-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
imported post
Pat_1111 wrote:
Pat_1111 wrote:
Since we are talking retirement here, we are talking 20-40 years, yes? Has there ever been a 20-year period where the market went down? 30? 40? How about 10 even?
Also, why are you ruling out other investments, such as bonds and government securities, such that we have in our TSP. Are you under the belief that a properly diversified portfolio over thirty years has a good chance of going bust? You are saying that the government's Socialism Security will always beat that?
Pat_1111 wrote:
[align=right]Behold the fool saith, "Put not all thine eggs in one basket" -- which is but a manner of saying, "Scatter your money and your attention"; but the wise man saith, "Put all your eggs in one basket and --WATCH THAT BASKET."[/align]
[align=right] --Mark Twain, head fool.
Interestingly, Warren Buffett is a total fool for agreeing.[/align]
[align=right]Concentrate your energies, your thoughts and your capital. The wise man puts all his eggs in one basket and watches the basket. --Andrew Carnegie (must be a fool)[/align]
I like somehing else Carnegie said,
[align=right]He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave.[/align]
Pat_1111 wrote:
I think it goes back to my equatingthe bulk of Americans to sixth-graders.
Pat_1111 wrote:
Since we are talking retirement here, we are talking 20-40 years, yes? Has there ever been a 20-year period where the market went down? 30? 40? How about 10 even?
Also, why are you ruling out other investments, such as bonds and government securities, such that we have in our TSP. Are you under the belief that a properly diversified portfolio over thirty years has a good chance of going bust? You are saying that the government's Socialism Security will always beat that?
Pat_1111 wrote:
[align=right]Behold the fool saith, "Put not all thine eggs in one basket" -- which is but a manner of saying, "Scatter your money and your attention"; but the wise man saith, "Put all your eggs in one basket and --WATCH THAT BASKET."[/align]
[align=right] --Mark Twain, head fool.
Interestingly, Warren Buffett is a total fool for agreeing.[/align]
[align=right]Concentrate your energies, your thoughts and your capital. The wise man puts all his eggs in one basket and watches the basket. --Andrew Carnegie (must be a fool)[/align]
I like somehing else Carnegie said,
[align=right]He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave.[/align]
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Pat_1111 wrote:
Pat_1111 wrote:
And YOU were worried about being "bashed", give us a break...............
imported post
Would having all your money in social security be the same as having it in one basket???
As for the bubble bursting, I have yet to see this happening. January was not that good for me. But February made up more for it so far. If it happens. It happens. We just need to be prepared for it.
If that is you MT, You remind me of those guys on penny stock boards who will pump a stock, and then bash it after selling. This is the wrong forum for it. If you want that kind of talk. Go to Raging Bull. You will be in your element their.
Would having all your money in social security be the same as having it in one basket???
As for the bubble bursting, I have yet to see this happening. January was not that good for me. But February made up more for it so far. If it happens. It happens. We just need to be prepared for it.
If that is you MT, You remind me of those guys on penny stock boards who will pump a stock, and then bash it after selling. This is the wrong forum for it. If you want that kind of talk. Go to Raging Bull. You will be in your element their.
.
imported post
FDR: "No greater tragedy exists in modern civilization than the aged, worn-out worker who after a life of ceaseless effort and useful productivity must look forward for his declining years to a poorhouse."
Scrooge: "Are there no poor houses???"... for the investment challenged?
FDR: "No greater tragedy exists in modern civilization than the aged, worn-out worker who after a life of ceaseless effort and useful productivity must look forward for his declining years to a poorhouse."
Scrooge: "Are there no poor houses???"... for the investment challenged?
imported post
rokid wrote:
rokid wrote:
According to the Social Security Administration, "Fast Facts and Figures About Social Security," June 2003, pg. 15, The average Social Security monthly payment is only $895.
https://www.gefinancial.com/retirementanswer/sources.html?SMSESSION=NO
According to the Administration on Aging's (AOA) A Profile of Older Americans: 2003 , the median income of a senior individual in 2002 was $19,436 for males and $11,406 for females with an overall median income of $14,251. Seniors in 2001 reported a median income of $14,152 with women reporting a $11,313 median and men reporting a $19,688 median.
http://www.ncpssm.org/socialsecurity/seniorincomestats/
Yeeeeeaaaaahhh....I'd feel secure with that! Oh! And people like MT want to cut benefits to keep the old Edsel running. What will half of $895 be worth in 2033, when I am eligible to retire? (G-d help me to retire sooner than 62 please!)
According to “Income of the Aged Chartbook, 2001,” from the Social Security Administration, May 2003, Social Security accounted for the largest portion of senior's incomes, at 39% of the aggregate income for all aged units. Since 1962, the predominance of Social Security as a portion of senior income has become more pronounced.
That means that people aren't relying on socialism security and you must plan and invest for your retirement whether SS exists or not!
Oh, and Pat/MT, if you think that is an 8% rate of return, then your math is as bad as your spelling!
rokid wrote:
Yes, that is ashame. Teach the workers to fish rather than giving them ours.
rokid wrote:
According to the Social Security Administration, "Fast Facts and Figures About Social Security," June 2003, pg. 15, The average Social Security monthly payment is only $895.
https://www.gefinancial.com/retirementanswer/sources.html?SMSESSION=NO
According to the Administration on Aging's (AOA) A Profile of Older Americans: 2003 , the median income of a senior individual in 2002 was $19,436 for males and $11,406 for females with an overall median income of $14,251. Seniors in 2001 reported a median income of $14,152 with women reporting a $11,313 median and men reporting a $19,688 median.
http://www.ncpssm.org/socialsecurity/seniorincomestats/
Yeeeeeaaaaahhh....I'd feel secure with that! Oh! And people like MT want to cut benefits to keep the old Edsel running. What will half of $895 be worth in 2033, when I am eligible to retire? (G-d help me to retire sooner than 62 please!)
According to “Income of the Aged Chartbook, 2001,” from the Social Security Administration, May 2003, Social Security accounted for the largest portion of senior's incomes, at 39% of the aggregate income for all aged units. Since 1962, the predominance of Social Security as a portion of senior income has become more pronounced.
That means that people aren't relying on socialism security and you must plan and invest for your retirement whether SS exists or not!
Oh, and Pat/MT, if you think that is an 8% rate of return, then your math is as bad as your spelling!
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
ss has a cola index...that is not factored into your great links...
TSP has a great cola index...it is called being forced to go long stocks in the hopes of keeping up with inflation....
It is a well crafted and well thought out...by the samecast of charactersthat brought you medicare...iraq, guest worker program...torture scandals....
you can tell we are humans...you poke us with a stick...you poke us with a stick and poke us with a stick and we still believe that the govt has our best interest in mind when they come up with these plans....we will fix medicare once we pass ss reform??? Yeah, right...the next fix will be 25% national fed sales tax on everything you buy...that is going to be just GREAT....
Good luck Rolling, Rolling, Rolling....I did it for the ***cky
ss has a cola index...that is not factored into your great links...
TSP has a great cola index...it is called being forced to go long stocks in the hopes of keeping up with inflation....
It is a well crafted and well thought out...by the samecast of charactersthat brought you medicare...iraq, guest worker program...torture scandals....
you can tell we are humans...you poke us with a stick...you poke us with a stick and poke us with a stick and we still believe that the govt has our best interest in mind when they come up with these plans....we will fix medicare once we pass ss reform??? Yeah, right...the next fix will be 25% national fed sales tax on everything you buy...that is going to be just GREAT....
Good luck Rolling, Rolling, Rolling....I did it for the ***cky
imported post
Rolo wrote:
SSprovides 39% of seniors' income? I'm assuming "aged units" are people. Sounds like the "aged units" arerelying on, or at least countingon, SS to me.
Unfortunately for the conservatives, these "aged units" have already paid into SS, feel they're entitled to their SS benefits,need their SS benefits, and have a vote.They have also invested substantialassets inthe care, feeding,and education of the "pre-aged units" and are expecting thatinvestment to pay off.
Finally, in my experience, when conservatives want to reform something, be itCSRS,SS,the tax code, the government personnel system, or environmental standards,somebody's going to get screwed - and it's not going to be the rich and powerful! You can take that to the bank, or Scottrade, or wherever...
Rolo wrote:
Huh?
SSprovides 39% of seniors' income? I'm assuming "aged units" are people. Sounds like the "aged units" arerelying on, or at least countingon, SS to me.
Unfortunately for the conservatives, these "aged units" have already paid into SS, feel they're entitled to their SS benefits,need their SS benefits, and have a vote.They have also invested substantialassets inthe care, feeding,and education of the "pre-aged units" and are expecting thatinvestment to pay off.
Finally, in my experience, when conservatives want to reform something, be itCSRS,SS,the tax code, the government personnel system, or environmental standards,somebody's going to get screwed - and it's not going to be the rich and powerful! You can take that to the bank, or Scottrade, or wherever...
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Rolo wrote:
I agree withrokid.
No one is taking your fish, Rolo. SS is an insurance plan that all have paid into, to ensure that there is some money for you to live on in your elderly years. It was created originally by the govt exactly BECAUSE private industry was not providing pensions for its workers, and because there was a need for such a program.
It's sort of like auto insurance, in that you are required to have it.
Try to think of it this way. Yes, people should take care of their own pensions, et al, but often don't. Which doyou think would be costlier for you - paying for the care of elderly destitute who never paid into a system themselves or a system where they DO pay into a system to take care of themselves?
Now that you've answered that question, here's another. Should such a system be set up so that it definitely exists when these people retire or should the people be allowed to gamble their retirement savings in a tsp format? Remember, if they gamble and lose, who will pay for their retirement? (hint: rolo et al will pay.)
Rolo wrote:
I agree withrokid.
No one is taking your fish, Rolo. SS is an insurance plan that all have paid into, to ensure that there is some money for you to live on in your elderly years. It was created originally by the govt exactly BECAUSE private industry was not providing pensions for its workers, and because there was a need for such a program.
It's sort of like auto insurance, in that you are required to have it.
Try to think of it this way. Yes, people should take care of their own pensions, et al, but often don't. Which doyou think would be costlier for you - paying for the care of elderly destitute who never paid into a system themselves or a system where they DO pay into a system to take care of themselves?
Now that you've answered that question, here's another. Should such a system be set up so that it definitely exists when these people retire or should the people be allowed to gamble their retirement savings in a tsp format? Remember, if they gamble and lose, who will pay for their retirement? (hint: rolo et al will pay.)
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Mike wrote:
Doesn't it kind of bother you that if you own a business, there are many write-offs available to you that private citizens who do not own business fail to have available to them? Individuals can't deduct their health expenses or auto expensesbut companies can deduct the expense of a fleet of cars?
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion,you feel anarchy is superior to government of any sort? Funny Mike, you don't strike me as being an anarchist.
Mike wrote:
? How do you define a govt entitlement program? Police? Sanitation? Parks? Tax write-offs for corporations? What are you talking about?
Doesn't it kind of bother you that if you own a business, there are many write-offs available to you that private citizens who do not own business fail to have available to them? Individuals can't deduct their health expenses or auto expensesbut companies can deduct the expense of a fleet of cars?
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion,you feel anarchy is superior to government of any sort? Funny Mike, you don't strike me as being an anarchist.
Mike
Active member
imported post
I support limited government. We are way past that.
Why do we waste money on price supports? Why do we waste more money on a seemingly endless list of tax write-offs? Why did we add a medicare prescription drug benefit that will cost ~$720 billion over 10 years?
That's the thing about government entitlements - they never EVER decrease. What was the budget when Clinton (try not to laugh at this) said the "era of big government is over" in 1996 - 1.5 trillion? It's 9 years later, and we're up to 2.6 trillion... not including the ~$100 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan.
At one point, I used to think that the GOP would actually pursue its rhetoric of smaller government - now, I see it's the same **** differentparty. The priorities are a little different, but the spending goes in the same overall direction: up.
The only reason this hasn't ended in disaster yet is because for the most part, Americans are hard-working and productive people - and the economy keeps us and the government afloat in spite of our / its borrowing. How much longer can this go on? At some point, there simply won't be enough workers - either to fund social security the way people like or to fund the overall government the way people desire. Our society will reach a tipping point. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and each and every one of us is going to learn that the hard way. Long term, taxes will be forced up and/or spending will be forced down - and when it happens, there will be hell to pay.
I support limited government. We are way past that.
Why do we waste money on price supports? Why do we waste more money on a seemingly endless list of tax write-offs? Why did we add a medicare prescription drug benefit that will cost ~$720 billion over 10 years?
That's the thing about government entitlements - they never EVER decrease. What was the budget when Clinton (try not to laugh at this) said the "era of big government is over" in 1996 - 1.5 trillion? It's 9 years later, and we're up to 2.6 trillion... not including the ~$100 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan.
At one point, I used to think that the GOP would actually pursue its rhetoric of smaller government - now, I see it's the same **** differentparty. The priorities are a little different, but the spending goes in the same overall direction: up.
The only reason this hasn't ended in disaster yet is because for the most part, Americans are hard-working and productive people - and the economy keeps us and the government afloat in spite of our / its borrowing. How much longer can this go on? At some point, there simply won't be enough workers - either to fund social security the way people like or to fund the overall government the way people desire. Our society will reach a tipping point. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and each and every one of us is going to learn that the hard way. Long term, taxes will be forced up and/or spending will be forced down - and when it happens, there will be hell to pay.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Mike wrote:
Please answer your own questions..because I'm sure you know the answers. Why do we have price supports? Why do we pay farmers to not grow anything?
When you ask why we have a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is so costly, ask that other question and you will have the answer. Why are drugs so much more expensive here than in other countries? Who supported that Medicare program? Who benefits from the program?
Didn't we have a budget surplus under Clinton? Isn't that what its about? If you spend more than you have, there is a problem.
The political parties use the government to benefit their constituencies.
Mike wrote:
Everyone supports limited government, and where they stand on an issue is generally based in where they are sitting.
Please answer your own questions..because I'm sure you know the answers. Why do we have price supports? Why do we pay farmers to not grow anything?
When you ask why we have a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is so costly, ask that other question and you will have the answer. Why are drugs so much more expensive here than in other countries? Who supported that Medicare program? Who benefits from the program?
Didn't we have a budget surplus under Clinton? Isn't that what its about? If you spend more than you have, there is a problem.
The political parties use the government to benefit their constituencies.
Mike
Active member
imported post
saraho wrote:
As I have said previously and implied in this most recent post: these things came into existence and stayed there because various groups applied pressure to get them... most likely via campaign funding or who knows what else.
Drugs cost more here because the government isn't fixing the price via tax subsidies like other countries are doing. In the end, that makes no real difference, since the price is being paid regardless - the only question is who is paying.
We had a surplus under Clinton that was very short-lived. Considering the massive economic expansion that took place in the '90s, I'd say the surplus should've been much larger than it was. If that's the best we can do, it'll take an awfully long time to knock down the national debt - and based on the government's - and the taxpayers' addiction to spending, I'll just go out on a tiny limb here and say that it won't happen in my lifetime - even if I live to be 100.
Political parties use the government to benefit themselves at everyone's expense. You'd think it'd be a piece of cake to eliminate milk and sugar price supports - the sheer numerical advantage of voters that would benefit from that makes this policy a no-brainer, but it won't happen because money talks, and well, you know the rest.
saraho wrote:
As I have said previously and implied in this most recent post: these things came into existence and stayed there because various groups applied pressure to get them... most likely via campaign funding or who knows what else.
Drugs cost more here because the government isn't fixing the price via tax subsidies like other countries are doing. In the end, that makes no real difference, since the price is being paid regardless - the only question is who is paying.
We had a surplus under Clinton that was very short-lived. Considering the massive economic expansion that took place in the '90s, I'd say the surplus should've been much larger than it was. If that's the best we can do, it'll take an awfully long time to knock down the national debt - and based on the government's - and the taxpayers' addiction to spending, I'll just go out on a tiny limb here and say that it won't happen in my lifetime - even if I live to be 100.
Political parties use the government to benefit themselves at everyone's expense. You'd think it'd be a piece of cake to eliminate milk and sugar price supports - the sheer numerical advantage of voters that would benefit from that makes this policy a no-brainer, but it won't happen because money talks, and well, you know the rest.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Mike wrote:
Now, when people want to get their drugs from another country, the Administration warns that the drugs from these countries are not to be trusted. If this warning isn't effective, then a ban will be the next step.
Mike wrote:
In the past, cartels were controlled by the government because they essentially are a monopoly...getting whatever price they want. This government supports the drug industry's excessively inflated drug prices. The people pay.
Now, when people want to get their drugs from another country, the Administration warns that the drugs from these countries are not to be trusted. If this warning isn't effective, then a ban will be the next step.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
saraho wrote:
Let me give 2 cases and then tell me that the drug industry is treated too nice.
a.) Tomorrow night, you and I go out drinking. After several rounds we are telling good stories about being done wrong by an ex-lover. We decide to write a great country song (lose job,love and dog leaves us, pickup won't start) and write it down that night. That is our intellectual property for as long as either of us are alive plus 70 years. No one can use the song for about a hundred years without paying us.
b.) Tomorrow night, we meet each other at a support group for people with a loved one with a terrible disease. We continue to correspond and decidefor both of us to quit our jobs and invest everything that wehave and can borrow to find a new drug to treat this disease. After struggling several years, we develop that drug. That drug is our intellectual property of only 7 years and after that anyone can produce it without paying us a dime.
saraho wrote:
Let me give 2 cases and then tell me that the drug industry is treated too nice.
a.) Tomorrow night, you and I go out drinking. After several rounds we are telling good stories about being done wrong by an ex-lover. We decide to write a great country song (lose job,love and dog leaves us, pickup won't start) and write it down that night. That is our intellectual property for as long as either of us are alive plus 70 years. No one can use the song for about a hundred years without paying us.
b.) Tomorrow night, we meet each other at a support group for people with a loved one with a terrible disease. We continue to correspond and decidefor both of us to quit our jobs and invest everything that wehave and can borrow to find a new drug to treat this disease. After struggling several years, we develop that drug. That drug is our intellectual property of only 7 years and after that anyone can produce it without paying us a dime.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article