Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
is that rate of return adjusted for inflation?
yes, people can lose their shirt in real estate. I'm not advocating real estate in place of social security. And I'll try making my point one more time
social security is meant to cover those people who have not saved, invested wisely, etc., and find themselves in old age without a nest egg. it's meant to provide a basic income to prevent our elderly from losing their homes and ending up in the street or eating cat food. That's why I support the concept of a basic government backed retirement plan that is "fool proof". It's humane and compassionate.
yes, I do... thanks :)
isn't amazing how the myth is that the GOP is good for the economy and that the Dems blow it all on "entitlements"... as your article shows, the history nearly opposite.
no brainer - no gainer... (or at least not much) It doesn't work well unless a person choses that and saves consistently over a lifetime. The plans I've read about don't require that kind of choice. Therefore, many will make unwise choices and the plan fails.
I used the real estate example to point out the relatively poor returns the stock market can bring.
good post
only thing missing is the contrast to how well the top few did in comparison
the social security report doesn't detail amount paid for each year... (it details only how much you earned and were taxed on each year). There is a total amount that I paid and a total amount paid by employers.
I made more in the last two years on one real estate transaction that the total amount of social security paid by myself and employers (since 1970). Even if you doubled the total amount, my investments in real estate over the last few years has beaten that by a mile as well. The stock market is not a panacea for everyone. In fact I know many more people that have done poorly in the market than the other way around. How many funds or financial planners actually beat the average? How many do worse? And those are "professionals"!
And further... what about a person who makes a good faith effort on your plan investing in the market, but chooses an Enron??? Are they then just out of luck? No retirment? nada? Eat cat food?
I'd be happier personally if they'd just give me my social security as a lump sum right now. But I don't believe the average american is currently knowledgeable enough to wisely invest their own retirement funds. Obviously it's these same folks that haven't planned or saved up to this point already...
The whole point of social security is to provide for those who end up in old age without means to adequately support themselves... for whatever reason. Even if it's because they simply planned poorly, I don't think they should lose their home and starve on the streets at the age of 65.
looks like it's turning the corner...
... the top 1 percent of Americans owned 47.7 percent of all stock, while the bottom 80 percent owned 4.1 percent.
Between 1989 and 1998, nearly 35 percent of all stock market gains went to the top 1 percent of shareholders.
Again...it's ironic that the argument against allowing people to keep a portion of their Social Security tax for personal investment, is the notion that they'll lose it in the stock market. Well by not allowing them that opportunity we relegate them to certain poverty.
what opportunity? to get taken by the big boys in the market?
A Judicial Green Light for Torture
<< it makes me sick to my stomach to know that out country has sunk so low... we have become a morally bankrupt nation >>
Published: February 26, 2006
The administration's tendency to dodge accountability for lawless actions by resorting to secrecy and claims of national security is on sharp display in the case of a Syrian-born Canadian, Maher Arar, who spent months under torture because of United States action. A federal trial judge in Brooklyn has refused to stand up to the executive branch, in a decision that is both chilling and ripe for prompt overturning.
Mr. Arar, a 35-year-old software engineer whose case has been detailed in a pair of columns by Bob Herbert, was detained at Kennedy Airport in 2002 while on his way home from a family vacation. He was held in solitary confinement in a Brooklyn detention center and interrogated without proper access to legal counsel. Finally, he was shipped off to a Syrian prison. There, he was held for 10 months in an underground rat-infested dungeon and brutally tortured because officials suspected that he was a member of Al Qaeda. All this was part of a morally and legally unsupportable United States practice known as "extraordinary rendition," in which the federal government outsources interrogations to regimes known to use torture and lacking fundamental human rights protections.
The maltreatment of Mr. Arar would be reprehensible — and illegal under the United States Constitution and applicable treaties — even had the suspicions of terrorist involvement proven true. But no link to any terrorist organization or activity emerged, which is why the Syrians eventually released him. Mr. Arar then sued for damages.
The judge in the case, David Trager of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, did not dispute that United States officials had reason to know that Mr. Arar faced a likelihood of torture in Syria. But he took the rare step of blocking the lawsuit entirely, saying that the use of torture in rendition cases is a foreign policy question not appropriate for court review, and that going forward would mean disclosing state secrets.
It is hard to see why resolving Mr. Arar's case would necessitate the revelation of privileged material. Moreover, as the Supreme Court made clear in a pair of 2004 decisions rebuking the government for its policies of holding foreign terrorism suspects in an indefinite legal limbo in Guantánamo and elsewhere, even during the war on terror, the government's actions are subject to court review and must adhere to the rule of law.
With the Bush administration claiming imperial powers to detain, spy on and even torture people, and the Republican Congress stuck largely in enabling mode, the role of judges in checking executive branch excesses becomes all the more crucial. If the courts collapse when confronted with spurious government claims about the needs of national security, so will basic American liberties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/opinion/26sun1.html?th&emc=th
A Growing Afghan Prison Rivals Bleak Guantánamo
<< another shameful mess >>
By TIM GOLDEN and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: February 26, 2006
While an international debate rages over the future of the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the military has quietly expanded another, less-visible prison in Afghanistan, where it now holds some 500 terror suspects in more primitive conditions, indefinitely and without charges.
Pentagon Plans to Tell Names of Detainees (February 26, 2006) Pentagon officials have often described the detention site at Bagram, a cavernous former machine shop on an American air base 40 miles north of Kabul, as a screening center. They said most of the detainees were Afghans who might eventually be released under an amnesty program or transferred to an Afghan prison that is to be built with American aid.
But some of the detainees have already been held at Bagram for as long as two or three years. And unlike those at Guantánamo, they have no access to lawyers, no right to hear the allegations against them and only rudimentary reviews of their status as "enemy combatants," military officials said.
Privately, some administration officials acknowledge that the situation at Bagram has increasingly come to resemble the legal void that led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June 2004 affirming the right of prisoners at Guantánamo to challenge their detention in United States courts.
While Guantánamo offers carefully scripted tours for members of Congress and journalists, Bagram has operated in rigorous secrecy since it opened in 2002. It bars outside visitors except for the International Red Cross and refuses to make public the names of those held there. The prison may not be photographed, even from a distance.
From the accounts of former detainees, military officials and soldiers who served there, a picture emerges of a place that is in many ways rougher and more bleak than its counterpart in Cuba. Men are held by the dozen in large wire cages, the detainees and military sources said, sleeping on the floor on foam mats and, until about a year ago, often using plastic buckets for latrines. Before recent renovations, they rarely saw daylight except for brief visits to a small exercise yard.
"Bagram was never meant to be a long-term facility, and now it's a long-term facility without the money or resources," said one Defense Department official who has toured the detention center. Comparing the prison with Guantánamo, the official added, "Anyone who has been to Bagram would tell you it's worse."
Former detainees said the renovations had improved conditions somewhat, and human rights groups said reports of abuse had steadily declined there since 2003. Nonetheless, the Pentagon's chief adviser on detainee issues, Charles D. Stimson, declined to be interviewed on Bagram, as did senior detention officials at the United States Central Command, which oversees military operations in Afghanistan.
The military's chief spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. James R. Yonts, also refused to discuss detainee conditions, other than to say repeatedly that his command was "committed to treating detainees humanely, and providing the best possible living conditions and medical care in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Convention."
Other military and administration officials said the growing detainee population at Bagram, which rose from about 100 prisoners at the start of 2004 to as many as 600 at times last year, according to military figures, was in part a result of a Bush administration decision to shut off the flow of detainees into Guantánamo after the Supreme Court ruled that those prisoners had some basic due-process rights. The question of whether those same rights apply to detainees in Bagram has not been tested in court.
Until the court ruling, Bagram functioned as a central clearing house for the global fight against terror. Military and intelligence personnel there sifted through captured Afghan rebels and suspected terrorists seized in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, sending the most valuable and dangerous to Guantánamo for extensive interrogation, and generally releasing the rest.
But according to interviews with current and former administration officials, the National Security Council effectively halted the movement of new detainees into Guantánamo at a cabinet-level meeting at the White House on Sept. 14, 2004.
continue...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/26bagram.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
:(
not a clue...
"Sadly, it's another case of a rich man manipulating charity for his own benefit,"
yeap
took the words right out of my mouth!
that sums it up perfectly!
great quote. Somebody needs to engrave that on the White House steps...
what ever happened to honesty and integrity... seems to be in short supply lately in many areas
famous last words... looking more promising this morning...
chart would suggest waiting a bit longer...
Average American Family Income Declines
<< so as the wealthiest few get wealthier... the average american family's income declines... and I'll bet the rise in net worth is due to the real estate bubble... >>
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
58 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The average income of American families, after adjusting for inflation, declined by 2.3 percent in 2004 compared to 2001 while their net worth rose but at a slower pace.
The Federal Reserve reported Thursday that the drop in inflation-adjusted incomes left the average family income at $70,700 in 2004. The median, or point where half the families earned more and half less, did rise slightly in 2004 after adjusting for inflation to $43,200, up 1.6 percent from the 2001 level.
The median, or midpoint for net worth rose by 1.5 percent to $93,100 from 2001 to 2004. That growth was far below the 10.3 percent gain in median net worth from 1998 to 2001, a period when the stock market reached record highs before starting to decline in early 2000.
The Fed's results were published in the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, a document which provides a comprehensive view of how Americans are faring on such pocketbook issues as incomes and net worth.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_bi_ge/family_finances
in content has a whole new meaning... I like this part especially
SCHUMER: Yes. And, look, the bottom line is this. The objections to Halliburton have been that there were no-bid contracts and then they found that they made large amounts of profit. It wasn't Halliburton, per se. It was why did they get a no-bid contract?
right in line with what I'm saying...
You think Snow may have recused himself in the vetting process?
just like gonzo has... not
Bush's buddies are all so busy covering his...
lol... oh, I want to hear all the juicy details!
almost exciting? lol :)
those kind of stories raise us all up :)
news max... hmmm... dubious... I couldn't find anything to back that up... but I did find this...
straight from the horses mouth... nothing about Haliburton... some interesting points he made:
1) it was through Dubai that the money for 911 was laundered
2) two of the 911 terrorists came from Dubai
(there was more...)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5228645&ft=1&f=1003
ok, i missed the humor in your post ;)
what kind of fly-by-night operation is that?
check out the very bottom of their main page
"Copyright © 2003 by your company" ROFL!
and check out this
What Is World News Trust?
World News Trust is a grassroots, progressive, independent news media project.
WNT is a response to the corporatist nature of the modern US news media. It's mission is to fairly and accurately report news of world events to help people understand what is happening in the world and to make informed decisions about their lives. We strive for the highest possible standards of journalistic excellence.
We are non-partisan. Readers and contributors of all political persuasions are welcome to this site. We seek thoughtful, well-reasoned submissions from across the globe on every topic of importance to our daily lives. Editors reserve the right to run those news stories, analyses and commentaries they deem appropriate, and to banish members who do not treat other persons with respect.
How Do I Submit Material For Publication?
At this time, submissions should be e-mailed to worldnewstrust@yahoo.com
Do You Publish Photos?
Yes, we are publishing photos. However, we have a lot of work to do setting up a photo library and using photo editing programs to optimize the appearance of photos.
Is There A Santa Claus?
Yes, Virginia. There is a Santa Claus.
I'm very clear when I'm speculating versus stating facts.
I had no idea... I would have thought that professional atheletes would take good care of their bodies.
Carter is not an idiot and is one of the most honest and giving Presidents of our time. Don't you get tired of everyone trying to villianize him for being set up by Bush Sr.?
Nobody's perfect and nobody is all bad.
go back to my first post... I said "have to wonder"... if there isn't some connection with Carlyle... it's a pattern with him and his family going wayyyy back.
I wonder why it is we remember the bozos like Tonya... although she did have some talent, it was eclipsed by her poor judgement. Are figure skaters all party people like her? I thought she was different from the norm?
nice grub!
nobody said Business is all Evil. But in Bush's case, he has time and again sold out to big business... energy companies and the environment being an obvious and prominent example... even the GOP is objecting to the current manifestation of it.
one of my favorite Olympic moments was watching Sara Hughes win the gold... sad for Kwan at the time... but Sara's performance was fabulous!
I'm very concerned about Bush's priorities to business interests at the expense of the rest of us... I do care.
#msg-9827977
The President and the Ports
The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests.
Published: February 22, 2006
If President Bush follows through on his threat, he'll be making a strange choice for his first veto after more than five years in office. After giving a pass to a parade of misbegotten Congressional initiatives and irresponsible budget packages, he'd be choosing to take a stand over the right to hand control of operations at major American ports to a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and controlled by that government.
And Congress, which is making a bipartisan show of beating its collective chest, is being rather tardy in taking a stand, given the way it has looked on indifferently as the administration has ignored Congress's own rights of oversight and its constituents' right not to be targets of extralegal spying.
Nevertheless, Congress is right to resist the ports deal, in which the company, Dubai Ports World, would take over the British company now running these operations. The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country's control. And there is nothing in the Homeland Security Department's record to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper precautions will be taken.
The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected.
It is no secret that this administration has pursued an aggressive antiregulatory agenda, and it has elevated corporate leaders to its highest positions. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department convened the panel that approved the ports deal, came to government after serving as the chief executive of the CSX Corporation, which was a major port operator when he worked there. (After he left, CSX sold its port operations to Dubai Ports World.)
The administration's intransigence has inspired a rare show of bipartisanship. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, along with a slew of other Republican members of Congress, have joined leading Democrats in objecting to the move. Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, are introducing a bill that would put the decision on hold and require closer examination of the proposal. The bill would ultimately give Congress the final say.
The Schumer-King bill takes the right approach, and members of Congress from both parties should rally around it. Rather than using his first veto on such a wrongheaded cause, President Bush should make the bill unnecessary by acting on his own to undo the ports deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/opinion/22wed1.html?th&emc=th
Executives Modified Enron Data, Jury Is Told
<< let's not forget this is still going on...>>
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
Published: February 22, 2006
HOUSTON, Feb. 21 — The former chief executive of Enron, Kenneth L. Lay, took an active role in preparing misleading and often conflicting statements about financial conditions at the company, a former investor relations manager and board secretary testified on Tuesday.
In the most damaging testimony so far that Mr. Lay, Enron's founder, misled employees and investors about Enron finances, the former board secretary, Paula H. Rieker, provided an insider's perspective on Mr. Lay's actions in the five months after he took over as chief executive in August 2001. At the time, Ms. Rieker, 51, was Enron's manager for investor relations and the corporate secretary. As corporate secretary, she maintained board meeting minutes and answered to Mr. Lay.
Ms. Rieker, testifying in the fourth week of the trial in Federal District Court here, said that another former chief executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling, ordered last-minute changes to at least two quarterly earnings reports so that Enron could meet or beat analysts' expectations. She also said that Mr. Skilling directed her to misrepresent in a news release the source of most of the revenue at the struggling broadband unit.
Mr. Lay, 63, and Mr. Skilling, 52, are accused of conspiring to defraud Enron, the former energy-trading giant that filed for bankruptcy in December 2001. Mr. Skilling, who abruptly quit the company in August 2001, is charged with conspiracy, fraud and insider trading. Mr. Lay is accused of fraud and conspiracy.
Mr. Lay was chief executive for most of the 16 years before Enron collapsed into bankruptcy proceedings — except for a six-month stretch in early 2001 when Mr. Skilling held the post. Despite his position at the top, Mr. Lay has so far been a secondary figure in the criminal case.
Ms. Rieker's testimony supported and in some cases strengthened that of Mark E. Koenig, the former head of investor relations and her boss, who said Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling made statements intended to mislead Wall Street about the true condition of Enron's finances.
Ms. Rieker is among 16 former Enron executives, including Mr. Koenig, who have pleaded guilty to charges and are cooperating with prosecutors. She pleaded guilty in May 2004 to insider trading for selling stock based on information that Enron's broadband unit lost more money than anticipated.
A prosecutor, John Hueston, finished his direct questioning of Ms. Rieker just before day's end.
Dressed in a conservative dark purple suit, Ms. Rieker clearly recalled details of meetings she had with Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling and referred to handwritten notes she took, and to notes Mr. Lay wrote on scripts for conference calls with analysts.
She gave her testimony in clear and unhurried language, often turning directly to the jurors when breaking down complex business concepts.
Jurors were especially attentive Tuesday, with most scribbling furiously as Ms. Rieker talked about the final days before Enron's collapse.
Ms. Rieker, who joined Enron in 1990, clarified testimony from Mr. Koenig that as far back as January 2000, Mr. Skilling had directed last-minute changes to earnings results to put them in line with analysts' expectations.
When the consensus expectation of analysts suddenly rose by 1 cent a share, to 31 cents, she said she "panicked." But a day later, when she was told that Enron would report 31 cents a share, Mr. Koenig explained that Mr. Skilling and the chief accounting officer, Richard A. Causey, had decided that the numbers should be changed. She modified the news release that went out that day.
Then in June 2000, with Enron prepared to meet analysts' earnings expectations of 32 cents a share, Ms. Rieker recalled that Mr. Koenig came into her office and said he had "just come back from a meeting with Skilling where he had said he wanted to beat earnings by 2 or 3 cents."
Four days later, Enron reported 34 cents a share. Analysts were never told about the sudden change.
In preparation for the analysts' meeting that quarter, Ms. Rieker had written in a draft news release that revenues of more than $150 million in Enron's broadband unit included the sale of unused fiber optic cable, or so-called dark fiber.
"Mr. Skilling asked me if we had to put that language in the press release," she said. "I said yes, because virtually all of the revenues came from the sale of dark fiber."
continued...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/business/businessspecial3/22enron.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&...
do you deny the Bush's family connections? just a coincidence?
that's what my friend who told me about it said... it must be hard enough just making the mistake without having it in your face over and over again. I heard she's ok.
And it also is a bummer for the person who won the event... will she be remembered?