|
Michael Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: safer places to park your money. Look at the Federal retirement system. Look at your state retirement system. Look at your teacher's retirement system. Is is all in the market? Is it all out of the market? Or is it a balance of the two? Greed, that potential bad character that we have tapped and used for good in out semi capitalist system, is an almost irresistible pull on some people. I'm sure that greed doens't exist in semi-socialist sytems, so why don't we just get it over with and switch? Huh? I don't understand. "Social" security. Get it? And some of the greediest people were socialists. Greed is not limited to any one group. I know quite a few people who during the mid to late '90's were so impressed by the stock market goings on, that they put all or most of their retirement investments in risky, high yielding investments. A couple invested exclusively in Tech stocks. Guess how much money they have today? (answer - not a whole lot) They won't be retiring early *or* soon. Were those retirement investments outside of a conventional pension plan? No. Where I am at, there are two retirement plan options. One is with the state, and the other allows you to "customize" your plan with your investment options. Do they limit your options to somewhat wise, conservative investments? No. Or are you options wide open? Probably not. I'm not on the system with lots of options, so I'm mentally paraphrasing here a bit: There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages of your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high yield, high risk. No bonds? Any balanced funds? Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how well the investments did. Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that won't work if the government devalues its currency. The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of investments you could make with your SS diversion. Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^) Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system. No gold and platinum futures, for example. Probably a good idea. As you graduate to an older age group, they would probably change the investment vehicles available. Gosh! One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking that. He said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his money out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff. Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left it in riskier investments? But that's just me thinking out loud. I heard from Al Franken that Bush doesn't want any ideas on this matter. On the other hand, I was very careful with my retirement investments,and didn't lose anything. All I did was take a hit in my earning rate. Until the bubble burst though, Len wasn't the only person that thinks I'm a dimbulb! Aren't you a University of PA employee? Penn State. U of Pa is the one in Philadelphia. The point is that you do have a government pension plan. Yup. In Ohio, our Governor has put some political appointees on the retirement fund board, and he wants to make the fund invest in Ohio, which is a losing prop. Just how much control do you have over your state employee and school employee retirement funds? Those two plans. We also have an additional TDA possibility from various companies. On the state plan, there is not a lot you can do. On the other plan, there are more investment options. TDA? Is that like a supplemental, tax-deferred investment option? Ohio has a 457, "deferred compensation," plan, which is in addition to the public employees retirement system. Yup, that's it. http://nrsretire.nrsservicecenter.co...ome/?Site=Ohio Ohio also has five (5) public employees retirement systems for some reason. http://ohio.gov/Retirement.stm If you want to see something scary, look at the Federal Employees Retirement System. They tell you right up front that SS is "the rest of your retirement." Not the so called safety net that Jim and FDR described it as. I see they have three different plans, Social Security, a basic benefit plan and a thrift savings plan. Looks pretty much like a typical plan group. - Mike KB3EIA - Looks nothing like the former SCRS. Does Penn State contribute 1% of your income to your plan, then tell you that SS is the rest of it? Anyway, the only benefit to being in SS is if you have a life changing injury or illness and can no longer work. If you take it to 65 (or 67 depending on the whims of the democratic party) the ROI is slim to none. Savings bonds beat it. |
Len Anderson wrote: In article .com, writes: Ask Len - he's our resident liberal. But it isn't a Morse code testing issue..... That's why he'll go on at length about it. He talks about all kinds of things that have nothing to do with Morse Code testing. And when somebody *does* try to discuss Morse Code testing in a civil, rational way with him, he calls the person names and does the old ad-hominem game. Interesting TROLL technique. Yields the first impression that someone else is ten kinds of badness; i.e., a disguised ad hominem, done up in righteous flag-waving wrapping. Tsk. My "liberality" in here is basically about the removal of morse code testing from the U.S. amateur radio license exam. I view that position as conservative. Ronald Reagan wanted to unburden the citizens of unnecessary government regulations. |
k4yz wrote: They blame their "problems" on the United States or Isreal...(SNIP) Excuse me.... Israel. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: snippage There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages of your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high yield, high risk. No bonds? Any balanced funds? Yup. A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to the investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes up". Unfortunately their advisor neglects to tell them that what matters is where the stock market is when they retire. And for whatever reason, they don't figure that out for themselves. Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how well the investments did. Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that won't work if the government devalues its currency. The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets adjusted every so often. The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of investments you could make with your SS diversion. Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^) Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system. No gold and platinum futures, for example. Probably a good idea. As you graduate to an older age group, they would probably change the investment vehicles available. Gosh! One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking that. He said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his money out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff. Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left it in riskier investments? He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to stay the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late. But that's just me thinking out loud. I heard from Al Franken that Bush doesn't want any ideas on this matter. On the other hand, I was very careful with my retirement investments,and didn't lose anything. All I did was take a hit in my earning rate. Until the bubble burst though, Len wasn't the only person that thinks I'm a dimbulb! Aren't you a University of PA employee? Penn State. U of Pa is the one in Philadelphia. The point is that you do have a government pension plan. Yup. In Ohio, our Governor has put some political appointees on the retirement fund board, and he wants to make the fund invest in Ohio, which is a losing prop. Sounds like a bad idea. Not specifically about Ohio, but limiting investments to a particular area is almost like investing in only the high risk areas. Just how much control do you have over your state employee and school employee retirement funds? Those two plans. We also have an additional TDA possibility from various companies. On the state plan, there is not a lot you can do. On the other plan, there are more investment options. TDA? Is that like a supplemental, tax-deferred investment option? Ohio has a 457, "deferred compensation," plan, which is in addition to the public employees retirement system. Yup, that's it. http://nrsretire.nrsservicecenter.co...ome/?Site=Ohio Ohio also has five (5) public employees retirement systems for some reason. http://ohio.gov/Retirement.stm If you want to see something scary, look at the Federal Employees Retirement System. They tell you right up front that SS is "the rest of your retirement." Not the so called safety net that Jim and FDR described it as. I see they have three different plans, Social Security, a basic benefit plan and a thrift savings plan. Looks pretty much like a typical plan group. - Mike KB3EIA - Looks nothing like the former SCRS. Does Penn State contribute 1% of your income to your plan, then tell you that SS is the rest of it? Nope. Anyway, the only benefit to being in SS is if you have a life changing injury or illness and can no longer work. I pretty much agree. If you take it to 65 (or 67 depending on the whims of the democratic party) the ROI is slim to none. Savings bonds beat it. Republicans are in power now. They have assumed the mantle of responsibility. It is now their whims that count. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Len Anderson wrote: In article .com, writes: Ask Len - he's our resident liberal. But it isn't a Morse code testing issue..... That's why he'll go on at length about it. He talks about all kinds of things that have nothing to do with Morse Code testing. And when somebody *does* try to discuss Morse Code testing in a civil, rational way with him, he calls the person names and does the old ad-hominem game. Interesting TROLL technique. Yields the first impression that someone else is ten kinds of badness; i.e., a disguised ad hominem, done up in righteous flag-waving wrapping. Not at all, Len. You've behaved exactly as described so many times you've become very predictable. Tsk. My "liberality" in here is basically about the removal of morse code testing from the U.S. amateur radio license exam. You described the recent second inauguration of the president as a "coronation". Which leads any reasonable person to believe you did not vote for him. Lots of other comments on non-amateur-radio subjects back up that impression. Is that some kind of heinous "political liberality?" Is it the mouthing of some Antichrist? Is it a personal pejorative on someone? I don't think so. Who said it was? Do you think being called a liberal is a pejorative, Len? Retention of the morse code test seems to be ingrained in the psyche of conservative old-time hams who absolutely insist on keeping that code test forever and ever. Is that wrong? Is it electropolitically incorrect to think that at least some Morse Code testing should be retained for an amateur radio license? I don't think so. But you act like it is a terribly wrong thing to advocate. Morse code mode IS ham radio to some of those morse mavens. So? Ham radio is many different things to many different people. It cannot be much to you, Len, because you've never bothered to even become a ham radio operator. They must remain as a living museum to archaic communications modes and desire all kinds of "respect" (they are "superior" to all those that don't want or care for on-off keying modes) and "recognition of greatness" (because they bought into the morse myths long ago and can't admit to being deceived). They see themselves as "leaders" in everything and look down on all others if those others are against morse code testing. There you go, Len, starting with the pejoratives and put-downs and ad-hominem demonization of people who have opinions different than yours. Just as predicted. You do it every time. These die-hard morse mavens (unable to look good in a Bruce Willis toupee and tee-shirt) call anti-morse-test advocates as "liberal" in all things because morse testing and the morse mode is righteous "conservatism"...because morsemanship is their thing and they are "superior" from that. I called you a liberal based on things other than Morse Code testing, Len. Such as your "coronation" comment, and other things. You also use the term "conservative" as a negative thing, which reinforces the impression. |
Michael Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: snippage There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages of your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high yield, high risk. No bonds? Any balanced funds? Yup. Holy Cow! And I thought they only had highly risky investment choices. At least that's the way you and Jim have made it sound. A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to the investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes up". That's a fact. Unfortunately their advisor neglects to tell them that what matters is where the stock market is when they retire. Sounds like you you could open your own Jones office. And for whatever reason, they don't figure that out for themselves. There you go. If you ever get tired of working at the school, you really could open that Jones office. Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how well the investments did. Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that won't work if the government devalues its currency. The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets adjusted every so often. Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle? The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of investments you could make with your SS diversion. Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^) Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system. No gold and platinum futures, for example. Probably a good idea. As you graduate to an older age group, they would probably change the investment vehicles available. Gosh! One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking that. He said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his money out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff. Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left it in riskier investments? He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to stay the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late. Was it really? Why? But that's just me thinking out loud. I heard from Al Franken that Bush doesn't want any ideas on this matter. On the other hand, I was very careful with my retirement investments,and didn't lose anything. All I did was take a hit in my earning rate. Until the bubble burst though, Len wasn't the only person that thinks I'm a dimbulb! Aren't you a University of PA employee? Penn State. U of Pa is the one in Philadelphia. The point is that you do have a government pension plan. Yup. In Ohio, our Governor has put some political appointees on the retirement fund board, and he wants to make the fund invest in Ohio, which is a losing prop. Sounds like a bad idea. Not specifically about Ohio, but limiting investments to a particular area is almost like investing in only the high risk areas. Yep. Just how much control do you have over your state employee and school employee retirement funds? Those two plans. We also have an additional TDA possibility from various companies. On the state plan, there is not a lot you can do. On the other plan, there are more investment options. TDA? Is that like a supplemental, tax-deferred investment option? Ohio has a 457, "deferred compensation," plan, which is in addition to the public employees retirement system. Yup, that's it. http://nrsretire.nrsservicecenter.co...ome/?Site=Ohio Ohio also has five (5) public employees retirement systems for some reason. http://ohio.gov/Retirement.stm If you want to see something scary, look at the Federal Employees Retirement System. They tell you right up front that SS is "the rest of your retirement." Not the so called safety net that Jim and FDR described it as. I see they have three different plans, Social Security, a basic benefit plan and a thrift savings plan. Looks pretty much like a typical plan group. - Mike KB3EIA - Looks nothing like the former SCRS. Does Penn State contribute 1% of your income to your plan, then tell you that SS is the rest of it? Nope. Anyway, the only benefit to being in SS is if you have a life changing injury or illness and can no longer work. I pretty much agree. If you take it to 65 (or 67 depending on the whims of the democratic party) the ROI is slim to none. Savings bonds beat it. Republicans are in power now. They have assumed the mantle of responsibility. It is now their whims that count. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, how quickly you wish to forget the democrat legacy. I can't blame you. But apparently I've been brainwashed by the dems for the past 30 years that SS will be bankrupt by the time its my turn to feed at the trough. Ask anyone in their 40's if SS will be there for them when they retire, and you'll not get a lot of positive answers. Or do you disagree? |
|
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: snippage There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages of your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high yield, high risk. No bonds? Any balanced funds? Yup. Holy Cow! And I thought they only had highly risky investment choices. At least that's the way you and Jim have made it sound. Through all this thread, I have noted that there were multiple choices of investments. And my comments have ben that many people are not capable of resisting the "big bucks" risky investments. I account for human nature in my assessments of how people should be treated. Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint. Otherwise they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is how it is. It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they should be buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they can make risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than when they were working. A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to the investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes up". That's a fact. It sure is. But it is like saying that the average voltage of our household outlet is 0 volts. I'll pass on grabbing bare wires of that 0 volt average system if ya don't mind. Unfortunately their advisor neglects to tell them that what matters is where the stock market is when they retire. Sounds like you you could open your own Jones office. I'm dense. What's a Jones office? And for whatever reason, they don't figure that out for themselves. There you go. If you ever get tired of working at the school, you really could open that Jones office. I'll make an assumption that this "Jones office is some kind of investment outfit. I probably wouldn't make so much money because I wouldn't try to talk people into investing their money in things that I think they would lose it with. But then again, I don't think Mr. investment advisor is my friend. Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how well the investments did. Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that won't work if the government devalues its currency. The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets adjusted every so often. Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle? No. The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of investments you could make with your SS diversion. Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^) Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system. No gold and platinum futures, for example. Probably a good idea. As you graduate to an older age group, they would probably change the investment vehicles available. Gosh! One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking that. He said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his money out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff. Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left it in riskier investments? He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to stay the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late. Was it really? Why? He lost his principle. It can happen on that plan. snippage for trying to keep track Republicans are in power now. They have assumed the mantle of responsibility. It is now their whims that count. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, how quickly you wish to forget the democrat legacy. I can't blame you. But apparently I've been brainwashed by the dems for the past 30 years that SS will be bankrupt by the time its my turn to feed at the trough. Ask anyone in their 40's if SS will be there for them when they retire, and you'll not get a lot of positive answers. Or do you disagree? There are many different time frames on exactly *when* the system will run out of steam or money. A lot of this depends on how much money is taken out by non-standard usage. (read robbing the till) I don't care WHO took the money out. Be it Democrat or Republican. One of the side effects of being in power is that when it is your group, you reap the benefits as well as the brickbats. If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for every problem on the face of the planet, then it means that they are *weak*, because they can't do anything about the Democrats even when they are in power. Funny how things work! 8^) Proud to be an independent. ... - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: snippage Through all this thread, I have noted that there were multiple choices of investments. And my comments have ben that many people are not capable of resisting the "big bucks" risky investments. I account for human nature in my assessments of how people should be treated. Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint. Otherwise they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is how it is. It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they should be buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they can make risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than when they were working. There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on the up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail for a while, it won't bring back the money investors lost. A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to the investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes up". That's a fact. It sure is. But it is like saying that the average voltage of our household outlet is 0 volts. I'll pass on grabbing bare wires of that 0 volt average system if ya don't mind. Sort of. The problem is that unless you buy nothing but index funds, you're not investing in "the market". And even if you do buy index funds, you're investing in a particular index. Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain stem cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, and a bunch of other things. work if the government devalues its currency. The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets adjusted every so often. Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle? No. Principle or principal? There's a big difference. He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to stay the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late. Was it really? Why? He lost his principle. It can happen on that plan. He lost both his principle (move to lower risk as you get older) and his principal (original investment) There are many different time frames on exactly *when* the system will run out of steam or money. A lot of this depends on how much money is taken out by non-standard usage. (read robbing the till) Yep. Of course if one administration takes it out and promises to put it back, and a following administration run by the other party breaks the promise, who is to blame? I don't care WHO took the money out. Be it Democrat or Republican. One of the side effects of being in power is that when it is your group, you reap the benefits as well as the brickbats. There's also the concept of responsibility. Which means that the folks in power, red, blue or purple, cannot simply blame everything on their predecessors and do nothing to fix the problems. If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for every problem on the face of the planet, then it means that they are *weak*, because they can't do anything about the Democrats even when they are in power. Funny how things work! 8^) Exactly! Well said, Mike. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com