DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/)
-   USA Economy (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/usa-economy/)
-   -   Investing in today's economy? (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/usa-economy/76507-investing-todays-economy.html)

abubycera 04-08-2009 08:02 PM

Quote:

Million not Trillion or even Billion. I am not saying it is the best idea ever but I certianly don't think giving $510 BILLION to banks and mortgage companies was a good idea either. There is no reason no to let them fail. It was their unsound business practices that led to their problems yet the taxpayers should bail them out? Can you say SOCIALISM? I am not saying that giving away 40 million wouldn't be socalist in nature. What I am saying is IMHO, it would be more economically benificial than giving $510 BILLION to institutions that have PROVEN they are unable or unwilling to manage the money they had.
Bravo! Bravo!

Universal health care. Government buyouts. Scary.

Does anyone remember which economist poignantly asked how people were going to buy eco-friendly cars when they didn't have jobs to support the payments? Still can't figure out why the presidents economic advisers are still stumbling over that one.

amannddo 04-09-2009 07:28 PM

I said trillion because 40 mil times 1 mil = 40 Trillion. Am I off or did the article not say give each 40 mil 50+ y/o workers $1 million?

Shemker394 04-09-2009 07:30 PM

Quote:

I said trillion because 40 mil times 1 mil = 40 Trillion. Am I off or did the article not say give each 40 mil 50+ y/o workers $1 million?
Precisely why I asked where the money for this plan was going to come from. Glad someone picked up on that one.

f6HLLFcw 04-09-2009 07:34 PM

I already stated the 2 biggest waistes of money in the gov is social security and two, welfare.

disappointment2 04-14-2009 06:14 AM

Quote:

That's assuming we only spend $50 million. And then there are the banks which we can't just let fail. As much as you or I dislike it, despite their mismanagement of money--they really can't be allowed to fail. If they fail, we fail.
Actually, we can let them fail. And some banks should fail. The banks that have made bad financial decisions and aren't able to climb out of the hole they made on their own should be allowed to fail. Then they will get bought out by healthier banks who DID make good decisions and are financially sound. This will produce a healthier economy in the long run. Losing banks fail, healthy banks grow stronger. Bad banks learn their lesson the hard way, good banks get rewarded with a bigger market share.

Borrinas 04-14-2009 03:16 PM

Quote:

Actually, we can let them fail. And some banks should fail. The banks that have made bad financial decisions and aren't able to climb out of the hole they made on their own should be allowed to fail. Then they will get bought out by healthier banks who DID make good decisions and are financially sound. This will produce a healthier economy in the long run. Losing banks fail, healthy banks grow stronger. Bad banks learn their lesson the hard way, good banks get rewarded with a bigger market share.
That being the case, I think the first two banks that need to go are Bank of America and Bank of Boston; whom have been ripping customers off for years. Unfortunately, it's the bigger banks which will get the benefit of the doubt from the government...which is dysfunctional and backwards.

pissmanvd 04-14-2009 03:58 PM

Quote:

I already stated the 2 biggest waistes of money in the gov is social security and two, welfare.
Except that the Gov does get some income with SSI. We pay into it. If they want to scrap it, I am fine with that but give me my $ back and stop taking it out of my check.

amehoubFomo 04-14-2009 09:05 PM

Quote:

Except that the Gov does get some income with SSI. We pay into it. If they want to scrap it, I am fine with that but give me my $ back and stop taking it out of my check.
The thing with SSI is it is not our paying into it for us, but for those before us. Just as our kids will be paying into it for us when we retire. We Kan it now, and those getting it will be punished.
Though one thing i would like to see is the erasing of welfare. Too many people, these days it seems, use it as a life style, rather than a helping hand until they get back on their feet. When you have 2+ generations on welfare, that is imo unacceptable.

Vomekayafboke 04-14-2009 09:09 PM

Punished? The only ones that deserve it are the physically disabled from birth. Anyone working long enough to reach the age to recieve it, 62 1/2, should have saved up for retirement. Their fault for being greedy at the time.

pkxlugbsbv 04-14-2009 09:23 PM

Quote:

The thing with SSI is it is not our paying into it for us, but for those before us. Just as our kids will be paying into it for us when we retire. We Kan it now, and those getting it will be punished.
Though one thing i would like to see is the erasing of welfare. Too many people, these days it seems, use it as a life style, rather than a helping hand until they get back on their feet. When you have 2+ generations on welfare, that is imo unacceptable.
Quote:

Punished? The only ones that deserve it are the physically disabled from birth. Anyone working long enough to reach the age to recieve it, 62 1/2, should have saved up for retirement. Their fault for being greedy at the time.
Don't know about you guys, but it's so encouraging (note sarcasm) to receive those SSI notifications each month telling me how they won't be able to afford my "investment" when the time comes around because of lack of government administration.

Yes, ideally speaking, people (regardless of generation) should be saving and investing for their own retirement. But, as we learned in the 80's, 90's and really as of late (see Enron scandal) that at one time, you could invest 20 years with one given private-employer, rely on their retirement fund and work your days committed and loyal. Retirement funds with private employers are now being cut as a way to put a few more dollar back into their pockets.

Forget about the 20+ years you were loyal. Forget about the money you saved by cutting costs, implementing projects and making enhancements. People are no longer seen as an "investment" but a monetary burden. Things that you could once relay on for retirement advantages are now having to be redefined.

What is and what should be are just two different things. (Refer back to garhkal's comments on welfare being used to "help get on one's feet"). Kudos gar on that comment.

Kilaoksrsa 05-29-2011 09:51 PM

Started investing in stocks about 3 months ago and don't regret it. Market did a downslide in 08-09 but now its recovering nicely. I'm 25 and have a 5k value profolio..I'm hoping to make about 400k and them I'm done. Mostly staying away from bonds since you don't make has much has you would indivual stock. Also staying away from mutal funds because when I make it big I want to be able to say I did it all myself vice I gave it to some other dude and he did it for me.

I wouldn't advice a 18year kid to start investing..I found out pretty quickly that you really do your reasearch and stay on top of your game if you want to make money out of the market. The mindset of a average 18 year old is pretty much focused on getting Lucy to like him...


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2