I second the "they are fools part" Damn economys making My investments grow too much!

Stupid "risky" greatest economy in the world, ever...

It would be interesting to have a counter to compare what your retirement income would have been based on stock market investments (take the average to be fair) and current SSA. After a few years, voters might start asking the trust fund democrats where their money is.

my poor 401k has a swelling problem.

I've linked to you over at my site. This needs to be pounded into the heads of every American. I'm a finance guy, so I know how beneficial long-term investment in the American economy can be. Hell, I'm up over 18% in basically pure index funds over the last two years.

Just for accuracy, I believe the DOW ended up only 138.88 today. The point is, regular folks will benefit greatly from long-term systematic investment in what will continue to be a growing economy!

It's probably a lost cause. I've demonstrated to my father what kind of money he'd have if invested (blue chip stocks, bonds, cds, etc nothing really risky) vs. Social Security and he's still damn Repubs this, damn Repubs that. Poor guy, I guess it's a symptom of being a child of the 60s.

The true fools are the ones who are waiting for government to let them invest part of their social security or relying on social security even being able to pay enough to buy groceries in the future. The difference is doing it yourself and possibly retiring comfortably before age 40 or waiting for the Dems to quit blocking it and eating Alpo in you golden years.

It's all Bush's fault!

Just needed to be said...

Damn this horrible Bush economy!

And you, too, docjim505, for beating me to the punch! LOL

Yeah, but what kinds of Dow points are these? Are they good, manufacturing Dow points, with US Steel, Ford, and GM, like they were in the past? Or weak, no-future Dow points, in companies like McDonalds, Wendys, and Microsoft?

Just curious..if things are so great how come gold is sky high and the freakin' Canada "Loon" is the highest it has been in decades? Should not a great economy mean a stronger dollar? Can someone explain this to me?

As I have chosen to be a teacher for 30 years it is obvious I have no economic sense. My Econ 101 was 34 years ago and I have lost all my notes.

Can't y'all look at it from their perspective for once. The Dems think that America is a failure and they have no solutions or hope for its future. So, of course they think investing in American markets are too risky.

Good news on the economy? the Dow has been FLAT under the boy king's watch (see?). Sorry, but that New Hampshire bred crackerpolitik bullshit can't fly in anyones airspace.

Curse that liberal stock market and their Bush Derangement Syndrome!!!

Posted by: MyPetGloat at May 5, 2006 12:15 AM

Well maybe they should invest their money in some rock solid investmenrts, like for instance The palestinian Hamas war bond stocks with a guaranteed return of .023% over the next 200 years. or the U.N. sudan relief dablooms options! where a $20,000,000 donation guarantees you a yearly tour of the Darfur regions rich ethnical culture. of course bodyguards are extra as are Koffis concubines.

LO,

Obviously, they're McDonald's points. Only companies doing well in the Worst Economy Since the Great Depression(TM).

Funny post!

Field Negro for U.N. Ambassador!

Kim

Your economics are just a bit simple-minded.

The Nasdaq is still less than half of what it was before Bush busted the market.

And when Bush's gas inflation ripples thru the economy in the next few months, you'll be lucky to see much growth in the market, if not a big retreat w/ further Fed rate increases to dampening the market to rein in inflation.

And w/ all that vaunted econ growth, it won't go far to buy $5 gas and pay $100's to heat a home.

The biggest point about your simpleton economics & SS is that the Dow is still a couple hundred points behind where it was 6 years ago. So what kind of marvelous investment growth is that???

6 years & the Dow is nearly back to where it was. Sounds more like tredding water to me.

You silly Repubs just cannot make a silk purse out of the Bush Sow's ear.

Mak, you honestly are going to try with a straight face and blame the phony Tech Bubble (and Nasdaq is primarily Tech) bursting on Bush?

The bubble started bursting in 99...2 years before Bush took office. Whether Bush or Gore would have been in office that slide would have been inevitable as people realized the supposed econmic boom of the 90s under Clinton, was, like him, all lies, smoke and mirrors.

Could the roaring economy and the skyrocketing Dow possibly be related to Bush's "risky tax scheme?"

Nah, the MSM would never make that connection.

One prominent Pulitzer Prize winning author wrote just a few weeks that we were at an economic precipice. Apparently he doesn't keep up with the news very well.

-Michael McCullough
Stingray:  a blog for salty Christians

"...that the Dow is still a couple hundred points behind where it was 6 years ago. So what kind of marvelous investment growth is that?"

That's only relevent if you're invested in funds that track the market. Indivividual company stock and other kinds of funds go up or down despite what the market is doing. (especially over 6 years)

First I noticed that Kim didnt use any objectivity;

But the privatization of Social Security, Salazar said, "would lead to a 40 percent cut in current benefits for middle-class beneficiaries, add 5 trillion dollars to our national debt and make the system weaker in the future."

Of Course the DEMS didn't Kill anything, you act is if this was put to a VOTE and it was not. its a PLAN. The same one the majority of the people were against a while back. Same Plan.

That means that the STOCK Market "thing" you spoke of HAS NOTHING whatsoever with the DEMS, Bush's Plan, or your precious profits.

Truly Pathetic SPIN.
Can't you guys see that?
No Bill
No Vote
A Plan NOT IN EFFECT
Stock Market effected a PLAN thats not in EFFECT?

What a crappy Article, AS USUAL, from the BLAME GAME people at WHIZZBang.
Sheesh.....
Now delete my post for Exposing your OBVIOUS Political Propagandistic Ass Kissing.
Do they actually PAY you to write such TRASH?

Over the past year, the coalition has cut the number of suicide attacks Zarqawi can launch. First, operations in the Euphrates River Valley disrupted the flow of foreign extremists from Syria, and now intelligence has allowed coalition forces to kill or capture a significant number of foreign fighters.

JOURNALISM 101
"If Professor Pulitzer Prize-winner Hanchette had bothered to do any research, he would have found that Bush's "favor-the rich" tax system really doesn't favor the rich at all and the rich pay a much greater share of taxes than they did 26 years ago. But he didn't do his research."

A year ago, Lynch said, there were on average 75 suicide attacks per month. Today there are less than 25 per month.

Be careful reading stuff on the DOD sites, the Blowback [War propaganda] comes mainly from them. Secondly read VERY carefully what they say.

Over the past year, the coalition has cut the number of suicide attacks Zarqawi can launch.

It's not speaking of how many suicide attacks.
Its speaking of the ones by Zarqawi.

READ DOD STUFF very carefully. They are Good at Psyops.

I guess, by the previous poster that a Pultizer Prize Winner is a 'Liberal' by Default.

Funny

He was a founding Editor of USA Today.
A Gannett Publication. Of course Gannett also does;
Army Times Publishing Company

* Army Times
* Navy Times
* Navy Times Marine Corps
* Air Force Times
* Federal Times
* Defense News
* Military Market

LMAO you Silly Rabbits.

Mr ho want to kno

has just kicked your ass
-Again.

Let's see how you feel the next time the stock market takes a dive...

Allowing someone to lose their life savings in the stock market, and then for them to not have Social Security to fall back on, would create huge problems.

Social Security is an issue that will probably come back to haunt the Democrats. Every pay stub I get tells me exactly how much money the government takes from me for a program I will likely never benefit from.

The Democrats want to take money from me that I should be saving for my retirement, and buy senior citizen votes with it. They've taken a demographic that should probably know better and turned them into just another entitlement class.

I have a feeling we'll see where that sort of thing ends up as the welfare states in western Europe collapse. If they can't handle hot weather, what will they do when the bottom falls out?

Well, the critics may have a good argument - let's leave Social Security the way it is for a while, or perhaps raise the retirement eligibility to ~70, or more, or maybe the threshold for benefits, or the social security taxes themselves. If that is the argument - then good luck.

But for them to say that an entirely voluntary option for people to take the money that they pay in to grow with the U.S. market is too risky just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, would you want your retirement money in the most efficient engine on the planet, the U.S. economy, or the least efficient engine on the planet, the U.S. Government? Is there a choice? Should there be a choice? Are these viable questions even?

They say that one can do what they wish with their body, i.e. abortion but not with their hard earned money is inexplicable, really.

While that's waaay off topic, and a total generalization of those who are for and against Bush's social security plan, it's the only symbolism that I can think of that puts the argument [against] in perspective.