I'm not sure WS will be the sole beneficiary.  I believe they will
> limit you to the more conservative investments, like money markets or
> bonds, because otherwise the dems will be able to call it a "risky
> scheme."  So the tech-sector fund managers won't benefit much.
>
>> > This is what capitalism is all about.  You do what you can for
>> > yourself, and you don't worry what anyone else is doing, as long as
> he
>> > isn't hurting you.
>>
>> And what of it if it hurts someone else? Do you do nothing, and stay
> silent?
>> Is this what a stable, moral, Christian society is about? When
> someone is
>> gonna get ripped off or scammed, you just let them go down, huh?
>
> Absolutely not.  The point of govt is to protect people from crime,
> like fraud, theft, assault, and so on.  When people dupe novice
> investors into throwing down on risky stocks, I have a problem.  You
> can tell investors to be careful, just as you can tell old men not to
> walk down dark alleys.  But if the man gets assaulted in the dark
> alley, the assailant should be taken in.
>
> I don't think Bush or his supporters want to put people at the mercy of
> Wall Street scammers.  It's not moral.  The entire idea of
> privitization is to help people, and also to get rid of a system that
> isn't really working.

Ermm. Yesterday's WSJ, notes that the whole deal is going to mean more risk
for the middle and lower class. They have also noted correctly, that the
upward drive of real estate markets is pushing more into the Alternative
Minimum Tax bracket - 20 million households in another 10 years - and that
cannot be good for the investments markets either.

Sooner or later, the interest rates are going to have to rise, there is not
much room left for the Fed to keep this ball rolling behind the debt. 20
years ago, George Sr. called Reagan's debt spending policies VooDoo
Economics and he was right. It's only worked because the boomers were still
working age and America still had a manufacturing dominance.

Now it's all gone to shit. Or China, as the case may be.

Lest we forget: China is still a communist nation and America is still the
Evil Capitalist Pig Empire. 50 years ago Kruschev pounded his shoe on a
podium at the UN and declared that they would bury us, that the US would
sell the communists the rope they hang us with. Only it's Chinese we're
selling the rope to now - and they are far more ruthless than the Soviets
ever were.
>
>> >  Socialism is when you start worrying what others
>> > make, and for doing what, and whether it's fair.  How well has that
>> > system generally done?
>>
>> Better then what this disaster is turning out to be. I'm looking at
> my
>> livlihood going up the spout with the diminishing middle class. Shit,
> at
>> least those horrid rotten socialists have healthcare. I've not got
> any.
>
> I am sorry.  I had the same problem when I was jobless, and it royally
> sucked.  There are plans that give you coverage for catastrophic
> events, and that let you pay the routine expenses.  That's a good route
> for people who are healthy and unemployed, or self-employed, or
> contract workers.  Perhaps you can look into this.

At this point, I'm putting my trust in 4 million years of human evolution of
which I am the end result of, and finding a dietician instead.

Deb.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/1/05 1:34:37 PM ---