A bullet dodged

Dungheap said:
But SS isn't an investment. It's insurance. What do "returns" have to do with insurance?
Click to expand...

The money from insurance still has to be there Dung. That is how insurance works. The money that is collected is supposed to be invested and providing a return on assets so that future benefits can be paid. If you take the money being collected and spend it elsewhere.... you are fucked when it comes time to pay the piper.
 
cawacko said:
Yeah, if Krugman says so it must be...

For folks like Krugman its an ideological thing where he wants government to have more control over the economy and less individual economic choice. So in his mind S.S. is fine as long as we eventually raise taxes on the rich and businesses and additional 20% to 30% etc S.S. will meet its obligations. Otherwise he once again is spouting economic falsehoods.
Click to expand...
It's an ideological thing for neocon hacks like you too. No amount of fraud will ever convince you that investment groups can't police themselves.
 
cawacko said:
Yeah, if Krugman says so it must be...

For folks like Krugman its an ideological thing where he wants government to have more control over the economy and less individual economic choice. So in his mind S.S. is fine as long as we eventually raise taxes on the rich and businesses and additional 20% to 30% etc S.S. will meet its obligations. Otherwise he once again is spouting economic falsehoods.
Click to expand...

true... those are the 'tweaks' Darla refers too.
 
Dungheap said:
But SS isn't an investment. It's insurance. What do "returns" have to do with insurance?
Click to expand...

It's unsustaining "insurance". Without major changes this "insurance" system will collapse under its own weight. And returns do matter based on simple time value of money. With no investment a dollar today is not going to have the same value in the future. Thus the current S.S. problems.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's an ideological thing for neocon hacks like you too. No amount of fraud will ever convince you that investment groups can't police themselves.
Click to expand...

LMAO... no one has suggested that they police themselves. That is what the SEC is for.

Side note... the ONLY groups that police themselves are lawyers and politicians.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
please tell me you don't really believe that drivel you just spewed?
Click to expand...

Tell you what, it is far easier to carry on a conversation if you actually point out the parts you disagree with and why you disagree. If you wish to have a conversation about the issue, please do that. Then I will respond in kind.
 
cawacko said:
It's unsustaining "insurance". Without major changes this "insurance" system will collapse under its own weight. And returns do matter based on simple time value of money. With no investment a dollar today is not going to have the same value in the future. Thus the current S.S. problems.
Click to expand...


I'm just trying to respond to things one at a time. As a preliminary matter, talking about "returns" on social security is a red herring. That's all I'm saying.

We can discuss the sustainability of SS and what it might take to ensure that current expected benefit levels are sustained, but talking about "returns" is nonsense.

That's all I'm saying. Apparently you and SF agree.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell you what, it is far easier to carry on a conversation if you actually point out the parts you disagree with and why you disagree. If you wish to have a conversation about the issue, please do that. Then I will respond in kind.
Click to expand...

It's probably these two ridiculous assertions
1) neocon fascists like you are PRO regulation - that;s laughable

2) The sec is a capable organization.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But you still generally want less regulation. That is true.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are regulating. As far as the securities industry, I want Glass Steagall put back in place, I want the uptick rule put back in place, I want hedge funds to fall under the same regulations as the rest of the industry and I want the SEC to do their friggin job.

As for others.... I want the home mortgage industry to be regulated as well. One simple rule.... If you do not qualify for a 30 year fixed... you do not get the loan (at least for the amount you are applying for). If you qualify for a 30 year fixed rate, you may then be shown other options such as an ARM.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's probably these two ridiculous assertions
1) neocon fascists like you are PRO regulation - that;s laughable

2) The sec is a capable organization.
Click to expand...

Whats laughable is your calling everyone neocons and/or fascists. I am neither.

Side note... I did not say the SEC was capable. They clearly failed in cases like Enron, Worldcom and Madoff. My point was that you are incorrect in stating that the industry polices itself. It is policed by a GOVERNMENT agency. The fact that the government agency sucks is irrelevant to my point.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm just trying to respond to things one at a time. As a preliminary matter, talking about "returns" on social security is a red herring. That's all I'm saying.

We can discuss the sustainability of SS and what it might take to ensure that current expected benefit levels are sustained, but talking about "returns" is nonsense.

That's all I'm saying. Apparently you and SF agree.
Click to expand...

That highlights your lack of understanding on how insurance works. Once you learn that, then you will realize how ridiculous your claim that 'talking about returns is nonsense' truly is.
 
Superfreak said:
Whats laughable is your calling everyone neocons and/or fascists. I am neither.

Side note... I did not say the SEC was capable. They clearly failed in cases like Enron, Worldcom and Madoff. My point was that you are incorrect in stating that the industry polices itself. It is policed by a GOVERNMENT agency. The fact that the government agency sucks is irrelevant to my point.
Click to expand...


So there are no SROs? What's FINRA?
 
Superfreak said:
That highlights your lack of understanding on how insurance works. Once you learn that, then you will realize how ridiculous your claim that 'talking about returns is nonsense' truly is.
Click to expand...


I am well aware of how insurance works and I am well aware of the differences between insurance as compared to, say, securities.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell you what, it is far easier to carry on a conversation if you actually point out the parts you disagree with and why you disagree. If you wish to have a conversation about the issue, please do that. Then I will respond in kind.
Click to expand...

I thought I did that with the specific part I quoted? about lawyers and politicians policing themselves. better re-read
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I thought I did that with the specific part I quoted? about lawyers and politicians policing themselves. better re-read
Click to expand...

No, you just said you thought it funny that I stated that those two groups police themselves....

You failed to highlight WHY you thought that was incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top