Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Economy is roaring
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You sound like you're utterly incompetent with money. This is what happens when you rely on a bankrupt govt: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-11/japan-s-population-crisis-is-pushing-more-women-into-poverty Read the article and WHY specifically Japanese women face grim futures in poverty. |
Anonymous
Newsflash: one million is not enough for a comfortable retirement, especially if you’re looking at ten to twenty years from now. Assisted living and/or a nursing home could easily wipe that out in less than ten years. You’re old enough to have some memory of 2008. Easy come, easy go. The entire economy depends on an unstable sociopathic wannabe dictator’s efforts to artificially pump up the market to enhance his chances at reelection. In case it isn’t obvious, if you’re looking forward to Social Security and Medicare when you retire, Republicans are determined to kill these social programs, the sooner the better. Do you really want to be on your own at 80+ when you’ve exhausted your personal resources and the nursing home says you’re out of here unless you can come up with more money? Because that’s what you’re looking at. Frankly, I’ve got a whole lot more at risk here than you do, but I’m not willing to turn our Government over to a treasonous dictator to support the illusion of financial security under a drug addicted lunatic. |
Anonymous
50% of Americans won’t have $1m+ in retirement funds FFS. |
Anonymous
Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad! |
Anonymous
Yup |
Anonymous
First, I see..... more disdain for the middle class, as expressed by a liberal. Do you not understand that health insurance was driven up, and made nearly worthless with the new high deductibles, because Obama shifted the costs and placed the burden on the middle earners? Second, why aren't you saying that if the lower-income on healthcare subsidies have enough time to vote, they should get a second job rather to pay their full share and not make middle-class people make up their difference? You leftists showing such a WGAF attitude toward the middle class is WHY YOU LOST - AND WHY YOU WILL LOSE AGAIN. |
Anonymous
That is because the pre-ACA model was unsustainable. There was too much weight on the system because people were paying for vaporware coverage and discovering they had been had, but doctors would treat them anyhow like in emergency rooms, and the taxpayer borne the cost at a much higher rate than what the ACA was charging. How is it every industrialized western country is able to have a healthcare system that works, except the US? |
Anonymous
Newsflash: So it's better to wipe out the middle earner's $1 million in retirement savings by electing a socialist to crash the market? That's your answer to a middle earner who was responsible in her savings and is planning to retire with $1 million a few years from now? And second, maybe a million isn't enough for an elitist liberal. But someone who owns a house and is living on $40,000 a year will be fine. Together with SS, his or her savings will continue to grow during the early part of retirement, so that it is likely to be double that 10 years later, and triple 15 years later. That's $3 million. Sell the house, and that's $4 million. More than enough to pay for 15 years of assisted living/nursing home, a length of time that perhaps 1 in 100 experience. (Especially nursing homes.) And third, Republicans aren't determined to "kill" elderly programs. They want to make them solvent. We need to make adjustments to do so, but Democrats only focus on the "Give, Give, Give" side. And fourth, your remark about a "treasonous dictator" shows just how deluded your liberal brain has become. |
Anonymous
So since 50% of Americans won't have $1 million in retirement (they could by saving a few thousand a year, starting in their 20s, and investing wisely), we should elect someone who will wipe out the funds of those who WILL? That will teach those responsible savers a thing or two!! |
Anonymous
You seem to being under the liberal delusion that everyone was paying for vaporware coverage, when that was just another Obama lie. Many of us had affordable premiums with excellent coverage. My coverage went up almost 40% that first year, and the coverage was much worse. Same for millions of other people. (Of course, the lower income people made out like bandits, but that came at a big cost to middle earners many of whom were priced out of the market. Don't kid yourself.) You also are falling for the liberal lie that we would save money by giving low-income free insurance so that wouldn't use the more expensive ER. Well, news flash: ER visits went UP. The low income who get free insurance and free ER visits just decided to do what was more convenient for them (since someone else would pay for it regardless), and then continued to use the ER. A good answer to this latter problem is to charge EVERYONE a minimal fee for use of the ER for non-ER issues. |
Anonymous
DP. Yup here too. Roaring stock market, record-low unemployment, low-end wages rising for the first time in a decade, and the democrats can only say "it won't last." Well, it sure won't last if we end up with a socialist in the WH. |
Anonymous
No. People's entire retirement could disappear if a SOCIALIST is elected. It seems to me that if half the country could lose their retirement savings if a socialist is elected, then it isn't a very good idea to elect an economy-destroying socialist. But if leftists have really gone that crazy that they are willing to see half of America lose their retirement savings in order to give more free stuff away others, then yes....we need to protect our money from the crazy leftist policies. I plan to move at least half my money into cash if one of the two socialists are the nominee. |
Anonymous
Then why didn't the GOP replace it with something better? Hint: they can't because the ACA WAS the GOP healthcare plan. |
Anonymous
|
Trickle down economics has destroyed the economy multiple times and yet no one cares.
People had this same “economy is roaring!” Bs in 2005 and what happened then? I wish conservatives would read the Bible. A house built on sand, no matter how beautiful, will collapse in the first storm. Our economy is built on personal debt, mortgage debt, student debt, and government debt. Oh, and war forever and buying houses and buying plastic crap from China. Although I think we still make guns? You think that’s sustainable? News flash, the rich do well everywhere. They do better than the American rich in countries that are poor or despotic. |
Anonymous
NP: indeed!! Sometimes I get the impression that Dems are closet Russians 
|