The Pigs are Famous… OK act cool everybody, there a flood of new members on the horizon?

[Arraya]

It ain’t robbery, it’s a business cycle

As the people’s wealth accumulates, it is steadily siphoned off by government and elite private forces. From time to time, it is openly plundered for their benefit by way of various bubbles, depressions or recessions and other forms of theft passed off as unavoidable acts of nature/god. These periodic raids and draw downs of the people’s wealth are attributed to “business cycles.” Past periodic raids and thefts are heralded as being proof of the rationale. “See folks, it comes and goes, so it’s a cycle!” Economic raids and busts become “market adjustments.” Public blackmail and plundering through bailouts become a “necessary rescue packages.” Giveaways to corporations under the guise of public works and creating employment become “stimulus.” The chief responsibility of economists is to name things in accordance with government and corporate interests. The function of the public is to acquire debt and maintain “consumer confidence.” When the public staggers to its feet again and manages to carry more debt, buy more poker chips on credit to play again, it’s called a recovery. They are back in the game.

Dealer, hit me with two more cards,. I feel lucky.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jeeman]I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while…[/quote]

jeeman, those were my relatives I was discussing here, who taught in other states. I have one relative who is a principal (still working) and six who were/are teachers (2 still working). They all drive 8+ old American vehicles and live in large brick ranch homes. Two live in frame homes, one small and one large. Except for the one in the small frame house, they all built their own homes because they already owned the lot/land. In order to qualify for a 100% pension, teachers have to work 30 years. There’s no way they can “retire” at 50 unless they quit early. I’m not sure if they can even collect any of their pensions until age 55, so would have to take deferred retirement if they left teaching any earlier than that. Of the two that are still working, one is in her 32nd year and continues for the love of teaching 4th grade. She could quit at any time, sit home and collect her pension. In her state, retired teachers have only ONE healthcare choice, the Pacificare HMO, which she told me is costly and bureaucratic. Hence, many teachers teach until they are eligible for Medicare (currently age 65) and only have to pay for its supplements (parts B & D) out of their pensions.

My own kids have had MANY teachers in their sixties who exceeded 30 years in the classroom but continued for the love of teaching. All have retired now and the longest length of service was 37 years (CVESD).

The mandatory retirement age for teachers in CA is 70 (CAR, correct me if I’m wrong on this).

Edit: Oh, and I wanted to add that my teacher-relatives who built their own large homes/outbuildings are all married. They did so with their teaching earnings ALONG WITH the earnings of their spouses. Teaching doesn’t pay as much there as it does here in CA.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jeeman]I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while…[/quote]

jeeman, those were my relatives I was discussing here, who taught in other states. I have one relative who is a principal (still working) and six who were/are teachers (2 still working). They all drive 8+ old American vehicles and live in large brick ranch homes. Two live in frame homes, one small and one large. Except for the one in the small frame house, they all built their own homes because they already owned the lot/land. In order to qualify for a 100% pension, teachers have to work 30 years. There’s no way they can “retire” at 50 unless they quit early. I’m not sure if they can even collect any of their pensions until age 55, so would have to take deferred retirement if they left teaching any earlier than that. Of the two that are still working, one is in her 32nd year and continues for the love of teaching 4th grade. She could quit at any time, sit home and collect her pension. In her state, retired teachers have only ONE healthcare choice, the Pacificare HMO, which she told me is costly and bureaucratic. Hence, many teachers teach until they are eligible for Medicare (currently age 65) and only have to pay for its supplements (parts B & D) out of their pensions.

My own kids have had MANY teachers in their sixties who exceeded 30 years in the classroom but continued for the love of teaching. All have retired now and the longest length of service was 37 years (CVESD).

The mandatory retirement age for teachers in CA is 70 (CAR, correct me if I’m wrong on this).

Edit: Oh, and I wanted to add that my teacher-relatives who built their own large homes/outbuildings are all married. They did so with their teaching earnings ALONG WITH the earnings of their spouses. Teaching doesn’t pay as much there as it does here in CA.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jeeman]I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while…[/quote]

jeeman, those were my relatives I was discussing here, who taught in other states. I have one relative who is a principal (still working) and six who were/are teachers (2 still working). They all drive 8+ old American vehicles and live in large brick ranch homes. Two live in frame homes, one small and one large. Except for the one in the small frame house, they all built their own homes because they already owned the lot/land. In order to qualify for a 100% pension, teachers have to work 30 years. There’s no way they can “retire” at 50 unless they quit early. I’m not sure if they can even collect any of their pensions until age 55, so would have to take deferred retirement if they left teaching any earlier than that. Of the two that are still working, one is in her 32nd year and continues for the love of teaching 4th grade. She could quit at any time, sit home and collect her pension. In her state, retired teachers have only ONE healthcare choice, the Pacificare HMO, which she told me is costly and bureaucratic. Hence, many teachers teach until they are eligible for Medicare (currently age 65) and only have to pay for its supplements (parts B & D) out of their pensions.

My own kids have had MANY teachers in their sixties who exceeded 30 years in the classroom but continued for the love of teaching. All have retired now and the longest length of service was 37 years (CVESD).

The mandatory retirement age for teachers in CA is 70 (CAR, correct me if I’m wrong on this).

Edit: Oh, and I wanted to add that my teacher-relatives who built their own large homes/outbuildings are all married. They did so with their teaching earnings ALONG WITH the earnings of their spouses. Teaching doesn’t pay as much there as it does here in CA.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jeeman]I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while…[/quote]

jeeman, those were my relatives I was discussing here, who taught in other states. I have one relative who is a principal (still working) and six who were/are teachers (2 still working). They all drive 8+ old American vehicles and live in large brick ranch homes. Two live in frame homes, one small and one large. Except for the one in the small frame house, they all built their own homes because they already owned the lot/land. In order to qualify for a 100% pension, teachers have to work 30 years. There’s no way they can “retire” at 50 unless they quit early. I’m not sure if they can even collect any of their pensions until age 55, so would have to take deferred retirement if they left teaching any earlier than that. Of the two that are still working, one is in her 32nd year and continues for the love of teaching 4th grade. She could quit at any time, sit home and collect her pension. In her state, retired teachers have only ONE healthcare choice, the Pacificare HMO, which she told me is costly and bureaucratic. Hence, many teachers teach until they are eligible for Medicare (currently age 65) and only have to pay for its supplements (parts B & D) out of their pensions.

My own kids have had MANY teachers in their sixties who exceeded 30 years in the classroom but continued for the love of teaching. All have retired now and the longest length of service was 37 years (CVESD).

The mandatory retirement age for teachers in CA is 70 (CAR, correct me if I’m wrong on this).

Edit: Oh, and I wanted to add that my teacher-relatives who built their own large homes/outbuildings are all married. They did so with their teaching earnings ALONG WITH the earnings of their spouses. Teaching doesn’t pay as much there as it does here in CA.

[Author]

Posts