Skip to main content

So much for the "Socialist" approach...

 

September 3, 2014

BALDWINSVILLE, N.Y. – Another two bite the dust.

michelle-obama-the-side-eyeCentral New York’s Fayetteville-Manlius and Baldwinsville school districts are the latest to ditch the National School Lunch Program, which was revamped in 2010 under the guidance of First Lady Michelle Obama in an effort to fight childhood obesity.

Strict limits on calories, fat, sugar, carbohydrates, sodium and other aspects of the school lunch imposed by the federal government on schools participating in the free and reduced lunch program has not only increased cafeteria costs, they’ve resulted in a drastic drop in the number of participating students.

At Fayetteville-Manlius, Baldwinsville, and thousands of other districts the new regulations resulted in a sharp downturn in students who eat school lunch and a sharp increase in food waste. The lost sales are threatening the viability of cafeteria programs in schools across the country, prompting many to do without federal subsidies to serve students food they’ll actually buy and eat.

“Grilled cheese and tomato soup was a very popular lunch,” Baldwinsville Superintendent David Hamilton toldWRVO public media. “We couldn’t offer that under the new guidelines of the federal government. Spaghetti and meatballs, we couldn’t offer that either.”

As a result of last year’s school lunch menu high school lunch sales in Baldwinsville plummeted from about 600 to 430 students per day.

“We all want a lower carb diet. But it’s hard to sell a sub on something that looks more like a piece of paper than a sub roll,” Hamilton said. “I understand the shift but now the students aren’t opting to eat any of that. They’re stepping away entirely.”

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

Perhaps you should take measures into your own hands in regard to your family, instead of waiting for Michelle to rescue them. I learned a long time ago that the government cannot save you, or your family.  Teach them yourself, or take the initiative to try.  I guess however if you sit around and wait for someone else to do it, you can't blame yourself.

Originally Posted by teyates:

Perhaps you should take measures into your own hands in regard to your family, instead of waiting for Michelle to rescue them. I learned a long time ago that the government cannot save you, or your family.  Teach them yourself, or take the initiative to try.  I guess however if you sit around and wait for someone else to do it, you can't blame yourself.

____

I have counseled with my family member and have had a little success, but not enough.  There is only so much one can do when dealing with a headstrong, know-it-all teenager.  But it is often amazing how short a time it takes some of them to face reality and discover that their parents and grandparents were not clueless ignoramuses after all.

Well here is the thing Contenduh.  If that know it all teenager will not listen to their parents or grandparents, they darned sure are not going to listen to Michelle. If they have pocket change they are not going to go find a carrot to munch on because Michelle says it is good. It ust is not going to happen.  She is barking up the wrong tree. What the current initiative is doing is forcing kids to find something else somewhere else, and most of the time they find what is cheap and convenient, fast food or snack food which is not healthy.  School lunches for the most part were fairly nutrional when I was in school, I ate them and they did not kill me.  What we are doing to the school lunch program is a mistake.  Instead of teaching them to eat something decent we are trying to force something down them which they will not eat.

Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

While some schools got students's opinion of the new menus, many did not.  Before you feed a customer, determine if he will eat what you are preparing. Healthy food can be tasty, I do it every day.  However, you must take the customer and his tastes into consideration.  Despite their youth, kids are the most conservative when it comes to food.  If its not something they are familiar with or doesn't appear at least edible, they aren't having it. 

 

I remember one dish I hated in the cafeteria -- spinach and cornbread.  Drowned the spinach in vinegar and slathered butter on the cornbread. I love good cornbread, just not that institutional stuff. 

Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

==========

Correction--- "is still costing " .

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

==========

My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.

 

 

Last edited by seeweed
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

==========

My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.

 

 

It would be nice to have a politician that would stop screwing over young working Americans by forcing them into the Social Security ponzi scheme.

 

Young people would be much better off at retirement if they had to make MANDATORY contributions to their own private account as opposed to putting into some blackhole gov't program.

 

We need a candidate that believes in personal freedom across the board for Americans, not just in personal freedom on certain things.

 

The Dems that want gov't to control how a person saves for retirement or a business owner runs their business are no different than the repubs that want to control who can get married, what someone can smoke, or what a woman does with her body. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

==========

My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.

 

 

It would be nice to have a politician that would stop screwing over young working Americans by forcing them into the Social Security ponzi scheme.

 

Young people would be much better off at retirement if they had to make MANDATORY contributions to their own private account as opposed to putting into some blackhole gov't program.

 

We need a candidate that believes in personal freedom across the board for Americans, not just in personal freedom on certain things.

 

The Dems that want gov't to control how a person saves for retirement or a business owner runs their business are no different than the repubs that want to control who can get married, what someone can smoke, or what a woman does with her body. 

SS is not all about retirement. You should read, learn .

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

==========

My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.

 

 

It would be nice to have a politician that would stop screwing over young working Americans by forcing them into the Social Security ponzi scheme.

 

Young people would be much better off at retirement if they had to make MANDATORY contributions to their own private account as opposed to putting into some blackhole gov't program.

 

We need a candidate that believes in personal freedom across the board for Americans, not just in personal freedom on certain things.

 

The Dems that want gov't to control how a person saves for retirement or a business owner runs their business are no different than the repubs that want to control who can get married, what someone can smoke, or what a woman does with her body. 

SS is not all about retirement. You should read, learn .

Nice retort. I know there are the disability components.

 

However, I am talking about retirement. Younger workers are screwed being forced into a program that generates money market returns over the course of their working career.

 

The working poor would have more money at retirement if they could contribute to their own private account instead of Social Security.

 

You are so indoctrinated into your beliefs that you are totally unwilling to discuss alternatives that could be better for everyone. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

==========

My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.

 

 

It would be nice to have a politician that would stop screwing over young working Americans by forcing them into the Social Security ponzi scheme.

 

Young people would be much better off at retirement if they had to make MANDATORY contributions to their own private account as opposed to putting into some blackhole gov't program.

 

We need a candidate that believes in personal freedom across the board for Americans, not just in personal freedom on certain things.

 

The Dems that want gov't to control how a person saves for retirement or a business owner runs their business are no different than the repubs that want to control who can get married, what someone can smoke, or what a woman does with her body. 

SS is not all about retirement. You should read, learn .

Nice retort. I know there are the disability components.

 

However, I am talking about retirement. Younger workers are screwed being forced into a program that generates money market returns over the course of their working career.

 

The working poor would have more money at retirement if they could contribute to their own private account instead of Social Security.

 

You are so indoctrinated into your beliefs that you are totally unwilling to discuss alternatives that could be better for everyone. 

====

There is no law against private investment . I know, I saved, bought stocks, and invested in a 401k, so that argument has no merit.
The problem with the argument of privatizing SS, is that on occasion this country gets so dumb , they elect a Republican president, and then the whole thing goes to hell.
I lost half of my 401k, most of my stocks quit paying dividends , and the economy got so weak that the Feds lowered the interest rate to damm near nothing so my CD's upon renewal get that damm near nothing returns, which started during the Bush reign of ruin.
I for one, am glad I still have the security of SS.
All that other sounds good, but the real proof is to go back and look at history before there was SS , and see what happens when the Coolidge s and the Hoover s get into power and there is no safety net. SS, and UI are about the only things that kept the Bush depression from becoming another Great Depression. People before the Great Depression could invest their retirement as they saw fit, and wound up not doing it. Had to load the jalopies and head for Cal to pick fruit.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

==========

My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.

 

 

It would be nice to have a politician that would stop screwing over young working Americans by forcing them into the Social Security ponzi scheme.

 

Young people would be much better off at retirement if they had to make MANDATORY contributions to their own private account as opposed to putting into some blackhole gov't program.

 

We need a candidate that believes in personal freedom across the board for Americans, not just in personal freedom on certain things.

 

The Dems that want gov't to control how a person saves for retirement or a business owner runs their business are no different than the repubs that want to control who can get married, what someone can smoke, or what a woman does with her body. 

SS is not all about retirement. You should read, learn .

Nice retort. I know there are the disability components.

 

However, I am talking about retirement. Younger workers are screwed being forced into a program that generates money market returns over the course of their working career.

 

The working poor would have more money at retirement if they could contribute to their own private account instead of Social Security.

 

You are so indoctrinated into your beliefs that you are totally unwilling to discuss alternatives that could be better for everyone. 

====

There is no law against private investment . I know, I saved, bought stocks, and invested in a 401k, so that argument has no merit.
The problem with the argument of privatizing SS,
I lost half of my 401k, most of my stocks quit paying dividends , anis that on occasion this country gets so dumb , they elect a Republican president, and then the whole thing goes to hell.d the economy got so weak that the Feds lowered the interest rate to damm near nothing so my CD's upon renewal get that damm near nothing returns, which started during the Bush reign of ruin.

I for one, am glad I still have the security of SS.
All that other sounds good, but the real proof is to go back and look at history before there was SS , and see what happens when the Coolidge s and the Hoover s get into power and there is no safety net. SS, and UI are about the only things that kept the Bush depression from becoming another Great Depression. People before the Great Depression could invest their retirement as they saw fit, and wound up not doing it. Had to load the jalopies and head for Cal to pick fruit.

 

SW,

The market goes up or down during Repub presidencies just like it does under Dem presidencies. In fact, the market actually does best when we have gridlock as opposed to complete control by 1 party across the board.

 

The first bolded part shows that you have no interest in a rational discussion. Bush did not cause the credit bubble and he did not make the stock market go down. If that is your rationale, then you have to blame Clinton for the tech bubble bursting. BTW, both notions are equally ridiculous. 

 

As to the second bolded part, I have already explained numerous times that contributions to a private retirement account would be mandatory. So the "they won't do it" argument is not relevant. This system is working great in other countries.

 

Over the long haul stocks will generate more return. That is why it is better for younger Americans to be able to have a private account to go along with or replace their SS. I think a good compromise would be to allow a younger worker's SS be invested in mutual funds as opposed to locking them into a money market over their entire working career.  As these younger workers become older workers then their investments need to switch to more conservative investments.

 

BTW, based on your age(your retired right?) you should not have lost 50% in '08. Without knowing your entire situation I would say that you were invested too aggressively. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

==========

My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.

 

 

It would be nice to have a politician that would stop screwing over young working Americans by forcing them into the Social Security ponzi scheme.

 

Young people would be much better off at retirement if they had to make MANDATORY contributions to their own private account as opposed to putting into some blackhole gov't program.

 

We need a candidate that believes in personal freedom across the board for Americans, not just in personal freedom on certain things.

 

The Dems that want gov't to control how a person saves for retirement or a business owner runs their business are no different than the repubs that want to control who can get married, what someone can smoke, or what a woman does with her body. 

SS is not all about retirement. You should read, learn .

Nice retort. I know there are the disability components.

 

However, I am talking about retirement. Younger workers are screwed being forced into a program that generates money market returns over the course of their working career.

 

The working poor would have more money at retirement if they could contribute to their own private account instead of Social Security.

 

You are so indoctrinated into your beliefs that you are totally unwilling to discuss alternatives that could be better for everyone. 

====

There is no law against private investment . I know, I saved, bought stocks, and invested in a 401k, so that argument has no merit.
The problem with the argument of privatizing SS,
I lost half of my 401k, most of my stocks quit paying dividends , anis that on occasion this country gets so dumb , they elect a Republican president, and then the whole thing goes to hell.d the economy got so weak that the Feds lowered the interest rate to damm near nothing so my CD's upon renewal get that damm near nothing returns, which started during the Bush reign of ruin.

I for one, am glad I still have the security of SS.
All that other sounds good, but the real proof is to go back and look at history before there was SS , and see what happens when the Coolidge s and the Hoover s get into power and there is no safety net. SS, and UI are about the only things that kept the Bush depression from becoming another Great Depression. People before the Great Depression could invest their retirement as they saw fit, and wound up not doing it. Had to load the jalopies and head for Cal to pick fruit.

 

SW,

The market goes up or down during Repub presidencies just like it does under Dem presidencies. In fact, the market actually does best when we have gridlock as opposed to complete control by 1 party across the board.

 

The first bolded part shows that you have no interest in a rational discussion. Bush did not cause the credit bubble and he did not make the stock market go down. If that is your rationale, then you have to blame Clinton for the tech bubble bursting. BTW, both notions are equally ridiculous. 

 

As to the second bolded part, I have already explained numerous times that contributions to a private retirement account would be mandatory. So the "they won't do it" argument is not relevant. This system is working great in other countries.

 

Over the long haul stocks will generate more return. That is why it is better for younger Americans to be able to have a private account to go along with or replace their SS. I think a good compromise would be to allow a younger worker's SS be invested in mutual funds as opposed to locking them into a money market over their entire working career.  As these younger workers become older workers then their investments need to switch to more conservative investments.

 

BTW, based on your age(your retired right?) you should not have lost 50% in '08. Without knowing your entire situation I would say that you were invested too aggressively. 

 

 

===========

I built my retirement on several different things, SS, Pension from two places, several rental properties , and investment in stocks, and a 401k, US bonds, and bank CD's.
Bush screwed up the bond retirement plan totally , by ending the "H" bond advantage which allowed you to buy them using E bonds without paying the taxes. Bush, a consummate tax raiser on the poor and middle class, ended that advantage, and started borrowing more money from China.
My stocks got cut in about half of the value, and quit paying dividends.
My 401k got cut in half as well, but since I retired , I have not had to tap that resource, and since Obama has been president, it has almost tripled in value. Thank you Obama.
My regular stocks have yet to gain back their pre-Obama value, but have started paying dividends a couple of years ago, but only at 20% as much as before .
If you think Clinton caused the crash, there is really nothing more we can discuss.

 

Last edited by seeweed
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL

==========

My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.

 

 

It would be nice to have a politician that would stop screwing over young working Americans by forcing them into the Social Security ponzi scheme.

 

Young people would be much better off at retirement if they had to make MANDATORY contributions to their own private account as opposed to putting into some blackhole gov't program.

 

We need a candidate that believes in personal freedom across the board for Americans, not just in personal freedom on certain things.

 

The Dems that want gov't to control how a person saves for retirement or a business owner runs their business are no different than the repubs that want to control who can get married, what someone can smoke, or what a woman does with her body. 

SS is not all about retirement. You should read, learn .

Nice retort. I know there are the disability components.

 

However, I am talking about retirement. Younger workers are screwed being forced into a program that generates money market returns over the course of their working career.

 

The working poor would have more money at retirement if they could contribute to their own private account instead of Social Security.

 

You are so indoctrinated into your beliefs that you are totally unwilling to discuss alternatives that could be better for everyone. 

====

There is no law against private investment . I know, I saved, bought stocks, and invested in a 401k, so that argument has no merit.
The problem with the argument of privatizing SS,
I lost half of my 401k, most of my stocks quit paying dividends , anis that on occasion this country gets so dumb , they elect a Republican president, and then the whole thing goes to hell.d the economy got so weak that the Feds lowered the interest rate to damm near nothing so my CD's upon renewal get that damm near nothing returns, which started during the Bush reign of ruin.

I for one, am glad I still have the security of SS.
All that other sounds good, but the real proof is to go back and look at history before there was SS , and see what happens when the Coolidge s and the Hoover s get into power and there is no safety net. SS, and UI are about the only things that kept the Bush depression from becoming another Great Depression. People before the Great Depression could invest their retirement as they saw fit, and wound up not doing it. Had to load the jalopies and head for Cal to pick fruit.

 

SW,

The market goes up or down during Repub presidencies just like it does under Dem presidencies. In fact, the market actually does best when we have gridlock as opposed to complete control by 1 party across the board.

 

The first bolded part shows that you have no interest in a rational discussion. Bush did not cause the credit bubble and he did not make the stock market go down. If that is your rationale, then you have to blame Clinton for the tech bubble bursting. BTW, both notions are equally ridiculous. 

 

As to the second bolded part, I have already explained numerous times that contributions to a private retirement account would be mandatory. So the "they won't do it" argument is not relevant. This system is working great in other countries.

 

Over the long haul stocks will generate more return. That is why it is better for younger Americans to be able to have a private account to go along with or replace their SS. I think a good compromise would be to allow a younger worker's SS be invested in mutual funds as opposed to locking them into a money market over their entire working career.  As these younger workers become older workers then their investments need to switch to more conservative investments.

 

BTW, based on your age(your retired right?) you should not have lost 50% in '08. Without knowing your entire situation I would say that you were invested too aggressively. 

 

 

===========

I built my retirement on several different things, SS, Pension from two places, several rental properties , and investment in stocks, and a 401k, US bonds, and bank CD's.
Bush screwed up the bond retirement plan totally , by ending the "H" bond advantage which allowed you to buy them using E bonds without paying the taxes. Bush, a consummate tax raiser on the poor and middle class, ended that advantage, and started borrowing more money from China.
My stocks got cut in about half of the value, and quit paying dividends.
My 401k got cut in half as well, but since I retired , I have not had to tap that resource, and since Obama has been president, it has almost tripled in value. Thank you Obama.
My regular stocks have yet to gain back their pre-Obama value, but have started paying dividends a couple of years ago, but only at 20% as much as before .
If you think Clinton caused the crash, there is really nothing more we can discuss.

 

So Bill Clinton and Obama made stocks go up? George W made stocks go down? LOL. It's good to know that it is that easy. 

 

The credit bubble bursting in 2008 caused the stock market to tank. W Bush did not cause the credit bubble.

 

Why do you still blame Bush for the recession Obama inherited but you don't blame Clinton for the recession that Bush inherited? This is your rationale not mine. 

 

Your entire line of thinking is based on Dems= good & Repubs=bad.

 

FYI, Bush cut taxes for the poor and middle class. 

Seeweed,

 

In case you were wondering from 1928-2013 the stock market has done the best under the following political environments. As you can see gridlock is usually the best scenario. 

 

1. Dem-President, Repub-House, Repub- Senate

2. Repub- President, Dem- House, Repub- Senate

3. Dem- President, Repub-House, Dem- Senate

4.  Repub- President, Dem- House, Dem- Senate

5. Dems across the board

6. Repubs across the board.

7. Repub- President, Repub-House, Dem- Senate

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.  One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.

 

Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.

============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.

 

--------------

 

Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly  in lives and treasure.

===============
Don't worry about it contendah, all you liberals have to do is print more money for your failed social programs.

And, are you comparing to Americans dying in war to a bunch of kids who don't like the food they're being forced to eat? Apples and oranges....typical liberal logic.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×