0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:27 pm
You can have my portion, Tico Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 07:43 am
Quote:
"Ridiculous!" That is not the way this White House operates."

Quote:
"No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States,"


Down...down...heading for uncharted bottoms.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:28 am
Ready to hurl?

Quote:
Monday, July 11, 2005 5:04 p.m. EDT

Julianne Malveaux: USA, Bush Are 'Terrorists'

Semi-regular USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux said Monday that President Bush is "a terrorist" and that America is "a terrorist nation."

In an interview that began with Malveaux accusing U.S. troops of "beating" terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, the controversial author and economist told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity:

"Terrorism in the United States is as old as we are. You want me to give you a litany of terrorism? You want me to start with what's happened to the Indian population? You want to go on to what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921?"

"C'mon now, Sean," Malveaux told Hannity. "We are terrorists."

Asked point-blank if the U.S. was a "terrorist nation," Malveaux shot back: "Oh, Absolutely."

In the next breath she added, "The chickens have come home to roost," in an apparent reference to the 9/11 attacks.

Asked if America was "a good country," Malveaux responded tersely, "We're a country." Pressed on why she omitted the adjective "good," she replied: "I can't answer that. I think we have some good and I think we have some evil."

As the interview was winding up, Malveaux went on a tear about the Iraq war and "the weapons of mass distraction."

"You know they weren't there. I know they weren't there," she told Hannity. "George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:39 am
I heard that bit on Hannity's radio program yesterday. Three people in the room with me, all of whom are pretty much apolitical but vote mostly Democrat or Green, were unamimous in their view that Malveaux is an idiot.

Actually the GOP should make Malveaux their poster girl. A few more interviews like that, and the Democrats won't be able to elect a dog catcher.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 10:00 am
Quote:
Jailed Journalist Reports NY Times Desecration
by Scott Ott

(2005-07-09) -- Law enforcement authorities in major U.S. cities put riot police on high alert today after recently-jailed journalist Judith Miller complained that prison guards had desecrated her copy of The New York Times.

"We know that journalists worship the Times," said one deputy police chief, "If they take to the streets in protest, things could get ugly fast."

Ms. Miller, who works for the Times' counter-intelligence department, told an unnamed visitor that her copy of the revered 'Gray Lady' had been carelessly tossed on the floor, handled by a conservative Republican jailer (who she called 'an infidel') and may have been used as a lining for a cat's litter box.

"They did everything but flush it down the toilet," she said. "They have no respect for the 'paper of record', may it publish forever, nor for the wise and powerful ones who create this daily miracle."

Wednesday, a judge sentenced Ms. Miller to jail for obstructing a federal investigation into who leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, who also posed for pictures in a top-secret issue of Vanity Fair magazine.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 10:10 am
Next thing you know, we'll be reading some bombshell 'secret memo' that she's being tortured unmercifully...and the Koolaid crowd will believe it LOL.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 06:00 am
The very last paragraph of a USA Today article (just under a snarky comment by Harry Reid LOL) shows Dubya's approval rating...



http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050712/1a_offlede12.art.htm

Rasmussen's poll is a bit better (since July 4 even)...

Fifty-one percent (51%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Forty-eight percent disapprove.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Of course, it should be even higher given the state of the economy SmileSmileSmile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 06:20 am
Bush's Budget Deficit Goal Met Three Years Early

<Smiling>
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 06:26 am

JustGiggles, perhaps in the future you would be better off not providing a link to support your "headline" as the first paragraph states;
Quote:
July 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's administration will report this week that surging tax revenue is shrinking this year's budget deficit from the record 2004 level, possibly by as much as $90 billion, giving him a shot at fulfilling his deficit reduction promise three years early.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 06:32 am
Oooooh...surly LOL.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 07:02 am
accuracy in reporting not a republican talent?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 07:14 am
What's not accurate?

Tax Receipts Exceed Treasury Predictions
Early Surge Lowers Deficit Projections

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 5, 2005; Page E01

After three years of rising federal budget deficits, a surge of April tax receipts brought unexpected good news to fiscal policymakers -- the tide of government red ink appears to be receding.

The Treasury Department this week reported there would be a $54 billion swing from projected deficit to surplus in the April-to-June quarter, after an unanticipated gush of tax payments poured into the Treasury before the April 15 deadline. That prompted private forecasters to lower their deficit projections for the fiscal year that ends in September.

Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived. Indeed, after a four-year absence, the Treasury Department announced yesterday it is considering reissuing its 30-year Treasury bond to help finance long-term government debt, jolting the bond markets and pushing down the price of existing 30-year securities.

But in the short term, many forecasters said the budget deficit appears to have crested.

"I think it has turned the corner," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency. "My guess is 2004 will have been the worst year."

For that fiscal year, the government recorded a $412 billion deficit, the largest ever in nominal dollar terms, although not as large as some of the deficits of the 1980s when measured against the size of the economy. The 2004 mark was up from 2003's $378 billion deficit, which topped 2002's $158 billion deficit.

In January, Bush administration officials projected that the streak would continue, with a deficit of $427 billion for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. But that estimate was widely regarded as inflated and many forecasters believed the total would be more like $400 billion.

April, however, turned out to be a far better month than anticipated. Taxpayers were confronted with unexpected tax bills, many from capital gains and the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system designed to hit the rich but that is increasingly pinching the middle class. The Treasury announced this week that it will repay $42 billion in federal debt in the third April-to-June quarter, instead of borrowing $12 billion.

Wall Street analysts reduced their deficit forecasts this week, from around $400 billion to around $370 billion. In nominal dollar terms, that would still be the third-highest deficit on record. Even measured against the size of the economy, "it's still a high number," said Brian Bethune, director of financial economics at Global Insight Inc., a Massachusetts forecasting firm. "It needs to come down."

One factor should help in the short term: Seven months into the fiscal year, Congress is only now passing the $82 billion emergency war spending bill for fiscal 2005, which means that much of the money will be spent in 2006. That should reduce the 2005 deficit while bringing down war costs next year. Wyss said the deficit should continue to fall in 2006 and 2007.

"A month ago, I would have told you the budget numbers were on track for $400 billion. To get an adjustment this quickly would suggest a huge surprise," said Edward F. McKelvey, an economist and federal budget analyst at Goldman Sachs & Co.

Few economists say the U.S. government is out of the woods. One of the reasons for the turnaround, the alternative minimum tax, should be reduced or eliminated before it starts impinging on economic growth, Bethune said.
More
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402134.html

Higher tax receipts cut deficit, analysts say
Friday, July 08, 2005
Andrew Taylor
Associated Press
Washington - Higher- than-expected tax receipts and the steadily growing economy have combined to produce an improved picture for the federal budget deficit, congressional analysts say.

The deficit for the current budget year, which runs through Sept. 30, should be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion," according to the Congressional Budget Office. The agency produces nonpartisan estimates for Congress and will put out a full update Aug. 15.

Thursday's new figures come as the White House is to release its midyear budget review July 13. Administration figures are also expected to show significant improvement from the $427 billion current-year deficit it predicted in January.
More
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1120822357287510.xml&coll=2

Economy shows solid growth
Updated: 06/29/2005 10:17:25 AM
By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy logged a solid 3.8 percent growth rate in the first quarter of 2005, a performance that was better than previously thought and a fresh sign the expansion is on firm footing.

The new reading on gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department on Wednesday, marked an improvement from the 3.5 percent annual rate estimated for the quarter just a month ago and matched the showing registered in the final quarter of 2004.

GDP, the broadest gauge of the economy's health, measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

Stronger spending on housing projects, more investment by business in equipment and software, and a trade deficit that was less of a drag on economic growth all played a role in the higher first quarter GDP estimate.

The first-quarter's showing was slightly better than the 3.7 percent growth rate that economists were forecasting before the report was released.

"It was a solid quarter, particularly in the face of high and rising energy prices," said Mark Zandi, chief analyst at Economy.com. "It illustrates the resilience of the economy and the durability of the current economic expansion."

To keep the economy and inflation on an even keel, the Federal Reserve has boosted short-term interest rates eight times - each in quarter-point moves - since June 2004. Another bump-up is expected when the Fed wraps up a two-day meeting on Thursday.

An inflation gauge tied to the GDP report and closely monitored by the Fed showed prices - excluding food and energy - rising at a rate of 2 percent in the first quarter. While that was slightly lower than the previous estimate of a 2.2 percent rate for the quarter, it was up from the fourth quarter's 1.7 percent rate of increase.

While Republicans and Democrats might have different takes on how various parts of the economy are faring, the Bush administration pointed to the latest GDP report as evidence that economic activity is improving. "The economy is showing solid and sustained growth and job creation," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The policies that we have put in place are working. Our economy is growing stronger."

Although economic activity is solid, job creation is choppy. Employers boosted payrolls by just 78,000 after a hiring spurt of 274,000 in April. May's job gain was the weakest in almost two years. Economists offered various reasons for May's slower job growth, including the toll of high energy prices.

In recent days, oil prices surged to a new record-high of $60.54 a barrel. Economists are trying to gauge the impact that gyrating oil prices will have on the job market and the overall economy.

High energy prices have forced many economists to lower their projections for economic growth.

The economy in the current April-to-June quarter is expected to expand anywhere from 2.6 percent to 3.8 percent. Some earlier forecasts had put growth for the quarter at a pace of around 4 percent. Projections for the third quarter range from a 2.7 percent to a 3.5 percent pace.

In the first quarter, though, spending and investment in a variety of areas fared well despite high energy prices.

Spending on housing projects sizzled at a 11.5 percent growth rate in the first quarter, compared with a 3.4 percent pace in the fourth quarter. It marked the biggest increase since the second quarter of 2004.

Fed Chairman Alan ΒΌ has talked about "froth" in the booming housing market. Although he doesn't believe a national bubble has formed that could pop and cause house prices to fall, he has raised concerns about local markets.

Low mortgage rates, which have powered record-high home sales for four years in a row, are helping to keep housing activity brisk.

Meanwhile, business spending on equipment and software increased at a 6.1 percent pace. That was better than the previous estimate but down from the red-hot pace seen in the fourth quarter as companies rushed to take advantage of tax deductions to encourage sales of business equipment. These tax provisions expired at the end of last year.

Consumer spending, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of all economic activity, grew at a rate of 3.6 percent in the first quarter. That was the same as a previous estimate but down from a 4.2 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter.

On the trade front, the deficit shaved 0.6 percentage point off of GDP in the first quarter, an improvement from the 0.7 percentage-point reduction previously estimated.

One measure of after-tax profits in the GDP report showed profits growing by 1.2 percent in the first quarter from the previous quarter. That was slightly better than an earlier estimate but down from a 12.5 percent increase in the fourth quarter.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1120822357287510.xml&coll=2
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 07:22 am
Just testing, Dys Smile




<There will be a quiz at the end of this thread>
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 07:28 am
And mind you all that good economic news is in the face of sky high energy costs and a very expensive War on Terrorism initiative. I think the "Bush doctrine" for the economy has been vindicated.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 08:17 am
From Powerline:

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 08:30 am
More evidence that the GOP is on the winning side on just about everything these days, and for good reason:

15% Say US Would Be Safer Without Iraq War

49% Say Avoiding War Would Have Made U.S. More Dangerous

Survey of 500 Adults

June 30, 2005

Suppose we had not fought the War in Iraq and Saddam Hussein was still in power.

U.S. Safer 15%
U.S. More Dangerous 49%
About the Same 29%
RasmussenReports.com


July 5, 2005--Just 15% of voters believe the U.S. would be safer today if we had avoided the War with Iraq and left Saddam Hussein in power. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 49% take the opposite view and say that such a strategy would have made life in the U.S. more dangerous. Twenty-nine-percent (29%) think it would be about the same either way.

Those figures are little changed from a year ago.

Republicans, by a 77% to 5% margin, believe the U.S. would be more dangerous if our nation had not fought the war that toppled Hussein.

Democrats are divided on this question. A plurality, 43%, says that things would be about the same. Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe the U.S. would be more dangerous today if we had not fought the War with Iraq. Twenty percent (20%) of Howard Dean's party believe that avoiding the War would have made the U.S. safer today.

Those not affiliated with either party believe, by a 2-to-1 margin, that avoiding the War would have made the U.S. a more dangerous place.

Related survey data shows that 49% of Americans say that the War with Iraq is part of the War on Terror.

Link
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 08:43 am
Economic Trivia note - You saw it here first, kids.


Actually, this is really old news, to which the MSM is just now catching up. Its been going on for a couple years without much attention from The Usual Suspects. All thats changed is that now its no longer possible to ignore.

Oct 15 2003

Nov 6, 2003

Nov 25 2003

May 6, 2005

This is sorta related, and rather amusing.

But what do I know? I get beat up on a lot for my economic views, thats for sure. On the other hand (adapted/amalgamted from a few earlier posts):

timber, Mar 11, 2003 wrote:
At the moment, I tend to think The Market is at or very close to its bottom. Unfortunately, I don't expect a startlingly robust recovery. My current feeling is a Dow in the mid $9K to low $10k range by year end
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=131382#131382


timber, June 11, 2003 wrote:
... As long as The Dow is at or above 9K, unemployment is at or below 5.5%, GDP growth is at or above 3%, inflation is below 2%, and both South Korea and Israel still exist come Autum '04, he can't lose. George's military record is merely an inconvenience, not a career-limiting hinderance. In fact, if The Dems sieze on the matter as a key point of opposition, they will simply seal their own doom.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=237973#237973


timber, Sep 12, 2003 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
timber, It's good to see some good news on retail sales for a month or two, but what we must look for are long term improvement trends.


EDIT (timber): Expired image link removed

RLX= Retail Index
SPX= Standard & Poor Index
DJI= Dow Jones Industrial ("The Dow Index")

Exactly, c.i. , glad you brought that up.
The Retail Index, up a bit over 40% in the past six months, has significantly, and consistently, outpaced overall market recovery, which by either of two major indexes is up roughly 25% over the same period ... I'd characterize that as more than just "a month or two".
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=357286#357286


timber, Sep 13, 2003 wrote:
Well, sorry, c.i. ... thought you'd know about the Retail Index. Its a tracking indicator of stock prices, just as the DOW and the S&P, to which I compared it, and is composed of the Stocks of major retailers. What makes it particularly useful as a leading indicator is that Retail Stocks are held most heavily by institutional investors ... major funds, multi-national banks, insurance companies, and the like ... not exactly what you'd call adventurous investors. Over the past year, the past six months in particular, the Retail sector has been subject to net acquisition by the really big players. Having collapsed in the latter part of '99, well ahead of the general market downturn, the sector languished well into last year, then began picking up steam. That it is outperforming other, more broadly based indicators is what is significant, as typically the index's performance closey tracks the overall market some months in advance of overall market movement. Applying MACD, or Moving Average Convergence/Divergence analysis, to the sector, indicates continued growth in the sector is highly likely. It is a reading of where Retail WILL BE, not where it IS. Bollinger analysis and Stochastic analysis of the index leads to the same conclusion, among many other methods. While normally applied to individual stocks, such analysis techniques (based on the pricnciple of standard mean deviation), when applied to entire sectors, is extraordinarilly accurate. http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=357939#357939


timber, Sep 13, 2003 wrote:
The major indices have improved significantly over the past 12 months. The folks who've lost money are the ones who've remained behind the curve - a group not populated by "The Big Boys". In the past 52 weeks, The Dow has moved from below $7200 to its current level of nearly $9500 ... a clear 25%+/- increase. The S&P, Russel, and NASDAQ have done even better than the Dow. The facts and history just don't support your argument.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=358030&highlight=dow#358030



timber, Sep 13, 2003 wrote:
The bubble of the late '90s was abberational, c.i., and just about guaranteed a massive correction; take a look at the 5-year performance of the DOW and tell me what it evidences. I see steady recovery over the past two quarters, with the upward trend accellerating.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=358154#358154


timber, Sep 15, 2003 wrote:
Anything's possible, dyslexia, but I'm betting the other way, and using my own real money; after almost four years of playing the market short, I'm going long on futures options contracts. I'm figuring by the end of Q4 '03 the Dow will be well above $10K ... an even more optimistic outlook than I held HERE

I guess my vote in that poll stands out, there's only one for the $10K category.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=361462#361462


timber, Nov 14, 2003 wrote:
Another conjecture: as numbers flow in over the next few weeks showing economic expansion is settling into a sustainable mode after the unprecedented spurt recently reported, the punditocracy will begin shouting they were right all along and that the economy is still in trouble. As the Dow forges beyond $10K and the Nasdaq leaves $2K in the dust, as home ownership increases, unemployment stabilizes then declines and hiring begins to put pressure on the labor pool as both manufacturing and sevices explode, the cry will be that its all an illusion, that debilitating inflation looms, that interest rates are dangerously low, and that the increased tax revenue due to improved earnings threatens to drive the deficit down too rapidly for economic stability. Expect also criticism from abroad that an "intentially and artificially soft dollar" gives the US an unfair export advantage. Bad news sells news, and if bad news can't be found, it must be manufactured.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=441390#441390


timber, Dec 3, 2003 wrote:
At this point, I see no reason The Dow will not break through $10K, probably within the next few trading sessions, retreat a bit under profit-taking pressure, crossing back-and-forth a few times, then finish the year above $10K.

One or two-day swings on "Threats" are really meaningless. Market performance Year-To-Date compared with Market Performance 2-Years-To-Date, 5-Years-To-Date, 10-Years-To-Date, 20-Years-To-Date, and 50-Years-To-Date indicate the current upward momentum not only is solid but accellerating. Coupling that with the consistent positive movement of market indicators, now including even upticks in employment and downticks in unemployment claims despite astounding concurrent productivity gains, along with substantial recent increases in capital investment, consumer sentiment, and overall construction, and the fact that every "revision" over the past 3 quarters (of which there have been many) has been positive, leads to no conclusion other than that there is yet excessive pessimism. The Economy is growing faster, more broadly, and more sustainably than most folks realize.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=467341#467341


timber, Dec 5, 2003 wrote:
Just a little piece of trivia here, for perspective: 18 years ago today, Dec 5, 1985, The Dow broke above $1500 for the first time ever
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=469352#469352


timber, Dec 8, 2003 wrote:
Today, the DOW rose 102.59 points, or 1.04 percent, to 9,965.27, its highest close since May 28, 2002, with congruent gains recorded by the NASDAQ and the S&P 500. As expected, trading on all US exchanges was light in advance of tomorrow's Fed announcement re rates; no rate increase is anticipated, but all eyes will be on the wording of the statement. The item of interest is the term "considerable period" ... if it is missing, that will signal the probability of a rate increase sometime in mid-Q1 to early Q2 '04, which no doubt will bring about a market pullback and likely also strengthen the dollar a bit, though both effects, should either or both occur, will be transitory.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=474607&highlight=dow#474607


timber, Dec 11, 2003 wrote:
So anyhow ... the DOW closed up $86.3) to end at $1008.16. While $10,026.53 was hit, today's close above $10K is a more significant even, IMO. A short-term pullback ... profit taking, is possible tomorrow, but volume and price picked up today right at the close of trading ... fewer overall trades, but larger ones characterized the last half-hour of trading. This indicates to me a sentiment within the market's big players favorable to net acquisition, and I would anticipate the index will close the week still above $10K, is not much unchanged from today's close. By year-end, looking at underlying indicators, barring external shock, the index could close the year well established above $10K, and the NAS settling in above $2K.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=478754#478754


timber, Dec 12, 2003 wrote:
The DOW first crossed $10K in early '99, near the end of the '92-'99 boom. Interest rates then, short and long term, consumer and institutional, were considerably higher. Inflation was running at around double the current pace. Labor productivity was around half its current level. The current ratio of stock prices to corporate earnings is considerably lower than it was then, and corporate earnings are increasing at a rate far in excess of that which applied in the '92-'99 boom. The current market strength is broad-based, not concentrated in speculative, earnings-shy techs, as was the case in the '92-'99 run-up, and includes basic industries, financial services, and so-called "Consumer Cyclicals", such as autos, homebuilders, and durable goods ... all lacking significant momentum in the tech-crazy earlier period, particularly as regards the latter months of the previous boom. The combination of low interest rates, low inflation, and consistent market gains in well in excess of the yields available from interest-bearing investments render stocks a relative bargain, without even taking into account the effect of the cut in the dividend tax rate. The rate-of-return-on-investment is more attractive for stocks than it has been in years.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=480732#480732


timber, Jan 9, 2004 wrote:
Also of note is that yesterdy's DOW close at $10,592.44 is the highest since Mar 12 '02's close of $10632.40. I expect, however, that today's market activity will be flat to slightly down on profit taking, as today's unemployment news was mere good, not astounding. Only well-above-expected news seems to drive market gains anymore, which itself is an encouraging sign; folks are getting accustomed to good news.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=513982#513982

timber, Oct 1, 2004 wrote:
Meanwhile, out there in the real world, the US securites markets are up across the board, with the Dow notching a comforting triple-digit gain, the NASDAQ up well over 45, and the S&P climbing nearly 17.

Don't see anything anywhere in any of that to cause me any distress. I feel pretty good about things, and the way they're goin', right now, actually.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=930250#930250


Think about it.

Edited to correct a couple links - sorry for the confusion - and thanks to the tipster-who-wishes-to-remain-anonymous who PM'd the goofup to my attention Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 09:41 am
timber, I do think about the stock market often, because it's very important to our financial security. As of yesterday, for YTD, the DOW is down 263 points or 2.4%, and the Nasdaq is down 40 or 1.8%. However, with our mix of bond funds, we are doing fine. Since I've now been retired for eight years, I've decided to let go the management of our investments to a Vanguard counselor, because I no longer wish to manage "anything" and enjoy the remaining years of my life. Our investments have performed very well; for both the 12 month and 24 month period, we're ahead by more than the average income of Silicon Valley. I have no complaints about our economy.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 10:29 am
C.I.
C.I the majority of people do not have the benefit of having disposable income during their working years to invest in the stock market. It makes a huge difference in their retirement years.

The only way I manage to have a fairly comfortable retirement is employer-IRA matching contributions, pensions, and lucky real estate, buying and selling at the right time. A small inheritence trust also helps in addition to my social security. Add to this the medical insurance coverage I had paid for by my employers, which allowed me to save a little. My real estate luck allowed me to pay cash for my new Albuquerque home, so I have no mortgage to worry about.

When you look at these benefits and consider how they are disappearing from the employment world, you can see we are well on the way to a huge problem. I fear my children will not have as comfortable a retirement as I have.

You and I worked all our lives and tried to plan for the future, but we were lucky, too. Many others are not so fortunate. I'm very worried about our economy and its future good health, not for myself, but for the next generations.

BBB
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 11:08 am
BBB, I guess it depends on who's looking at our economy; some see it as half full and others see it as half empty. There are always swings in the economy from good to bad, and depending upon one's ability to plan well for the long term will benefit or suffer. My brother-in-law, a dentist, started his practice long before I graduated from college. Because of the losses he incurred during the high tech bust, he's still working, and I retired eight years ago. I also invested in income property that I sold when I retired, because I did not wish to manage anything, and welcomed the freedom. In addition to the rental income, I sold the property at 100 percent profit. Luck of the draw. Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 09:08:57