Economy is roaring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you liberals playing dumb with all these questions? Do you really not understand how Bernie's proposed policies would KILL the stock market, hurt businesses, increase the unemployment rate, and so forth? Socialism in a country with 330 million people, and with a porous border in which illiterate illegal immigrants stream in, is a recipe for failure?

It wouldn't be so bad with Biden. He's somewhat normal. (He just needs to keep his hands off the little girls until Election Day.)

Frankly, I don't think they are playing dumb.

They ARE dumb.

It's scary.

It is. They would vote for Bernie, not realizing the damage they'd instill on others.

What damage can he inflict with a Republican controlled Senate. I keep asking that question and no one has answered.

Not to mention the dozens of moderate Dems in the House and Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the meantime, I'm a middle earner with a nearly 40% increase in my retirement account this year, and my mother's money has gone up so much that we can afford to keep her in the nice assisted living place for at least another few years. One of my friends lost her job at age 63 (63!!) and, due to the low unemployment rate, was able to find a new job within weeks. Others, earning lower-level wages, have seen increases for the first time in a decade. It's been very good for the bulk of Americans.

Congratulations. You realize that by having ANYTHING in the market, that puts you in the top 25% of the country in terms of wealth, right?

Not true.

Over 50% of adults have direct or indirect holdings of stock. Thirty percent of adults in the lower 50th percentile of income own stock. Many of the adults who don't own are young and are not yet interested in saving for retirement.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/

DP - but effectively only the very rich have any significant stake. As the link describes, the comment should have been:
"Most Americans Don’t Have a Real Stake in the Stock Market."

OMG. That's the ridiculous analysis that liberals get stuck on: "Most of the stock money is in the rich people's hands!"

I say, "so what"? I'm not looking around at rich people and resentful that they have more. I'm focused on saving into my 403B (they have an excellent match of 10%), and I expect to have close to $1 million by the time I am in my mid-60s. I say that's pretty good for someone who is a middle earner. Why would you not care about people like me, hard workers with "medium" incomes, who have saved their entire lives so they would be comfortable in retirement? It doesn't bother you at all that HALF of Americans are in my boat, and would suffer greatly if a socialist got a chance to enact his economy-destroying policies? Are you SO intent on hurting the rich that you don't care that half of Americans would be hurt as well?

[Anonymous]

The issue is that you are willing to overlook so much out of self-interest of an unsustainable stock market run fueled by tax cuts to the uber-wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Yes. We want to hurt the rich just for the sake of it. /s

Come on, man. Be serious. You may disagree, but we see a society with such rapidly expanding wealth inequality as unsustainable. The middle class spends their money on goods and services. The rich hoard it in tax havens. Billionaires can only consume so much in goods and services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that you are willing to overlook so much out of self-interest of an unsustainable stock market run fueled by tax cuts to the uber-wealthy.

Pointing out that electing a socialist will do great harm to the 50% of Americans who own stock is just self-interest? I think that 100 million people who have worked hard and saved responsibly should not have the rug pulled out from under them just to "sock it to the rich."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. We want to hurt the rich just for the sake of it. /s

Come on, man. Be serious. You may disagree, but we see a society with such rapidly expanding wealth inequality as unsustainable. The middle class spends their money on goods and services. The rich hoard it in tax havens. Billionaires can only consume so much in goods and services.

The middle class is ALSO investing in the stock market for their retirement, and the socialist policies will kill them. And that's the problem with leftism: They are focused on 1) not letting rich get away with stuff, and 2) giving more to the low-income. The entire middle class is the one who is really hurt, because they can't afford to absorb the costs of giving to the low-income. Nowhere did we see this with more clarity than with Obamacare: The wealthy (earning over $200,000 a year) could absorb the $1000 month premiums and $6000 deductibles, and the low-income got free insurance with no deductible. It was the middle class - those earing $50,000 or $60,000 - who found themselves collapsing under the weight of unaffordable Obamacare insurance.

And P.S. The middle class (the lower-middle class to be more precise) is the largest voting bloc, and they will NOT be voting for socialist policies.

[Anonymous]

It's a good thing that Elizabeth Warren is not an actual socialist. Bernie, on the other hand...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you liberals playing dumb with all these questions? Do you really not understand how Bernie's proposed policies would KILL the stock market, hurt businesses, increase the unemployment rate, and so forth? Socialism in a country with 330 million people, and with a porous border in which illiterate illegal immigrants stream in, is a recipe for failure?

It wouldn't be so bad with Biden. He's somewhat normal. (He just needs to keep his hands off the little girls until Election Day.)

Frankly, I don't think they are playing dumb.

They ARE dumb.

It's scary.

Oh, good....I found a smart one in this sea of liberals.

So let me ask you: Who would you prefer as the nominee: Biden, who is more likely to beat Trump, but not as horrible if he does; or Bernie, who is very unlikely to beat Trump, but would spell disaster if does. Since I'm in an open primary state, I can vote for one or the other on the Dem ticket.

Tough one!

I'd say I prefer Bloomberg.

If not that, I frankly don't care that much. Biden would be a small disaster, Bernie would be a major one -- but you can always buy Chinese stocks and short US ones.

[Anonymous]

Sadly not roaring for these folks in Richmond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. We want to hurt the rich just for the sake of it. /s

Come on, man. Be serious. You may disagree, but we see a society with such rapidly expanding wealth inequality as unsustainable. The middle class spends their money on goods and services. The rich hoard it in tax havens. Billionaires can only consume so much in goods and services.

The middle class is ALSO investing in the stock market for their retirement, and the socialist policies will kill them. And that's the problem with leftism: They are focused on 1) not letting rich get away with stuff, and 2) giving more to the low-income. The entire middle class is the one who is really hurt, because they can't afford to absorb the costs of giving to the low-income. Nowhere did we see this with more clarity than with Obamacare: The wealthy (earning over $200,000 a year) could absorb the $1000 month premiums and $6000 deductibles, and the low-income got free insurance with no deductible. It was the middle class - those earing $50,000 or $60,000 - who found themselves collapsing under the weight of unaffordable Obamacare insurance.

And P.S. The middle class (the lower-middle class to be more precise) is the largest voting bloc, and they will NOT be voting for socialist policies.

Are they going to vote against Social Security and Medicare? Are you?

I say if the middle class have time to vote then they also have time to get a second job to pay for health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. We want to hurt the rich just for the sake of it. /s

Come on, man. Be serious. You may disagree, but we see a society with such rapidly expanding wealth inequality as unsustainable. The middle class spends their money on goods and services. The rich hoard it in tax havens. Billionaires can only consume so much in goods and services.

The middle class is ALSO investing in the stock market for their retirement, and the socialist policies will kill them. And that's the problem with leftism: They are focused on 1) not letting rich get away with stuff, and 2) giving more to the low-income. The entire middle class is the one who is really hurt, because they can't afford to absorb the costs of giving to the low-income. Nowhere did we see this with more clarity than with Obamacare: The wealthy (earning over $200,000 a year) could absorb the $1000 month premiums and $6000 deductibles, and the low-income got free insurance with no deductible. It was the middle class - those earing $50,000 or $60,000 - who found themselves collapsing under the weight of unaffordable Obamacare insurance.

And P.S. The middle class (the lower-middle class to be more precise) is the largest voting bloc, and they will NOT be voting for socialist policies.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the meantime, I'm a middle earner with a nearly 40% increase in my retirement account this year, and my mother's money has gone up so much that we can afford to keep her in the nice assisted living place for at least another few years. One of my friends lost her job at age 63 (63!!) and, due to the low unemployment rate, was able to find a new job within weeks. Others, earning lower-level wages, have seen increases for the first time in a decade. It's been very good for the bulk of Americans.

Congratulations. You realize that by having ANYTHING in the market, that puts you in the top 25% of the country in terms of wealth, right?

Not true.

Over 50% of adults have direct or indirect holdings of stock. Thirty percent of adults in the lower 50th percentile of income own stock. Many of the adults who don't own are young and are not yet interested in saving for retirement.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/

DP - but effectively only the very rich have any significant stake. As the link describes, the comment should have been:
"Most Americans Don’t Have a Real Stake in the Stock Market."

OMG. That's the ridiculous analysis that liberals get stuck on: "Most of the stock money is in the rich people's hands!"

I say, "so what"? I'm not looking around at rich people and resentful that they have more. I'm focused on saving into my 403B (they have an excellent match of 10%), and I expect to have close to $1 million by the time I am in my mid-60s. I say that's pretty good for someone who is a middle earner. Why would you not care about people like me, hard workers with "medium" incomes, who have saved their entire lives so they would be comfortable in retirement? It doesn't bother you at all that HALF of Americans are in my boat, and would suffer greatly if a socialist got a chance to enact his economy-destroying policies? Are you SO intent on hurting the rich that you don't care that half of Americans would be hurt as well?

Wow. Your entire retirement could disappear if a Democrat is elected.

It seems to me that if half the country could lose their retirement savings based on the outcome of a single election, then that isn't a very good retirement system. It also seems like maybe the economy isn't roaring if it all depends on a single election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the meantime, I'm a middle earner with a nearly 40% increase in my retirement account this year, and my mother's money has gone up so much that we can afford to keep her in the nice assisted living place for at least another few years. One of my friends lost her job at age 63 (63!!) and, due to the low unemployment rate, was able to find a new job within weeks. Others, earning lower-level wages, have seen increases for the first time in a decade. It's been very good for the bulk of Americans.

Congratulations. You realize that by having ANYTHING in the market, that puts you in the top 25% of the country in terms of wealth, right?

Not true.

Over 50% of adults have direct or indirect holdings of stock. Thirty percent of adults in the lower 50th percentile of income own stock. Many of the adults who don't own are young and are not yet interested in saving for retirement.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/

DP - but effectively only the very rich have any significant stake. As the link describes, the comment should have been:
"Most Americans Don’t Have a Real Stake in the Stock Market."

OMG. That's the ridiculous analysis that liberals get stuck on: "Most of the stock money is in the rich people's hands!"

I say, "so what"? I'm not looking around at rich people and resentful that they have more. I'm focused on saving into my 403B (they have an excellent match of 10%), and I expect to have close to $1 million by the time I am in my mid-60s. I say that's pretty good for someone who is a middle earner. Why would you not care about people like me, hard workers with "medium" incomes, who have saved their entire lives so they would be comfortable in retirement? It doesn't bother you at all that HALF of Americans are in my boat, and would suffer greatly if a socialist got a chance to enact his economy-destroying policies? Are you SO intent on hurting the rich that you don't care that half of Americans would be hurt as well?

Wow. Your entire retirement could disappear if a Democrat is elected.

It seems to me that if half the country could lose their retirement savings based on the outcome of a single election, then that isn't a very good retirement system. It also seems like maybe the economy isn't roaring if it all depends on a single election.

Seriously. Why is it a good thing that retirement security is contingent on what is essentially gambling?

[Anonymous]

Why do you think the investing in the stock market is gambling? Do you think that whether a stock gains or loses is purely luck of the draw? Apple got lucky, Enron did not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think the investing in the stock market is gambling? Do you think that whether a stock gains or loses is purely luck of the draw? Apple got lucky, Enron did not?

I don't think that. But there are plenty of Trump supporters on here claiming that the stock market will crash if Trump isn't re-elected. Trump is the magic totem on which the stock market rests. I'm just using the Socratic method to follow this line of "reasoning" to it's natural conclusion.