D
DarthFerret
Guest
Okay, that helps me out a bit, then here is the question. If it was the Federal Reserve, then why are you blaming Bush?Mooseman said:
A
Astranbrulth
Guest
I found this to be a pretty interesting article on the current crisis:
http://www.europac.net/voicesframeset.asp?id=1
The conclusion:
"Reduce your standard of living now (while the situation is still under control), greatly increase your savings (in gold, which is real money) and rig for greatly changed patterns of production, consumption, employment and business for a considerable time. The hurricane that's just starting to hit the economy will both trigger and worsen problems in other areas. Starting with politics, because nearly everyone today believes the ridiculous notion that the government should guide the economy."
http://www.europac.net/voicesframeset.asp?id=1
The conclusion:
"Reduce your standard of living now (while the situation is still under control), greatly increase your savings (in gold, which is real money) and rig for greatly changed patterns of production, consumption, employment and business for a considerable time. The hurricane that's just starting to hit the economy will both trigger and worsen problems in other areas. Starting with politics, because nearly everyone today believes the ridiculous notion that the government should guide the economy."
A
Astranbrulth
Guest
Here's another article on these mega-bailouts, this time by Robert Kiyosaki:
"Most of us are aware of the sacrificial slaughter of Bear Sterns. Some people call it a bailout, but I call it a handout -- a government handout to some of the richest people on Earth, paid for by American taxpayers. It's the survival of the richest, and the poorest be damned. There's something dismal about a society that operates by those values."
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richricher/76669
The rest is well worth a read, where he explores the reasons behind the Fed's move.
"Most of us are aware of the sacrificial slaughter of Bear Sterns. Some people call it a bailout, but I call it a handout -- a government handout to some of the richest people on Earth, paid for by American taxpayers. It's the survival of the richest, and the poorest be damned. There's something dismal about a society that operates by those values."
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richricher/76669
The rest is well worth a read, where he explores the reasons behind the Fed's move.
Killer Joe
New member
Off-topic but somewhat related: The "Do Nothing" congress is actually one party dragging thier feet so that the other one, with a slim majority, looks bad.
We all get that, right?
We all get that, right?
B
BigBlue
Guest
Either way Spidey... we have to put in more money today than we would have if we could depend on getting Social Security when we retire... And Medicaid/Medicare is supposed to take care of medicine... I mean, why else do I give money for "future" premiums today?
And, I never intended to retire at 62... I enjoy working, always have and always will... I may not work full time as I do today, but I expect I'll still work...
My wife is 13 years my junior... when I retire, she'll be at retirement age... I have a 1 year old right now... in 22 years (when I'm 62) he'll be in college... if I have another child, they'll be just starting college... so... I won't be retiring at 62 (barring some sort of lottery winning or whatever... but I don't play the lottery often and don't expect to win it )
As far as the fast food eating, cigarette smoking, lazy oinkers... we'll all be paying for their heathcare... If not directly, indirectly by paying higher premiums, having a heavilly burdened healthcare system, and the loss of opportunity by that healthcare system for research into other problems.
Exercise to live... live to exercise... (it sounds good anyways... )
And, I never intended to retire at 62... I enjoy working, always have and always will... I may not work full time as I do today, but I expect I'll still work...
My wife is 13 years my junior... when I retire, she'll be at retirement age... I have a 1 year old right now... in 22 years (when I'm 62) he'll be in college... if I have another child, they'll be just starting college... so... I won't be retiring at 62 (barring some sort of lottery winning or whatever... but I don't play the lottery often and don't expect to win it
)As far as the fast food eating, cigarette smoking, lazy oinkers... we'll all be paying for their heathcare... If not directly, indirectly by paying higher premiums, having a heavilly burdened healthcare system, and the loss of opportunity by that healthcare system for research into other problems.
Exercise to live... live to exercise... (it sounds good anyways...
)Well, you're actually paying for current retirees, you're not paying to pay yourself later on. That's why the system is going to fall short if nothing is done; because there will be less workers in 30 years to pay *your* benefits then, not theirs...
And no, Medicaid/Care is not supposed to pay for all of your medicines - unless you meet certain requirements, I believe. It's not a blanket system for retirees.
And no, Medicaid/Care is not supposed to pay for all of your medicines - unless you meet certain requirements, I believe. It's not a blanket system for retirees.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
This is definately accurate as far as I have been told by some in the business. The money we pay for Social Security is actually being used to support those who have "banked" theirs previously. That is one of the big worries with the retirement of the 'baby boomers'. They are a much more populous generation and will require even more income into social security to balance out what is being paid out.Spiderman said:
On the topic of Medicare/Medicaid, it is important to distinguish the two. Medicare is what is paid out for the senior citizens. Medicaid is a part of the welfare system for the "poor". I do believe it is possible to have a bit of both, but things get really sticky there.
With the influx of more poeple into this country (legal or illegal, not debating that topic right now), medicaid is starting to reach a point of no return. Medicare recipeints are in a bit better shape. This may be due to better planning because of the known number of recipients previous to them actually being on the program.
As a sie note, there may be some type of disability thing for Medicare too, but again, I am a bit sketchy on all the inner workings. Hope this helps define a few things for further discussion.
B
BigBlue
Guest
Ahhh... Originally, SS money was put away... it wasn't being used to pay current benefits... And, given the "Statement" I get from them every other year telling me how much I paid in, and if I continue to work at the same rate, that I will eventually be elligible for XXX/month in benefits leads me to believe they are still under that sort of mindset... rather than a socialist thing where everyone gets the same benefit no matter how much they pay in...
I guess I always assumed that was how medicare worked too - that they were banking the money into an insurance fund which would be used when you retired... but it was only an assumption.
Now that you mention it, I'm sure I've heard too that Medicaid was a welfare program unlike a retirement thing... Since I've never used any of those things, I don't really care to look at them that closely... they are just another way of taxing us...
I guess I always assumed that was how medicare worked too - that they were banking the money into an insurance fund which would be used when you retired... but it was only an assumption.
Now that you mention it, I'm sure I've heard too that Medicaid was a welfare program unlike a retirement thing... Since I've never used any of those things, I don't really care to look at them that closely... they are just another way of taxing us...
D
DarthFerret
Guest
What I meant about the SS Money was that it is actualling comming from the people that are paying in today. The amount you get is still based on what you paid in, but that money is not actually there. There is no holding fund that keeps the actual funds. Not sure if that makes sense or not, it is hard to get my thoughts out this morning.
BB: I don't think SS was every designed that way. The first day SS was set up and started taking in contributions, people who met the criteria started getting checks. And obviously they didn't put in beforehand.
The statements you get are just telling you what you'd receive in x year and is calculated by today's laws and formulas. Were those laws and formulas to change (such as making 70 or later the minimum year for retirement with full benefits), you'd see the change on your statement. So it's not really the current mindset, but what the operating parameters are today.
The statements you get are just telling you what you'd receive in x year and is calculated by today's laws and formulas. Were those laws and formulas to change (such as making 70 or later the minimum year for retirement with full benefits), you'd see the change on your statement. So it's not really the current mindset, but what the operating parameters are today.
Killer Joe
New member
Gawd! That's 12x's more than Bill gates is worth!
B
BigBlue
Guest
As a curiousity test... I'd like to compare SS statements... I'll dig my last one out and post what it says I'd get at each level... I don't think it's the same as everyone elses... and I'm sure it would need some adjustment for age, since it's probably based somewhat on the year I'll be 62 etc...