European center is pretty much american left.

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
The political description that
fits you best is... LIBERTARIAN

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
You fall exactly on the border
of two political philosophies...
LIBERAL
LIBERTARIAN

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.

World's Smallest Political Quiz

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
The political description that
fits you best is... LIBERTARIAN

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.

SO YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN HUH

America!...FUCK YEAH!
We going to save the mother fucking day!


I am the worst of the worst:

A Liberal Democratic Socialist. BUT! I also serve in the military, and have gone overseas for OIF just to make a few people say, WTF?

Basically, keep the budget tight and don't be stupid with the money, and if you want to do it at home behind closed doors go for it, just leave me and mine out of it.

I would agree.. but at the same time.... jesus fucking christ man ! Why do "tax and spend liberals" seem to grow the economy , but "fiscal fitness conservatives" manage to bury us up to our necks in debt? (considering the current scenario - in four short years - It took Reagan and Bush the first 12 years )

At this point, how are we ever going to pay off the debt we've racked up? The value of the dollar is upheld solely on the faith that that dollar holds value, as you know. If we are unable to repay debt, as a country, that value will plummet. Its already slipping. And the hot button argument today is the "looming social security crisis". AFAIK Social Scurity funds are invested - in US bonds. If we cant pay those, there is a hell of a lot more to worry about than mailing out social security checks to baby boomers. All that aside - social programs don't make a pimple on the ass of a discretionary war in terms of spending.

If I ruin my credit, it would be a pain but I could get by. If the United States of America ruins its credit with the world - we are in some deep, deep dogshit (as would be the whole global economy). No other way of looking at it.

The Bush model would be the equivalent of me quitting my job tomarrow and running my credit cards up to the hilt the same day - with absolutely no plan on what to do when the bill comes due at the end of the month.

If I ruin my credit, it would be a pain but I could get by. If the United States of America ruins its credit with the world - we are in some deep, deep dogshit (as would be the whole global economy). No other way of looking at it.

That's the problem. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't. It's all bonds. I'd rather have at least a part of that be in cash or even mortgage backed securities from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. At least then there is something behind it. Any overages right now that don't need to be paid out to retirees goes towards whatever congressman or the president wants for a special program they decide to. That just bugs me.

We'd be bailed out. No one would let us default. The US economy IS the world economic engine. Even the Chinese are beholden to the US for their economic strength as much as they don't want to be.

That would actually be a good one, or better at least. (putting aside i think real estate is in a bubble right now, home prices are out of wack with reality, at least a little bit). Cause Im really not comfortable with the idea often espoused by some more conservative friends in favor of eliminating social security , or investing all of it directly into the stock market.

Not thats its a bad idea on the very surface, but rather that, while theoretically I could get more out of my social security if that were done... who does it benefit the most? The biggest players on wall street. The biggest companies. Unless they invest in everything, which inherently means making bad investment decisions.

Investing in the Fannie May and Freddie Mac is an investment that I think is far more a public interest. And better use of that type of funds.

Maybe. Even so, a world superpower needing to be bailed out like that? The precedent would have wide reaching implications. I think we'd be looking at decades and decades of stagnation. Im pretty sure China is currently converting thier US Bonds into Euros. I live right near to Canada and I know the exchange rate is slipping. Last I heard it was like $1.25C to $1.00US, I remember when it was more like 1.75:1. The canadian dollar isnt getting stronger, our dollar is weakening.

I'm a fan of the idea of investing some of it the stock market. Invest directly in say total stock market funds and/or total bond market funds. That way you aren't betting for or against anything, just betting that the nature 20 year cycle of the market will go up. Nothing beats the stock market or bond market in a 20 year or longer cycle.

<...>

In this case investing in the total stock market would be best. You are getting the best of diversification. Use the 20 year cycle to your advantage.

I think it would end up making more sense then just bonds. The single biggest buyer of US bonds is the social security system, and that's everything in there. That just scares me.

Right now the euro is worth 1.22140USD, normally it sits about 1.44 so there has been some slide. But, that happens normally.

Fair enough - if the investments were in US companies that fit certain guidelines. IE, not companies that outsource .. basically bulding thier workforce overseas while delivering thier product almost exclusively within the states. Logic shows that that type of model will make money for the companies over the short term could throw the nation into a depression with falling wages on average and less and less disposable incomes, especially the more widespread this becomes -- the majority, the shrinking middle class, would have have less income to spend on these services.

Also, Im curious, a massive outflow of money from the market can have a negative impact (thruough lack of confidence or whatever)... I would also think a massive influx of money into the market could have a negative impact (massive inflation). Comments?

far as I know ever since the big crash in 1929, the government has acted as a 'flywheel' absorbing the sway of the market, always, and with good reason - to prevent any runaway scenario.

I just think truely public funds should be invested in truely public investments. Otherwise, without trying to be too inflammatory - just take it to the craps table. The stock market could meet that criteria depending on how its implemented. The whole deal would have to be watched like a hawk, regardless, IMO. Absolute, unadulterated, 100% disclosure, to the penny (to the thousandth of a penny). Triple audited.

It would, but correct me if I am wrong, if that US bond market fails, our economy has failed. Im not an economist, I am under the assumption that those markets are not independant. In which case I'd reiterate my point... if those bonds cannot be repaid.. it would be completely overshadowed by the 1929-style overall crash of the economy (or there shortly after).

If I'm wrong , just let me know... cause I honestly don't know.

I'm sure I haven't following this closely as you have, but last I remember a year or two ago or whenever... I remember it being fairly close... almost as if the Euro had been initially based on the value of the U.S. Dollar. not 1:1 but very close (the euro being a little bit more valueble)... in that case these figures dont really instill condfidence. Im sure the market in europe is fluctuating... Im also pretty sure the Canadian economy isn't. Maybe if Bobby is still around, he might be following this and be able to provide some insight.

And they all have Muslims so they wont get any benefit from the super growing Muslim economies.

And they all have Muslims so they wont get any benefit from the super growing Muslim economies.

Huh? How would Country A having immigrants from Country X be detrimental to Country A's trade contacts with Country X?

That's activism investing. I can see offering socially responsible funds in it, but for my own personal investing of social security funds I'd prefer just total stock market. That way the next president or even this one can't use the money against his political enemies by investing it in a company that competes against them exclusivily. It's all spread out over the market. Say investing in News Corp because they brown nose Bush, while withholding investment money in Microsoft or GE because MSNBC gives him shit.

True, but you'd get the same effect if all companies in the US did automatic enrollment into 401(k)s when someone was hired. I don't think it would be a massive influx either, specially since it would only be 4% of social security funds. I have 4% of my salary put into an S&P 500 index fund every paycheck, and over the year that will only be $2400, and even with the matching that's only $4800 a year. That's not a lot of money when you consider there are people like Warren Buffett out there with several billion in cash reserves looking for value deals.

Yes and no. The biggest problem with investing, and you see it now in real estate and you saw it in the tech bubble, is people are drawn to what they think is a quick buck. Unless you get in early and out about mid way into it, you aren't going to make a dime, really. The only ones that do are the realtors and the brokers. People lost millions on Enron and Worldcom because they were stupid and bought millions of shares of their own company stocks.

You are right, but I'm looking at Return On Investment (ROI). While the bond market is a guarenteed ROI of a few percent, I'd rather take the 4% that is being proposed and give it the chance of 10% growth. The S&P 500 has, over it's life, averaged 14%. Even over the last 5 years you can't beat the stock market on ROI. I don't mind the idea of investing in mortgage back securities from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac because, at the worst, you end up with land and a house you can sell.

And they all have Muslims so they wont get any benefit from the super growing Muslim economies.

Huh? How would Country A having immigrants from Country X be detrimental to Country A's trade contacts with Country X?

That was a mistype. Teach me to type out anything when I just got in from mowing the lawn.

And they all hate Muslims so they wont get any benefit from the super growing Muslim economies.

Ah. Instead of a statement that made no sense, now you have one that is an obviously incorrect crypto-racist generalization. That's not an improvement.

But most of my objections are coming from a few things - its the reason why I suggested investing in specific companies or 'activism investing' if you wanna call it that (I wouldn't).

This is public money. Its what US citizens have paid into the system with every paycheck they get. I have big issues with it being used to, in effect, reward certain companies with investment capital to (in certain cases) create jobs overseas and not here or even eliminate jobs in the US. Unless youre real wrapped up in big business thats doing this, most people can agree this sort of thing is not good for America. Its why we are in this "fake recovery" AKA Jobless recovery. A jobless recovery isnt a recovery at all. Companies are making more money, but the average person isn't. That type of situation can't last.

But putting all that aside - there is also what you are technically doing when you are investing. You are becoming part owner. Its never very much unless you are talking about guys with big bucks buying up huge percentages of companies - buying themselves right onto the board. This can get real complicated.. obviously the US government and people have a very real interest in the success of US businesses, its good for the economy and thus for everyone (I say that even outright despising supply-side/Reaganomics... I recognize both halves are essential) - but who is it that would technically own shares of these companies?.. The people , everyone? The government? in your system its total investment equally across the board - but it still raises a lot of questions. Would the US government now be part owner of every US company.. no matter how inconsequential, it just sounds weird. I mean these companies are "public" because they are on the market.. but lets be realistic here - they are controlled by wealthy individuals and other big investors. And these people would be given large amounts of investment capital from blatantly public funds. Free money. Chair people could cash out once that money starts coming in and leave it to someone else. I really havent seen anything where any of these implications have been examined that closely.

Obviously, for these reasons, Im much more comfortable with the government investing this money "in itself", bonds, and only betting on our future economic growth to begin with. Or even the government subsidies you mentioned that can earn returns. (College loans, mortages etc.)

You definately have to have an entire agency, very transparent and very closely watching over the whole thing.

Well now hold on there, some companies have stock plans that you invest in diversified portfolios -- at the same time some companies usually offer matched investments in the companies' own stocks. You get 2 for 1 basically. Those people at Enron, that lost what they had in the company, that was definatly some kind of internal retirement plan offered by Enron.

Most people don't do that - invest stongly in thier own company (other than Union guys, far as I can tell. Might seem ironic to some, people with stong anti-union biases, not me. Most union guys will fight thier company constantly for wages etc, but at the same time be very loyal.) Whether they had other options in addition to that, or just chose not to do thier own diversified plans outside of work or thru another system - you cant completely fault those people. They were undeniably the victims in that case. I dunno what the average income or economic situation of most of the employees that got fucked on that deal was. Maybe they didn't have enough income left after expenses to get into much savings and investments (many people don't). That might have been the best deal they were offered.

Like I addressed in the first part - if this sort of thing can simultaneously cover the potential deficts looming in about 2018 or whenever when theres really going to be a crunch on the system, and grow our national economy by investing in US companies - then we should strongly consider it. But I really think the entire thing needs to be combed over by non-partisan think-tanks, experts, analysts .. etc before it could ever be implemented. Rushing into it would be a really bad call IMO.

Also re: this predicted swelling of SocSec thats going to be paid out around that time... I can only kind of see where the idea is coming from that there will be more people collecting more than is being paid in - but last I knew.. while in certain segments of our population birth rates are falling thre are also people immigating here, and isnt the population on the whole on the rise? The baby boomers are fixed number of people thats only going to decrease if anything - what is that projected # of people that would be paying into social security coming from? Again I've only seen very vague figures, and thus this whole "crisis" has, from the start, sounded at least a little bit alarmist.

So explain to me why pretty much every country that is currently in the EU is apposed to a Muslim country, Turkey, to joining?