Re: My GOOD comments about Obama

[Guest guest]

Those are my concerns too. He has a lot of supporters who are demanding things that would be very bad for the economy. This goes from his saying he would bankrupt the coal industry (which provides 50% of our power) to forcing all kinds of "green" laws and taxing everything that moves.

An example of this is Al Gore recently saying that he wants a national power grid to shift electrical power from parts of the country that don't need it, to parts that do. What he is really saying is that parts of the nation that have been making the effort to create more energy would find their power taken away and given to places that didn't like California and Massachusetts. However, this would make electricity very expensive in those places and would run up transmission costs.

Here is something that concerns me coming from Argentina. Maybe this is one of the things they are referring to when they say painful choices are coming. My second state of Alabama already tried to steal my land once in a statewide land-grab to win the poor vote. That was before the Supreme Court legalized state theft under its obscene definition of Imminent Domain.

" Halloween arrived early in Argentina this year — in the form of a trick, alas and not a treat.

On Oct. 21, Argentina’s government, led by Peronist President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her predecessor, Néstor Kirchner, announced their intention to expropriate $30 billion held by Argentine citizens in private pension funds (similar to 401(k) retirement savings accounts). The Kirchners need the money to refinance old bad debts so that they can borrow yet more money to keep the country afloat. The announcement rocked investor confidence in Argentina and sent the Buenos Aires stock market plunging.

Argentina’s 2001 sovereign debt default and 2005 debt restructuring set off a chain of events leading to this attempted seizure. The Kirchners’s pursuit of economically disastrous policies and the negative effects of the default are still being felt today, as shown by Argentina's steadily declining scores in the annual Index of Economic Freedom, published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,448385,00.html)

I can see them trying to pull this, saying the state needs to take the investments or land from private holders who have "more than their fair share" and resell it to big corporations to raise money to pay debts or for new programs, which is what Argentina wants to do.

In a message dated 11/8/2008 2:06:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

He has yet to earn my respect, but I am willing to keep an open mind on this, though it is hard when many here attribute him as being partly responsible for Illinois' biggest fiscal crisis in its history. How can one expect him to sort out the US economy when he didn't make any attempt to do so in his own state?AdministratorAOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

I was worried a while back when they started letting people make early withdrawals from private retirement accounts to pay their debts, or just for whatever. What these people didn't realize was that taking that money out now was going to cost them a lot more money in the future from lost interest.

If the government wants to take anyone's money it should be from the fat cats who made a fortune knowing full well that the system was coming apart. I'm sure they could raise at least half a billion from these people. That would be an enormous number of mortgages paid off at no cost to the average citizen. If this was done, however, it would have to be a one time thing and the people that took the bailout would have to be prohibited from taking another mortgage on that property for at least 10 years or so. Then again, that might make them move to a new place since if they sold their house so it would be all profit. Maybe require they hold it for at least 5 years.

At any rate, the government should do what it should have done under JFK and go with a private retirement fund like Chile and other countries and even some localities in the US have done. Bush tried but screwed up when he said people would pick their own stocks. It should be a full market fund with bond options depending on how aggressive the person wants to be. This would have the added benefit that people would demand better supervision of the market and the players. It would also help encourage a demand for dividends again so the people holding the stocks could make money from them without having to sell assets.

In a message dated 11/9/2008 12:55:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Obama already has planned this. Let's remember the idea he has that Americans ought to be able to cash out of their retirement plans early -with the government giving them only a slight penalty for this instead of a big one - so that they can pay off their mortgages. Think about the implications of that. The government gets immediate tax money, people pay off their debts, the economy APPEARS to improve with the mortgage crisis ending, and then yegars down the road no one has any money left to retire on. AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

" On Oct. 21, Argentinaâ's government, led by Peronist President

Cristina FernÃndez de Kirchner and her predecessor, Nstor Kirchner,

announced their intention to expropriate $30 billion held by Argentine

citizens in private pension funds (similar to 401(k) retirement savings

accounts). The Kirchners need the money to refinance old bad debts so

that they can borrow yet more money to keep the country afloat. The

announcement rocked investor confidence in Argentina and sent the

Buenos Aires stock market plunging. " "

Obama already has planned this. Let's remember the idea he has that

Americans ought to be able to cash out of their retirement plans early -

with the government giving them only a slight penalty for this instead

of a big one - so that they can pay off their mortgages.

Think about the implications of that. The government gets immediate tax

money, people pay off their debts, the economy APPEARS to improve with

the mortgage crisis ending, and then yegars down the road no one has

any money left to retire on.

Now where do citizens who take advantage of that dumb plan think they

are going to get money to live on from? Not social security. The

amounts they are getting are pre-determined, and let's remember that

once in our lifetime the mandatory retirement age has been raised

meaning that us young folks have to also wait a few extra years to get

that money.

Further, thanks to everyone eating Happy Meals and such, diabetes is

threatening to lower the national average life span, and you can bet

the mandatory retirement age will NOT go down. Thus many people will be

dying money poor and health poor - all so the government can collect a

few bucks to bail out predatory lenders and so that borrowers can pay

back those lenders.

I cannot believe how stupid people have been this election...well, yes

I can. But you can guess that if a Republican is in office during the

hard financial times ahead THEY will be blamed for it, and not Obama,

or Clinton, or , the second two of whom are responsible for

starting this whole mess.

And for the poster who was happy to see civil rights make such

progress, rest assured that my opinion about Obama has nothing to do

with race and everything to do with his understanding of simple

economics, or lack thereof. One could argue that he can put people into

his cabinet that DO understand the economic situation and how to get

out of it...except he is already making some bad choices, so chances

are he is going to be putting people in there who believe the same

things he does. Yes men and yes women in other words. Not the people we

need.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" At any rate, the government should do what it should have done under

JFK and go with a private retirement fund like Chile and other

countries and even some localities in the US have done. Bush tried

but screwed up when he said people would pick their own stocks. It

should be a full market fund with bond options depending on how

aggressive the person wants to be. This would have the added benefit

that people would demand better supervision of the market and the

players. It would also help encourage a demand for dividends again so

the people holding the stocks could make money from them without

having to sell assets. "

I have been thinking about this carefully for months now and I

believe I will disagree.

Social Security ought to stay set up as it is, but be fully funded so

that interest can accrue and people who pay into it are assured of

getting more out of it than they put in.

Right now, 401Ks and IRAs that allow investment in mutual funds are

sufficient to build up sufficient retirement funds fast. EVERYONE can

invest now, provided they quit fritterring their monies away on toys.

I would like, for example, to see Americans NOT buy a conversion box

for the switch to digital TV, and I would like to see them NOT buy

new TV sets either and instead stick that money in retirement

accounts where it can earn money for them.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I think that as for the private proposal, people should have a choice

in the matter of traditional or private retirement funds, at the very

least in the beginning when the system is first being tested.

[Guest guest]

" I think that as for the private proposal, people should have a choice

in the matter of traditional or private retirement funds, at the very

least in the beginning when the system is first being tested. "

They ought to have the choice, but no one should have to bail them

out if they chose wrong. Most people do not know how to invest or

what to invest in. They tend to lose more than they make. How do you

think it is that there are a select few rich folks on Wall Street and

there are so many small time investors losing their homes and who

have huge credit card debt?

For your average small time investor, investing is like playing at a

casino where the casino wins the majority of the time. Thing is, the

stock market is NOT a casino, and people can win -easily- if they

learn how to play and learn what the rules are. But most people do

not take the time to do this, and so they lose.

Administrator