DEBT CEILING WILL BE RAISED, WITH OR WITHOUT A SHUTDOWN
July 10th, Moneytalk, Brinker said: They must, those in power in Washington, must raise the debt ceiling. They have no choice. They either do it before a government shutdown, in which case, things go on as they are. Or they do it after a shutdown, like they did back in 1994 -- short government shutdown and then they re-open. In either case, they must raise the debt ceiling....There is no alternative of no debt ceiling increase....It must be raised."
July 17th, Moneytalk, Brinker said: "The debt ceiling must be raised with or without a short-term, stage-produced government shut-down and that's because the country cannot afford to go into default. If you wonder why, $14.4 trillion in national debt, annual Treasury sales of way over a trillion dollars. The country cannot afford to go into default on its Treasuries obligations."
July 20th, Moneytalk, Brinker said: "I guarantee you they're going to raise the debt ceiling, with or without a government shut-down....You can take that to the bank. But when you talk to the politics of this, and I think you have to take it to the general election in order to decide where the country is going to go on this issue -- spending versus revenue and fiscal responsibility."
BUT WHAT IF THE UNTHINKABLE DOES HAPPENS?
July 10th, Moneytalk, Brinker said: "If the United States were to refuse to raise the debt ceiling -- remember, I don't believe that's an option and I don't expect that to happen -- then the credit quality of US Treasuries would be degraded....because of political posturing."
SHOULD YOU SELL STOCK BECAUSE OF POSSIBLE CRISIS?
June 26th, Moneytalk: Caller David asked: "Assuming that Congress and the president stalemate on the debt ceiling and we face a crisis of high interest rates or plunging stocks or both, would it be smart to protect against that now by transferring all bonds and stock funds to a money market fund?"
Brinker replied: "I would say the answer to that would be as long as you are willing to run the risk that if it doesn't turn out you're way, which would be a de facto default by the US Treasury, which would be an event of enormous historical significance. If we don't have a de facto default, which can only occur if the debt ceiling is not raised, then you have to be prepared if you exit now to do one of two things. Either to stay out indefinitely or whatever, or to re-enter at a higher level......
If you are going to exit now on the theory that you're exiting because they won't raise the debt ceiling. And if you turn out to be wrong, and they do raise the debt ceiling, I think that the probabilities would be unfavorable that you would re-enter at a lower level. Of course, it would be always possible to re-enter at whatever level you were looking at .......but you might be really unhappy if you made a move like that and then you had to re-enter at a higher level.
And there's another factor. You would lose all of your timeline toward long-term capital gains on any positions held for less than a year in a taxable account.......Meanwhile you've got people like me saying they are going to raise the debt ceiling......... because they don't have any choice. And guess what, they know it.....What you are looking at in Washington is political theater of the absurd."
Brinker has used his enormous word-smithing ability to avoid actually telling callers to either sell or not to sell stock based on the "political theater of the absurd" going on in Washington. He has never told the Moneytalk audience not to sell stock. He has only said that if you decide to do it, and nothing happens, be prepared to "re-enter at a higher level." (Brinker's Marketimer model portfolios remain fully invested.)
On the other hand, he has said that even though the government will absolutely have to raise the debt ceiling, he admits that it could be AFTER a shutdown. He has also clearly pointed out that raising the debt ceiling is a "big deal," and could lead to a Treasury downgrade or even a default.
A word of caution before reaching any conclusions based on Bob Brinker's views: Remember that he remained fully invested throughout the 2008-2009 megabear market meltdown. And even though he was well aware of what was happening in the banking system and the sub-prime problems, he never sounded an alarm of warning for Moneytalk listeners or for his Marketimer subscribers. Just the opposite, he kept issuing new bottom-calls all the way down to the March 2009 S&P 500 Index low of 677.....
Smudge sent this little polished gold beauty. I think she is hoping that Congress will lay one of these instead of the other kind. :)
We're all in this together and we all have a lot at stake. But on a lighter note, take a look at this Johnny Carson as a politician taking a polygraph test. Hilarious!
65 comments:
Senator Accuses Soros Of ‘Hypocrisy’
Jul 28 2011 | 8:48am ET
U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala) accused billionaire businessman George Soros of hypocrisy for avoiding new regulations by turning his $25 billion hedge fund shop into a family office and returning outside money.
Fox News quotes Shelby as saying in a statement: “It appears that Mr. Soros talked up financial reform only to sell it short. Don't be surprised to see his fellow Wall Street financiers follow suit.”
By returning outsider money (which represents only a small portion of the money he manages) Soros qualifies for an exemption under the Dodd-Frank Act, allowing him to avoid registering and turning over confidential information to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
According to research from Infovest21, other managers may follow suit: the research company’s just-released manager sentiment indicator found 56% of the 40 managers it surveyed expect more hedge fund managers to follow Soros’ lead, returning client assets and running family offices.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, hedge fund managers will be expected to register in March 2012. Managers polled by Infovest21 said the family office option could make sense, citing increased oversight by the SEC, FINRA, CFTC, individual states, labor laws, department of revenue as well as complicated tax issues and the waiver of carried interest.
Managers said those most likely to follow Soros were those doing foreign exchange trading and those who’ve been very successful. Said one manager, “Once you've achieve that much success clients become more of a headache than a benefit.”
Some good news for a change:
"Thursday, July 28, 10:09 AM June Pending Home Sales: +2.4% to 90.9 vs. -3% expected, +8.2% prior. "The two consecutive months of rising activity should lead to overall improvement in closed sales in upcoming months," NAR's Lawrence Yun says."
Thank you, Jeff....In my opinion, Soros is much more than a hypocrite. He is an evil, destructive enemy of the US. He has destroyed other countries and now uses his considerable resources to damage the US.
Here's the link to your article:
Senator Accuses Soros Of Hypocrisy
OH NO.........
The Republican are now going to screw up Christmas?
Is the White House on drugs?
GOP aims to gut Christmas, White House alleges
Read more: GRINCHES
Oh NO! Mr. Pig, say it isn't so! Not CHRISTMAS! :)
If they have to chose, I just hope they pay the interest on the government bonds so the market doesn't tank.
Everybody else can wait and when those old people on Social Security don't get paid then maybe Washington will listen to them whine for a while.
I love the way that conservatives have of seeing their own "facts" that are just exactly opposite of the truth. The private sector has been adding jobs, the lousy jobs numbers we have been seeing have been from drops in PUBLIC sector employment.
The Republicans have made large budget deficits a policy GOAL for 20 of the last 30 years. The only time they object to deficits is when there is a Democrat in the White House.
Paul
Mr. Pig. Why would this president care about Christmas as long as they don't get rid of Ramadan? He told us he was a Muslim in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw
Yeah, Jeff, you beat me to it.
The spin meisters in the White House recognize Christmas when it helps them make the Republicans look bad.
Of course, they were referring to the secular aspect of Christmas, the part that has to do with spending.
If the retail sector suffers, I submit it is a result of widespread unemployment, not something Congress does or does not do in July.
Yes, of course you are right Paul, but look how many of these people appear to be confused.
POLL: Just 17% Say U.S. Heading In Right Direction; Lowest Since Obama Took Office...
Are they Nuts?
Jeff, Christmas didn't bother these guys!
FLASHBACK: Dems pass health care reform on Christmas Eve...
CREEPS
Ms Honey Bee, at what level did those 2 geniuses Brinker and Brinker, et al, sell their TIPS?
Now that was a great move to sell the TIPS and Ginnie Mae's and buy stocks.
Didja see that TIPS are all the way down.............OPPS!........excuse me......they are up to 13.74.
OH MY GOODNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did Junior royally FU this one?????
Global Inflation Pressure Falling: Use TIPS to Profit
By: Kirk Lindstrom
Kirk Lindstrom says you can profit from TIPS when inflation FALLS?
How does that work? I thought you bought TIPS to PROTECT from inflation.
aw32
http://seekingalpha.com/article/278672-global-inflation-pressure-falling-use-tips-to-profit
Anon, whimpers with big $$$shaped tears on his cheeks, beneath his bloodshot eyes:
Kirk Lindstrom says you can profit from TIPS when inflation FALLS?
I don't recall mentioning Kirk, who did not sell out his TIPS to buy a dopey Wellington STOCK Fund or sumptin STOOPID in his BOND portfolio.
Are you always this confused? Perhaps you need an illegal to be caretaker or a guardian, before you wind up hurting yourself by falling down and not being able to get up.
usmerrills Comment (1)
[Kirk]"I bought those TIPS on February 17, 2011. This morning, my online broker says those TIPS are up 13.7% already so that was a home run! "
Really? Let's check back next year and see if we still have a "home run". The market value of individual TIP holdings fluctuates just like the NAV of a bond funds fluctuates. Since very few individual investors will actually hold a 30 year TIP to maturity, the notion that TIPS hold their value thru their life span is not correct. They only will sell at par on their expiration date. Other than on that one day, they will sell for something other than par. It could be more, but it likely will be less. It is important to understand that there is significant price risk with a 30 year TIP. Most bond funds are laddered with durations much shorter than 30 years and therefore actually have less price risk than the individual 30 year TIP bond discussed in this article.
John Boehner: Downgrade Of U.S. Credit Rating 'Beyond My Control'
It's in God's hands now.
aw32 posted a quote from an article that Kirk Lindstrom wrote about TIPS for Seeking Alpha.
Here is the link:
Global Inflation Pressure Falling: Use Tips to Profit
.
Mr Pig asked: "Ms Honey Bee, at what level did those 2 geniuses Brinker and Brinker, et al, sell their TIPS?
Now that was a great move to sell the TIPS and Ginnie Mae's and buy stocks."
Mr Pig,
First let me say that I do not know the answer to your last question about what Junior might royally have done, but here are the answers to your other questions:
January, 2011, Marketimer, Bob Brinker wrote:
Model portfolio III Changes:
Sell: 10% of the weighting in Vanguard Short-Term Investment Grade (VFSTX) thereby reducing this weighting from 20% to 10%;
Sell: 10% weighting in Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities (VIPSX) thereby eliminating this holding;
Buy: 20% weighting in Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) thereby establishing this new holding.
Fixed-Income Portfolio Changes:
Sell: 15% of the weighting in Vanguard Ginnie Mae Fund (VFIIX) thereby reducing this weighting from 40% to 25%;
Sell: 10% of the weighting in Vanguard Short-Term Investment Grade (VFSTX) thereby reducing this
Sell: 10% Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities (VIPSX)thereby eliminating this holding;
Buy: 25% weighting in Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) thereby establishing this new holding;
Buy: 10% weighting in Vanguard High-Yield Corporate (VWEHX) Thereby increasing this weighting from 15% to 25%
We know that Junior also switched out of some bond funds to buy Wellesley Income Fund. Wellesley holds about 35% stock.
.
First let me say that I do not know the answer to your last question about what Junior might royally have done,
Honey you are two nice. So let's examine the factual evidence regarding Binkey. First of all Binkey's education was confined to the narrow scope of IT. Following bad advice from Da Brink, Binkey squandered his years in academia learning a trade at the relentless and unyielding mercy of globalization. Seeing dismal career prospects Binkey becomes the reincarnation of Da Brink(dropping the junior so he can ape daddy whore-bucks), an apparent charlatan huckster who has demonstrably illustrated he woudl have trouble timing an egg much less the markets. And his record illustrates the point very nicely.
So what has Binkey royally done, well with no apparent academician training of relevance, and tutored at the helm of a BSer who preys on the failing sensibilities of those most vulnerable, he has become his father, a rather sad commentary on a once promising life.
tfb
Vanguard is introducing lower-cost Admiral Shares for more of their index funds:
July 25, 2011
Once again, we're reducing the cost of investing.
Starting in September, Vanguard expects to offer lower-cost Admiral™ Shares for six more domestic and international stock index funds:
Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund 0.22% to 0.12%
Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund 0.35% to 0.18%
Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth Index Fund 0.26% to 0.10%
Vanguard Mid-Cap Value Index Fund 0.26% to 0.10%
Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index Fund 0.26% to 0.10%
Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund 0.37% to 0.21%
Vanguard Introducing lower-cost Admiral Shares for more index funds
TFB, the (loveable furball) fluffy bunny said:
"Honey you are two nice. So let's examine the factual evidence regarding Binkey. First of all Binkey's education was confined to the narrow scope of IT. Following bad advice from Da Brink, Binkey squandered his years in academia learning a trade at the relentless and unyielding mercy of globalization.
Seeing dismal career prospects Binkey becomes the reincarnation of Da Brink(dropping the junior so he can ape daddy whore-bucks), an apparent charlatan huckster who has demonstrably illustrated he woudl have trouble timing an egg much less the markets. And his record illustrates the point very nicely.
So what has Binkey royally done, well with no apparent academician training of relevance, and tutored at the helm of a BSer who preys on the failing sensibilities of those most vulnerable, he has become his father, a rather sad commentary on a once promising life.
tfb"
And Honey replies:
BINGO!
Best description I ever read of Junior's metamorphosis from an honest computer/IT technician, who carefully made sure he was never mistaken for his famous father, into a daddy-aping newsletter huckster and charlatan.....
.
Bob Brinker's GDP Growth Forecast
In the July 2011 Marketimer, Bob Brinker projects US GDP will grow by two to three percent in 2011. He says he is "slightly more conservative than the revised Federal Reserve forecast of 2.7% to 2.9% growth in 2011."
Looks like we are coming in below the low end with today's number of 1.3%. Didn't he tell several callers who wanted to sell stocks because of the debt stalemate in congress that they should be prepared to enter the market at a higher level? It has not been a good week and I suspect Lynn may be on this Sunday. If so expect some hot and heavy political exchanges with callers.
Thanks for posting the link to my Seeking Article Honeybee. I posted in the comments section of that article I sold that TIPS position for nearly an 18% gain. Not bad for fixed income that could never lose money as long as I was WILLING to hold until they matured.
My subscribers were impressed. One who subscribed last year and was up for renewal sent this note just before paying:
Hi Kirk,
Yes, I plan to renew... and will do so with Paypal. I have been very pleased with your advice and have benefited from your Investment Letter. In particular, I acquired 30yrs TIPS back in January following your suggestions and just yesterday sold them for a very good return.
Much Appreciated, xxx
Here is a link Kirk Lindstrom' Investment Letter
I am quite flattered that so many of Brinker's followers think enough of my advice and articles to comment on them here!
Thanks again.
-Kirk Out
PS Here is a Link to All Kirk's SeekingAlpha Articles
I see Kirk Lindstrom still calls the shots here and you still jump to his tune.
I thought you would change when you moved your blog.
No one calls the shots here except myself. And I say that Kirk Lindstrom is not the subject of the thread and he does not want to spend time defending his positions here. I don't blame him...So:
It's fine to post links to his writing, but don't expect him to defend/discuss them with you here.
So don't worry, be happy.
.
Jeffchristie,
I suspect you are right. It will be Ms. Lynn Jimenez, KGO810 business reporter, on for Bob Brinker this weekend. :)
Recovery Still Slow as New Data Show Little Growth
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: July 29, 2011
WASHINGTON — The United States economy has slowed considerably this year from a year ago, according to a report from the Commerce Department released on Friday.
The country’s gross domestic product, a broad measure of the goods and services produced across the economy, grew at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter, after having grown at an annual rate of 0.4 percent in the first quarter — a number that itself was revised sharply down from earlier estimates of 1.9 percent . Both figures were well below economists’ expectations.
Data revisions going back to 2003 also showed that the 2007-2009 recession was deeper, and the recovery to date weaker, than originally estimated. Indeed, the latest figures show that the nation’s economy is still smaller than it was in 2007, when the Great Recession officially began.
“The word for this report is ‘shocking,’ ” said John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics. “With slow growth, higher inflation and almost no consumer spending growth, it is very tough to find good news.”
Read more
The host of Moneytalk said "you have to be prepared if you exit now (the market) to do one of two things. Either stay out indefinitely or whatever, or to re-enter at a higher level."
He cleverly excluded a third option. To re-enter at a lower level as the stagnant economy and high unemployment continue. But that would mean that Mr B was wrong by staying fully invested.
Golly gee, when has that happened?
I thought you would change when you moved your blog.
Tranlation:" I thought you would turn against Kirk, and post more of my lies and drivel."
Allow me to suggest that you return to the Bot Club, unless they still can't stand you, or go over to Utek where can you rant and rave all day long with the pumpers and dumpers, and NOONE cares, not even the BANISHED BANISHED BANISHED BANISHED freak girlie-boy. (maybe sHE'll tell you some (((ROARING))) jokes?
Most of you are very familiar with the hazards of using stop-loss orders, but some may not be aware that their stop-loss price is not the minimum that they can get.
The stop-loss is only the trigger price, and will execute at market price after it is hit by either bid or ask.
This was written on a Yahoo message board by an anonymous poster who really knows his stuff -- great explanation:
"Here is more on the stop loss order. Note that a stop loss will put your market sell out when either the bid or ask price hits your stop, so your shares go out at market. It does not guarantee a buyer at your stop price. in a flash like today you could have sold in the low 14's and NLY could have been back in the 16's by the time your execution notice was received.
In normal trading on high volume stocks you would be protected....DEFINITION............A stop order (also stop loss order) is an order to buy (or sell) a security once the price of the security has climbed above (or dropped below) a specified stop price. (Note that both bid and ask prices can trigger a stop order.)
When the specified stop price is reached, the stop order is entered as a market order (no limit). This means the trade will definitely be executed, but not necessarily at or near the stop price, particularly when the order is placed into a fast-moving market, or if there is insufficient liquidity available relative to the size of the order."
Good explanation of stop orders. BTW, you CAN put in a stop-limit order in which may only be executed at your limit price...or not at all. That may be fine if you are using a stop-buy to enter a trade, but can be dangerous if using it to protect a position alread held. A plain stop will guarantee you will be out, though not necessarily at the price you'ld like. But at least you will be out.
Anyway, as for today's market, we suffered the 6th straight loss. And after the close, the monthly MACD looked flattened.
Last time that happened was in April 2010 and we suffered about a 1600 point loss in the Dow. But no bear market. Hopefully this is not the start of a bear, but if we get a crossover, that is usually a sign to run for cover regardless. The last crossover was at the end of 2007. Failure to heed that signal was fatal!
Bill O'Reilly took some Republicans to task on his Thursday show, saying that they needed to stop their "craziness," tone down their "hateful rhetoric" and pass a debt ceiling increase.
Speaking to guest host Laura Ingraham from Los Angeles, O'Reilly said he had taken a "moderate" stance on the debt crisis, and he warned Republicans who have so far been unwilling to pass a debt ceiling increase would only be helping President Obama, who he said had taken an "enormous hit" from the debate.
"The only thing that can save Barack Obama at this point is craziness on the right," he said. "...It's not only going to hurt the Republican party, which has already been hurt, but it's going to save President Obama who they hate
Bill O'Reilly?
How can you stand to listen to that arrogant sell-out who loves the sound of his own voice?
Why do you think Obama has let O'Reilly interview him twice -- once at the White House?
.
Why do you think Obama has let O'Reilly interview him twice -- once at the White House?
SMOOCH SMOOCH SLURP SLURP
"The irony is, the people who dislike President Obama the most...are helping him the most," O'Reilly said. "You've got to stop this hateful rhetoric. Some of the rhetoric is so hateful...it'd spin your head around. You have to say, listen, we're at a point in the history when we have to save the country."
WATCH:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/bill-oreilly-lashes-out-a_n_913380.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Caim%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C82146
O'Reilly has previously offered to fly down to Washington to personally broker the debt talks. Clearly, no one took him up on his offer.
Bill O'Reilly is pretty much a scum, and a rather gutless coward at that. He is simply blowhard and curs every time push comes to real shove. Well unless it is a woman, he finds the courage to be tough with women.
tfb wrote the comment about O'Reilly being tough with women.
The tea party candidate from my district signed pledges with think tanks and large contributors supporting policies similar to those being put forth now. Over $250,000 was contributed to his campaign by these groups and it was enough for him to win with 51%. The big donations provided him with funds for heavy television ads and it probably provided his margin of victory. If he were not allowed to run for re-election, I sincerely believe that the next candidate would get the same level of support to buy the election. Moral: It is cheaper to buy elections than to pay sufficient taxes to help fund your government. Ironically, in the end, the assets of most of these people will be dramatically reduced by the coming recession and bond and stock meltdown.
t4two
Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid.
By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: July 28
If leadership is the capacity to take people where they need to go — whether or not they realize it or want it — then we’ve had almost no leadership in these weeks of frustrating and maddening debate over the budget and debt ceiling. There’s been an unspoken consensus among President Obama, congressional Democrats and Republicans not to discuss the central issue underlying the standoff. We’ve heard lots about “compromise” or its absence. We’ve had dueling budgets with differing mixes of spending cuts and tax increases. But we’ve heard almost nothing of the main problem that makes the budget so intractable.
It’s the elderly, stupid.
By now, it’s obvious that we need to rewrite the social contract that, over the past half-century, has transformed the federal government’s main task into transferring income from workers to retirees. In 1960, national defense was the government’s main job; it constituted 52 percent of federal outlays. In 2011 — even with two wars — it is 20 percent and falling. Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other retiree programs constitute roughly half of non-interest federal spending.
These transfers have become so huge that, unless checked, they will sabotage America’s future. The facts are known: By 2035, the 65-and-over population will nearly double, and health costs remain uncontrolled; the combination automatically expands federal spending (as a share of the economy) by about one-third from 2005 levels. This tidal wave of spending means one or all of the following: (a) much higher taxes; (b) the gutting of other government services, from the Weather Service to medical research; (c) a partial and dangerous disarmament; (d) large and unstable deficits.
Older Americans do not intend to ruin America, but as a group, that’s what they’re about. On average, the federal government supports each American 65 and over by about $26,000 a year (about $14,000 through Social Security, $12,000 through Medicare). At 65, the average American will live almost 20 more years. Should these sizable annual subsidies begin later and be less for some? It’s hard to discuss the budget realistically if you ignore most of what the budget does.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/w.... y.html?hpid=z3
The government stole all the Social Security money from those who have been paying in since its inception.
They stole it to spend on other things, like giving it to those legal and illegal people who never paid in a dime into the system.
(Look up how one immigrant can bring in all family members regardless of age or financial assets, then look up SSI).
They stole it to play sugar daddy to millions of deadbeat women who pop out babies without benefit of a husband, or even a responsible significant other to pay the bills.
They stole it for a myriad of other reasons, none of which make the US a better place or improves the quality of life for Americans.
The government is a thief and right now, we are getting a close-and-personal front-row seat.
Amen to Honey's post at 8:37.
The essential budget question is how much we allow federal spending on the elderly to crowd out other national priorities. All else is subordinate. Yet, our “leaders” don’t debate this question with candor or intelligence. We have a generation of politicians cowed and controlled by AARP. We need to ask how much today’s programs constitute a genuine “safety net” to protect the vulnerable (which is good) and how much they simply subsidize retirees’ private pleasures.
Our politicians make perfunctory bows to entitlement reform and consider that they’ve discharged their duty, even if nothing changes. We need to recognize that federal retiree programs often represent middle-class welfare. Past taxes were never “saved” to pay future benefits. We need to ask the hard questions: Who deserves help and who doesn’t? Because Social Security and Medicare are so intertwined in our social fabric, changing them could never be easy. But the fact that we’ve evaded the choices for so long is why the present budget impasse has been so tortuous and why, if we continue our avoidance, there will be others.
changing them could never be easy
We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. In practical terms what this is suppose to mean is you cannot deprive one group of individuals of the fruits of their labors to benefit another group of individuals. This is one principle our Founding Fathers agreed on.
Even the most liberal in terms of federal expansion of the Founders, Hamilton, could not find means to support the expansion he desired for the Federal government.
This Republic was paid for in blood across battle field after battle field, and those men and women fought for little more than a notion of a self deterministic framework.
Cut to today, we have a clearly defined,lawful system architected to promote self determination and individual liberty and we cannot even find the strength to strongly debate that which was paid for in barrels of blood by patriots. It is disgusting.
tfb
we have a clearly defined,lawful system architected to promote self determination and individual liberty and we cannot even find the strength to strongly debate that which was paid for in barrels of blood by patriots. It is disgusting.
Don't give me that crap. You OWE me. This Country OWES me.
MINE MINE MINE GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME
You stole it from me.
It's rightfully mine.
I worked hard and sweated for a few months.
If you weren't here stealing it from me, I would have it.
I'm deprived and depraved and deserve it.
It's my turn.
Eliminate those seniors...they don't contribute anymore. They just take what belongs to me.
An "Entitlement???"
-----------------------------------
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 13.3% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working (me) you’d have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years, and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever had.
Entitlement!, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money , doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout !! Congressional benefits , aka. free health care , outrageous retirement packages , 67 paid holidays , three weeks paid vacation , unlimited paid sick days , now that's welfare , and they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!!!!.....scroll down..............
Emergency Rooms for their general health care at just one hospital the cost to tax payers
totaled over 25 million a year!!!
Someone please tell me what’s wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey . And now Pakistan
home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while
our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of
Food to Foreign Countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been
paying for it all our working lives and now when its time for us to collect, the government is
running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption
of foreign orphans.
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry,
elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment -etc,etc.
YET......................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with
food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.
Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison, speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
Oh my gosh...please help this go viral. This epitomizes the issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7XA2UUpXRk&feature=player_embedded#at=338
tfb
Frankj:
Oblivious -- the numbers you gave are compelling and that is what young people today need to understand about the Soc Sec "system" so they can throw off the yoke.
You asked why did the gov't borrow (the SS $$$) in the first place.
To shovel money to their states and home districts in order to get re-elected. Now these same people are supposed to "fix" things?
We are going to end up with means testing as Samuelson implied in his editorial.
TFB,
That video is worth 10,000 words. Here's the link:
Where the stolen government money is going
I am confuse. Brinker told several callers that they would have to be prepared to enter the stock market at a higher level if they exit in fear of the debt ceiling talks. The market is down on the week and the network news people are saying we could be headed for a financial collapse. Maybe one of the callers will get through and ask Bob about this tomorrow, if the shows up.
Jeffchristie,
I really expect Bob Brinker to be a no-show tomorrow.
I don't think he wants to face callers who might remind him that he said not to sell stocks because of the debt ceiling debate.
Last week was the worst week for the stock market in over a year.
Or: He might show up and tell callers, "I didn't say that." LOL!
If Lynn hosts, maybe BB will try to get through and ask about the market!
--Frankj
Pursuant to the charade in Washington, and the possible future focus on "entitlements" and the young/old schism that will lead to, I have added the film, "Soylent Green" to my netflix queue. (Charlton Heston, Edward G. Robinson, starring.)
-- Frankj
FrankJ:
That would be something, Mr B calling in to his own show!
Lynn: Let's go to Robert in Nevada.
Hello, Robert? Can you turn down your radio?
Caller: Hi Lynn, thanks for taking my call. I'm a long time listener and subscriber to Bob's market letter and was able to reach critical mass thanks to his financial advice and I...
Lynn: What's your question, Robert?
The Truth:
When I took my civics classes I was TAUGHT that we had a DUTY to monitor the actions or our Representatives.
When I was in high school in the late 70s the newspapers, radio shows (yes there was talk radio back then; it was local talk, but talk it was), financial shows, etc, etc ALL reported that social security was NOT SECURE. In the early 80s I was speaking at colleges about the social security debacle.
There is no one, not a single person who is currently 60 or younger that can claim anything other than complicity in the social security debacle unless the can demonstrate they wrote their Congressman, wrote letters to the editor, called their representatives on a consistent basis to have this issue addressed.
I am getting darn sick and tired of hearing how you paid in this or that when YOU ALLOWED your Representatives to continue with their spendthrift ways. Your DUTY is to minor them, you cannot claim you did not know better if you are in your 30s, 40s, 50s. And you have NO RIGHT, none whatsoever to burden another generation with YOUR DEBTS.
Whatever needs to be done needs to be done needs to be done. But we have no right to improve our condition on the backs of future generations and that includes raising the debt ceiling.
tfb
If Lynn hosts, maybe BB will try to get through and ask about the market!
--Frankj
I don't care who your are, that was darn funny.
tfb
"Whatever needs to be done needs to be done needs to be done. But we have no right to improve our condition on the backs of future generations and that includes raising the debt ceiling."
tfb
The money is gone, spent already.
The debt ceiling MUST be raised because the alternative is totally unacceptable.
Are you suggesting that default on US obligations is really an alternative?
Raising taxes, cutting expenditures are good but raising the debt ceiling is a MUST.
Don't give me that crap. You OWE me. This Country OWES me.
BTW, for anyone that doesn't know me (which is disappointing and disgusting in itself) or my sick sense of humor, that entire reply to the Big Bunny was meant to be tongue in cheek and not serious.
But Birdbrain's "can you turn down your radio" was funnier!!
-- Frankj
I won't vote for a dime of higher taxes until all the public workers are put on Social Security and pay the same as I do to Social Security... unless they they put their lives on the line carrying guns as sworn police officers or running into burning buildings to save lives. These are the ONLY people I feel deserve to retire before the typical working stiff in CA who pays their salaries.
Birdbrain posted:
"FrankJ:
That would be something, Mr B calling in to his own show!
Lynn: Let's go to Robert in Nevada.
Hello, Robert? Can you turn down your radio?
Caller: Hi Lynn, thanks for taking my call. I'm a long time listener and subscriber to Bob's market letter and was able to reach critical mass thanks to his financial advice and I...
Lynn: What's your question, Robert?"
Birdbrain,
A classic for sure and belly-laugh funny!!
FrankJ,
Bob Brinker calling Lynn to find out about the stock market....Hilarious!!
The Dems had both house and senate they wasted it on a idiotic health care plan that doesn't help the middle class... they even caved on single payer... which is what I think we should have... a basic, min. level of service... free shots, checkups, basic life saving stuff for being a citizen... then if you want lung cancer, Type2 diabetes or other lifestyle disease insurance , you buy it yourself on your dime...
Social Security benefits have nothing to do with the FICA taxes
you've paid. Older retirees do not get lower benefits for having paid 1% FICA taxes for most of their careers; younger workers do not get higher benefits for having paid at the current 6.2% (our half of the SS total) for the past three decades. The size of your benefit depends entirely on the
benefit formula which Congress is free to change at any time in the future as it has many times in the past.
2) There was never money saved in the trust fund. It never operated that way; it was never supposed to. So it's not accurate to say that the trust fund was "raided." There was never anything to raid except IOUs.
Read more: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-planning/blog/financial-independence/5-social-security-myths-that-have-to-go/1237/#ixzz1ThWeFWft
Are you suggesting that default on US obligations is really an alternative?
The appropriate course of action is to cut expenses. Ripe for that are Social Security, Medicare and then every single welfare program, eliminate HUD and all Federal education money should also vanish.
There is no promised benefit with Social Security so they should be able to lower the benefit paid to all by 30% across the board. And most importantly they need to alter who is allowed to see it. refugees and immigrant's extended families need a very close look as well as the totalization provision with other countries. Medicare is still growing, so it needs extensive reform.
tfb
"The appropriate course of action is to cut expenses. Ripe for that are Social Security, Medicare and then every single welfare program, eliminate HUD and all Federal education money should also vanish." -tfb-
Cutting expenses is good but it doesn't address the question or raising the debt ceiling.
Without raising the debt ceiling we can't pay US obligations.
Default seems to be OK with you based on what you have written.
Totally irresponsible IMO
If prioritize your payments there would be no default.
tfb
Post a Comment