The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Huh. That's surprising.

[Balta1701]

Huh. That's surprising.

Agreed. Until I hear something else, I'll run with the old gift horse mouth looking quote.

[Balta1701]

Known schizophrenic described as "Obviously" mentally ill by the police bought guns at Walmart. Few weeks later, shot and killed his mother, dismembered her, killed a cat, wound up in an 11 hour standoff with police before giving up.

[Y2HH]

I don't know where to put this, but since this state is owned and controlled by Democrats, I'll credit them...

 

"A convicted murderer from Indiana walked out the front door of the Cook County Jail to freedom after he was mistakenly released by Illinois authorities after a court appearance here on an unrelated charge, authorities announced Thursday.

 

Steven L. Robbins, 44, was serving a 60-year sentence for murder and carrying a handgun without a license in Indiana, the Indiana Department of Corrections said."

 

...awesome.

[Soxbadger]

Its an odd story, a lot doesnt make sense.

 

I cant figure out how they released him as I assume he only had his prisoner jump suit.

[Y2HH]

Its an odd story, a lot doesnt make sense.

 

I cant figure out how they released him as I assume he only had his prisoner jump suit.

 

Dunno...but it's in the paper:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/17933245-418/...in-chicago.html

 

The Tribune's report is even more detailed...and making everyone look even worse:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,7468985.story

[Soxbadger]

Im not doubting it happened. It just seems pretty bizarre. Since the guy was just here for a hearing, Id assume that they did not send regular clothes with him.

 

If youve ever been arrested they take your clothes. When you are being released they give you back your stuff.

 

I just cant imagine that they transferred his clothes, items from Indiana. So when they had nothing, its just odd they didnt figure out something was wrong.

[southsider2k5]

Dunno...but it's in the paper:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/17933245-418/...in-chicago.html

 

The Tribune's report is even more detailed...and making everyone look even worse:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,7468985.story

 

He came from the prison in my hometown. Evidently Cook County summonsed him on an outstanding warrant. He got there, and they threw the charges out, then they let him walk. Brilliant.

[Soxbadger]

They summoned him on charges that had already been dropped. It was over a bench warrant for failing to appear. On a case that had already been dismissed.

 

 

[Jake]

[StrangeSox]

postal service ending saturday mail:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06...-to-trim-costs/

[StrangeSox]

401Ks are a disaster

 

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the median household retirement account balance in 2010 for workers between the ages of 55-64 was just $120,000. For people expecting to retire at around age 65, and to live for another 15 years or more, this will provide for only a trivial supplement to Social Security benefits.

 

And that's for people who actually have a retirement account of some kind. A third of households do not. For these people, their sole retirement income, aside from potential aid from friends and family, comes from Social Security, for which the current average monthly benefit is $1,230.

 

The 401(k) experiment has been a disaster, a disaster which threatens to doom millions to economic misery during the later years of their lives. Proposals to improve our system of private retirement savings -- even good ones -- will offer little to no help for the baby boomers who are currently nearing retirement, and are also unlikely to be of sufficient help for current younger workers. We need to increase Social Security benefits, now and in the future. It's the only realistic way to provide people with guaranteed economic security and comfort post-retirement.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why would you need more than 1200+ a month, plus whatever you have saved for retirement? By 65 you shouldn't have any debt. House, loans, cars, etc should all be paid off. You don't have to worry about healthcare costs or prescription drug costs. What else is there?

[Jake]

Why would you need more than 1200+ a month, plus whatever you have saved for retirement? By 65 you shouldn't have any debt. House, loans, cars, etc should all be paid off. You don't have to worry about healthcare costs or prescription drug costs. What else is there?

 

My grandmother has nothing. Her public housing takes almost her entire SS check. My parents have to buy her supplement insurance for the things Medicare doesn't cover fully. I hope I can avoid that kind of life and if not, that my children are as supportive as hers.

[iamshack]

My parents are going to be f***ed, because financially, they are idiots...

 

Guess who will be supporting their asses?

[StrangeSox]

Why would you need more than 1200+ a month, plus whatever you have saved for retirement? By 65 you shouldn't have any debt. House, loans, cars, etc should all be paid off. You don't have to worry about healthcare costs or prescription drug costs. What else is there?

A significant number of Americans don't live in a house that they own and healthcare costs are still a huge financial burden, and a significant number of those that do live in their own house still have debt tied to it. That's a result of having stagnant wages for decades but increasing cost-of-living. Cars break down and don't last 20-30 years without extensive maintenance.

 

Are you really advocating for a society were most seniors have to scrape by on $1200 a month?

Edited February 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

A significant number of Americans don't live in a house that they own and healthcare costs are still a huge financial burden. Plus cars break down and don't last 20-30 years without extensive maintenance.

 

Are you really advocating for a society were most seniors have to scrape by on $1200 a month?

Again, this is all going to be an unintended consequence of advances in medicine.

 

While the medical industry has found ways to extend the lives of our seniors, our infrastructures our not prepared for this.

[StrangeSox]

Life expectancy bifurcates with wages along "blue collar/white collar" lines. Blue-collar and lower-income workers have actually seen life-expectancy fall lately.

 

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/life-s22.html

 

The people that will be struggling the most are actually living shorter lives.

[Jenksismyhero]

A significant number of Americans don't live in a house that they own and healthcare costs are still a huge financial burden, and a significant number of those that do live in their own house still have debt tied to it. That's a result of having stagnant wages for decades but increasing cost-of-living. Cars break down and don't last 20-30 years without extensive maintenance.

 

Are you really advocating for a society were most seniors have to scrape by on $1200 a month?

 

No, but i'm not sure how much more of a safety net we need to implement on a nation-wide basis, nor do I think it's societies responsibility to take care of those people that plan for the future irresponsibly. It'd be a good thing if the expectation was that your family/friends had to help you out instead of the government. Perhaps people would change their ways, have a little bit more personal responsibility during their lives, knowing they'd eventually have to ask for help from people they know, as opposed to the Big Nanny.

[StrangeSox]

It's hard to save up a significant amount of money for your future when wages have been stagnant for decades but COL hasn't, and when the markets take a huge s*** right as you happen to approach retirement. Nor can you rely on friends and family if they're going through the same situation. You can responsibly plan for the future and still have your plans go to s*** through no fault of your own. Or maybe through fault of your own, but nobody's perfect, and people shouldn't be made to suffer because our experiment in "everyone's an investor! (minus management fees!)" didn't work out so well.

 

I'd much rather have a robust social safety net than rely on everyone to be their own little savers and investors.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's hard to save up a significant amount of money for your future when wages have been stagnant for decades but COL hasn't, and when the markets take a huge s*** right as you happen to approach retirement. Nor can you rely on friends and family if they're going through the same situation. You can responsibly plan for the future and still have your plans go to s*** through no fault of your own. Or maybe through fault of your own, but nobody's perfect, and people shouldn't be made to suffer because our experiment in "everyone's an investor! (minus management fees!)" didn't work out so well.

 

I'd much rather have a robust social safety net than rely on everyone to be their own little savers and investors.

 

If you were that close to retirement none of your investments should have been in the market at all precisely for that risk of losing a big chunk of it.

 

I'm in favor of a social safety net too, but for those people that get screwed by life, not those people that are willfully ignorant/irresponsible about it. If you don't save a dime over your lifetime and SS isn't enough to cover you, whelp, too bad.

[StrangeSox]

Three things, first one most important.

 

1) Why should your ability to retire be tied to your financial investing aptitude (and ability to set aside current earnings for investment)? Why should we prize that as the most important skill someone could have, and why should we funnel so much of our economy towards the financial sector?

 

2) "safe" investments can turn to s***, too. That's why the 2008 collapse was so bad.

 

3) Even if you aren't near retirement when the investments take a s***, it could still mean a "lost decade" that destroys any sort of annual compounding projections. You could be stuck with a 401(k) plan with s***ty high-fee options with terrible returns. You can have no 401(k) option at all.

[Balta1701]

If you were that close to retirement none of your investments should have been in the market at all precisely for that risk of losing a big chunk of it.

I know the answer! You can keep it locked up in a safe asset like your house! Those don't decrease in value!

 

Or a bank! Those are always stable!

[Balta1701]

Boy scouts blink, will continue to associate with homophobes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Three things, first one most important.

 

1) Why should your ability to retire be tied to your financial investing aptitude (and ability to set aside current earnings for investment)? Why should we prize that as the most important skill someone could have, and why should we funnel so much of our economy towards the financial sector?

 

2) "safe" investments can turn to s***, too. That's why the 2008 collapse was so bad.

 

3) Even if you aren't near retirement when the investments take a s***, it could still mean a "lost decade" that destroys any sort of annual compounding projections. You could be stuck with a 401(k) plan with s***ty high-fee options with terrible returns. You can have no 401(k) option at all.

 

(1) First, savings =/= investment. Planning out your long term debt =/= investment. You don't to be a Harvard business grad to understand that later in life, when you stop working, your income stream stops coming in and you need to be prepared.

 

And really, why the hell shouldn't your personal finance practices be the most important skill you have?? That's how you provide for yourself and your family. If this were a hunting/gathering society, wouldn't the most important skill be tied to your ability to obtain food and feed your family? When did that idea get lost? Oh, right, when government became the Great Provider of Everything.

 

(2) Buy annuities if you can't handle risk in the market but still want a steady rate of return. Open a money market account. There are lots of different ways to protect the money you've earned and be conservative with your investments. Anyone over 60 should be doing this anyway.

 

(3) This is true, but better personal finance practices and investment practices as you age limits the damage. At the end of the day everyone that lost their money in the recession, had they stuck with it, made it all back and then some.

 

Why is it the governments responsibility to pay for someones retirement? I just don't get that mindset. I get wanting to help people that have fallen on hard times. I don't get this "right" to be taken care of by the government no matter what your position is in life. I know that's your socialist dream and all, but I literally don't understand that way of thinking.

 

And I still don't see how $1200+ a month isn't sufficient for an old person (or twice that for an old married couple). You don't have kids to pay for, you shouldn't have debt (and even if you pay for a car or pay rent, how much could you possibly need?) Supplemental insurance can be pricey, I get that, but MOST health problems are covered by Medicare, so it's not like you're paying out of pocket costs for every health problem you have.