Baracks self assesment

eric lavine wrote: it does normally recirculate back into the economy, I think if it was up to you Dave, you would tell everyone to keep their cash at home and under no circumstance should they go out and spend....I really dont think it is waste...the only thing i really would think is wasted are the fuels. spending is key to any economy. and i dont think he turns off the thinking cap when he goes on vacation, there is still a secret service outside the crapper door, so we cant really say its a vacation

Eric, When I say People should be able to keep their money I do not mean literally, I expect they will spend it. Just because it circulates back in is not an excuse to take it. If so could you give me a fifty? It will get back to you. I am not saying he is off duty, a president never is, so why spend four million to go to Hawaii? Now if I kept the money and went on vacation I would enjoy it.

I guess it annoys me more that CEO's of public companies.. owned often times by me and my little 401k, make tens of millions a year sometimes even when running a company into the ground. They fly all over the place on private jets, hold conferences in exotic locations that run into the many millions of dollars and even though I own part of the company I dont even get a chance to vote them out every few years.

The congress and the president make less money than many of the middle management types I work for and with, and those that do the job correctly work basically non-stop. Nobody finds it odd that Romney makes 250 million in a year for being rich and yet it is bad that congress has health insurance? If you think your congressman is doing a bad job vote them out, or run against them but by making the jobs so unappealing that you have to be a crook to want to do them then we get what we deserve.

Seriously we are supposed to be angry that the president goes home to hawaii once a year.. paying his and his families own way. Yes it is expensive because he is the president and he has work to do and it takes people to do allow him to do it. Yes it is expensive for him to even walk around because as president of the united states people want to kill you. If people wanted to kill me just because of my job you better damn well be sure I would be getting well paid and work would be paying to protect me and mine. I would be looking to get more than a couple weeks of vacation a year.

as to diverting 3% to an IRA - it is a giveaway to the finacial industry that was invented by the finacial industry who will take thier 2% a year management fees right off the top year in and year out. There are also reasons why it makes very little sense in terms of economics to have IRAs that you are required by the government to invest in every week, it basically defeats the mechanisms of the market because you invest even when it is not in your best interest to do so. Beside that it kinda defeats the point of SSI, it is a bare minimum income that is there even if you are hit by crippling disability, the economy crashes, or you get robbed by goldman sachs again. Like any other insurance it is your money.    

Those of you actually interested in solutions, and why SSI and medicare were created (and have been and remain amazingly popular) should go back and read the public debates of the time. It was pretty when you got old then if you didnt have a family around to support you.. and with how much older people live now you would have two older generations of your family to support while trying to raise a family now. Health care insurance costs already reflect the large number of uninsured that are never turned away in america.. without medicaid and medicare the privately insured health care system would have crumbled 20 years ago.

Those of you who are more concerned with winning an arguement in favor of your predetermined opinion that feels right to you can continue to make up facts or quote those who do.. but come on at some point in your life consider not voting against the people who actually get results and for the ones that have a million reasons why the disasters they cause arent really thier fault.   

Sorry David you are absolutely right mitt is worth 250 million and only made 21 million for doing nothing in 2010.. freakin piss poor obama economy, guy didnt even make 10% I keep getting confused because they keep calling an increase in taxes on the portion of ones income earned in one year that is over 1 million dollars a millionaires tax. Since a millionaire is someone that is worth more than one million dollars I keep confusing being worth something and making that much in one year...

I absolutely have no problem with people investing in 401ks or IRAs or not if they see a better way to invest thier money like buying real estate or say starting a business. The market works there somewhat.. even though the tax breaks on 401ks and iras distort market forces in favor of the 401ks and IRAs and away from property or business investments you can still choose to invest or not.

I was speaking specifically of the plan the republicans have been pushing for the finacial industry where we can privatize our social security account and divert 3% of our income into an ira only unlike your 401k you couldnt stop investing and move your money into real estate you would need to continue to put your money under a managed account.

Now if you have a .2% account management fee on a non employer sponsor plan and you arent paying on the way in and out of funds you are doing pretty good. There are some deals in IRAs but in general even the lowest fee managed funds available to the general 401k public range between .9 and the low 2 percentage in management fees. Addtionally the most mediocre funds tend to be heavily marketed to the 401k crowd.

Rarely if you complain enough you can get a relatively low fee index fund added to your employer sponsored 401k as an option.. if this is the case for you consider yourself a member of a small minority.

I don't know the details of how the SS privitization would work. But, I would much rather be in control of my own destiny and have a few solid options to invest in. If I had the option to invest my earmarked SS in an S&P 500 Index fund, or a stock/bond fund, I would do it. Who even knows what kind of return you are getting on SS funds. Probably a paultry 1-2%. Sure, when the stock market tanks, the government looks like hero's with that kind of return. But, over the long haul, stocks and bonds have been a decent place to invest....again, over the long haul. I choose to invest in low cost index stock and bond funds to keep costs very low. There are some slick fund companies out there that charge loads on the way in, and out. Sometimes as high as 8%. People are crazy to pay that, but, they get suckered into a slck sales pitch and do it. So, they have to at least make an 8% return, or whatever the number is to break even to overcome the sales load. But, I am hopeful that the government would be smart enough to provide the Vanguard type options with very low annual fee's and no loads.

I also think it is very difficult to time the market, or pick winning stocks. So, instead of looking for the needle in the haystack magic stock, I just buy the whole haystack. Its a slow but steady way to invest, and is truly investing instead of gambling with individual stocks and day trading "investments".   

As far as real estate goes, that can be a tricky field, especially these days. Some guys do real well in real estate, and others take a bath. Just depends on the type of real estate. If I was going to invest in real estate, I would do it through a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). Much more liquid. I know guys that invest in apartments. They have trouble with renters leaving, or tearing the places up. That can't sell when they want to due to real estate market conditions. I wouldn't want to put up with that.

Another mistake is putting too many eggs in one basket when they work for a company. I spent 14 years at GE, and only had GE stock in my portfolio. Big mistake. Never again. Live and learn.

So, let the people have the option to invest in the stock or bond markets and build their own portfolio. Over 30-40 years, it should serve them well when they retire.

on SS, yes, some changes will have to be made. Its not politically popular, but, when SS was introduce in the 30's (I think it was), people got their funds at 62 or so, and were dead by 68-70. Now people are living much longer, and the numbers don't make sense anymore. People will have to start kicking in more, and taking it out later due to a much longer life expectancy. Paul Ryan was trying to put together a plan to save SS, and other entitlements, but, BO, and the Dems through him under the bus for it to meet their own political goals.

Whew, its microbrew time!

JoeinNY wrote: as to diverting 3% to an IRA - it is a giveaway to the finacial industry that was invented by the finacial industry who will take thier 2% a year management fees right off the top year in and year out. There are also reasons why it makes very little sense in terms of economics to have IRAs that you are required by the government to invest in every week, it basically defeats the mechanisms of the market because you invest even when it is not in your best interest to do so. Beside that it kinda defeats the point of SSI, it is a bare minimum income that is there even if you are hit by crippling disability, the economy crashes, or you get robbed by goldman sachs again. Like any other insurance it is your money.     Those of you actually interested in solutions, and why SSI and medicare were created (and have been and remain amazingly popular) should go back and read the public debates of the time. It was pretty when you got old then if you didnt have a family around to support you.. and with how much older people live now you would have two older generations of your family to support while trying to raise a family now. Health care insurance costs already reflect the large number of uninsured that are never turned away in america.. without medicaid and medicare the privately insured health care system would have crumbled 20 years ago. Those of you who are more concerned with winning an arguement in favor of your predetermined opinion that feels right to you can continue to make up facts or quote those who do.. but come on at some point in your life consider not voting against the people who actually get results and for the ones that have a million reasons why the disasters they cause arent really thier fault.

Joe, As later posts have shown the 2% is a higher side number. and 1% is very in line with the cut our government is "taking off the top"

Why does it make very little sense to have to invest when it is not in your interest to do so under the IRA plan but it does make sense when the government makes the rules? There have been many times in my life when I could have invested more in my retirement and a few times when I would have benefited by paying less and having more available spending money to make ends meet. So unlike any other insurance, it is not my money when the government is in charge. It leaves me fewer options and less control of my resources.

We survived in this country for about 175 years without these programs. The gaps were filled by private charities and families who were motivated by the fact that there was not a safety net. The uninteded (hopefully)consequence of regulating peoples retirement is they loose motivation to take care of it themselves, or the more likely plan is to build a group of voters that is dependant on big government. the private insures only go broke without medicare if you put in the key piece of mandating that you care for the uninsured and cannot turn people away. The left had a solution that they wanted and had to create a problem for the medical providers to justify it and get support.

"the ones that have a million reasons why the disasters they cause aren't really their fault." This is a description of Obama if I have ever heard one.   

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt.................... 38%

Taft.................................. 40%

Wilson ........................... 52%

Harding........................... 49%

Coolidge......................... 48%

Hoover............................ 42%

F. Roosevelt................... 50%

Truman........................... 50%

Eisenhower................ .... 57%

Kennedy......................... 30%

Johnson.......................... 47%

Nixon.............................. 53%

Ford................................ 42%

Carter............................. 32%

Reagan........................... 56%

GH Bush......................... 51%

Clinton .......................... 39%

GW Bush........................ 55%

Obama..................... 8%!!

The one without a driver?

no it showed a couple of boats and it was a MC commercial, nice lookin boats

How about those caucuses? Minnesota might have a lot of liberals but I guess our conservatives are very conservative. By the way, I am a newly elected republican delegate for ward 1F in my town and expect all the rights and privileges that go with such an important position. I think the position and five bucks will get me a coffee at starbucks.

OverMyHead wrote: How about those caucuses? Minnesota might have a lot of liberals but I guess our conservatives are very conservative. By the way, I am a newly elected republican delegate for ward 1F in my town and expect all the rights and privileges that go with such an important position. I think the position and five bucks will get me a coffee at starbucks.

Which party are you affilated with Dave? Did you say Republican? Wasn't sure

By the way, its interesting Romney didn't win one county in MN. That had to be a bit embarrasing for your ex Gov. Pawlenty who is a big sponsor of Romney

McDonalds and some other favored big corporations got exempt from Obamacare. This means that if you can't afford or can't receive healthcare the government will supply it to you under Obamacare. So why can't the same hold through for birth control. If you can't afford it or it is not provided for you you are elegible under Obamacare to receive it throught your government. Solves the problem, and gets the Catholics off the hook. Pretty simple? No way, this is Washington. It is and never was about supplying the pill, it was a power trip. The President thought this would raise hell with right to lifers and make republicans flip on their position. It kinda backfired and because Obama can NEVER be wrong he came up with the new so called compromise which changed nothing. Your premium is still paying for the pill. By the way I wouldn't trust to much the President does now that he can reverse if re elected. just sayin

you keep the poor contained by welfare, if not they will end up in the penal system really causing a burden on the state and federal budget, I dont necessarily agree with mixing religion and state, but there is a point to where the state must step in. The Catholics have a very foggy past and act as a do as i say, to me they have lost the solidity of what religion is based on

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

eric lavine wrote: you keep the poor contained by welfare, if not they will end up in the penal system really causing a burden on the state and federal budget, I dont necessarily agree with mixing religion and state, but there is a point to where the state must step in. The Catholics have a very foggy past and act as a do as i say, to me they have lost the solidity of what religion is based on

Eric,one of the highest founding principles of this nation is the spereation of church and state, and not the bastardised version where you cant sing a christmas carol during the winter solstace concert in our elementary schools, but the real meaning. At the time of our nations founding the church of England and the government had been so intertwined as to alter the churches stands based on the governments needs. This why our constitution sought to seperate any government influence on religion. The catholic rite of marriage includes accepting children lovingly from God. certainly there is some hypocracy within catholicism on this but that is for the church to deal with, certainly our constitution say that the government has no place in the argument. Eric, by your stance you would have us trade away one of our highest principles to accomodate some of the lowest behaviors in our society. WTF? You make the caim that if we did not pay a welfare ransome we would have to pay to jail all the recipients. I see it this way,If wee represent all those on welfare as 100 people, how many would resort to robery if welfare was not an option? I see most people as honest, so I would guess 5-10% might resort to crime, the rest would find a means of employment to sustain themselves. so if we no longer are having to pay 90 of them, we would have plenty of money to jail the rest. Think of the message to the future generations. They would see working role models in the home and learn that the court system is not a revolving door but a system to be feared.

It does not make sense to continue to reward the non-producers and punish those that do produce, unless your goal is to have a nation of non-producers. Nor is it the responsibility of our "limited" government to be subsidising recreational sex. Maybe after they have done their real jobs like upholding our constitution, protecting our the soverienty of our nation and balancing our budget.

Here you go, it was called the The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act.   And it was (R) Olympia Snowe and (r)James Greenwood.



Under this legislation, plans already covering prescription drugs and devices would include equal coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. Also, plans that include coverage for outpatient medical services would include outpatient contraceptive services in that coverage. The bill defines contraceptive services as consultations, examinations, procedures, and medical services, provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of contraceptive methods (including natural family planning) to prevent an unintended pregnancy.


s.104   and    SEC 714   


Spin away.......