"... by the outpouring of affection and respect that has come from people all over the country in the last several days. I’m not saying he is going to run, but he wouldn’t be human and he wouldn’t be a Kennedy if he didn’t give serious thought to running for the so-called Kennedy seat."
Oh, grotesque! So-called Kennedy seat. Who calls it that? I don't. I hope you don't.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
(the other kev)
Funny, I've always called it the 'get out of jail' seat.
Sure, it is his seat. He had it for almost 50 years and he still had the seat when he died. Technically - on the last point at least - it is his seat.
What else would it be?
I think you are assuming they are just calling it "The Kennedy Seat". As in, it will always be called that even after someone else wins it. But I would say any Senator's seat is a seat in their name until someone else comes along to take it or win it or be a replacement.
"any Senator's seat is a seat in their name until someone else comes along to take it or win it or be a replacement"
In a republic, like the US used to be, the seat belonged to the citizens of the respective state.
After two Bush presidencies, I am not interested in ANY Bushes running for anything for awhile at least. I have to imagine that most Democrats feel the same way about the Kennedies...right? ... right?
Apparently someone named "So" called it that. Some kind of oriental, I would guess.
Obama is in the Bush seat? You bastards!
Is this tasteless or hilarious?
"Who calls it that? I don't. I hope you don't."
I don't either, but then I moved to NY from Massachusetts long ago. That kind of talk will stop when the voters stop behaving as if they lived in a dynasty. The voters made a start (somewhat) when one of the Kennedy kids lost her bid to become the governor of MD a few years ago (and losing to a Repub in MD took some talent). I'm afraid Massachusetts still has a way to go on that score.
Looked at more broadly, dynasties are strong in lots of areas of contemporary life -- not just politics, but Hollywood/TV, pop music, pro sports, to name a few. In those fields where talent and ability are paramount (e.g., pro sports), the dynastic element is partly a result of good genes. But in other areas, particularly where good PR/marketing is what matters most, it's today's version of the 'old boys' club. As with the original version, I suspect it tends to favor the boys.
Well, let's consider Joe's qualifications and how they compare to Teddy's.
He's a Kennedy in Massachusetts. No further qualifications have ever been needed. Check.
He was repeatedly expelled from schools for bad behavior. Check.
He repeatedly cheated on his first wife before dumping her. Check.
He hasn't *quite* managed to kill a girlfriend with his car, but he came close. I think we can give him partial credit on that point. Paralyzing a lover should be worth something, after all.
He does not, however, appear to have a serious and uncontrolled drinking problem. Tough break, there.
So let's see. He's a 3.5 on the 5 point Ted Kennedy Personal Achievement Scale. That's fairly impressive, but I suspect there are a few other people in his family tree who can beat it. Could be a tough race!
he wouldn't be human and he wouldn't be a Kennedy if he didn't give serious thought to running for the so-called Kennedy seat."
Granted, not running for the seat would mark a definite break with the family's bottomless sense of entitlement.
But "wouldn't be human"? There's nothing particularly "human" about children running to replace their parents in Congress. Most don't.
Congressional dysfunction is the plan.
It's not an accident.
The Dream Lives On. Thank Darwin the Nightmare is Dead.
Pogo
Yeah but I have read enough of your posts to know that this couldn't possibly be a Republic anymore. Remember now that Obama and the Demcrats run everything it is a Stalinist style dictatorship.
So by your own logic this seat will be seated by whomever Obama wants it to go to, oh and the elections will be suspended and martial law will be implemented....
In 1945, the Merchandise Mart was purchased for $12.5 million by former Ambassador to Great Britain Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., the father of future U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Later managed by Sargent Shriver, the building was owned for more than 50 years by the Kennedy family through Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc. until 1998, when MMPI was acquired by Vornado Realty Trust for $450 million in cash and a $100-million-plus stake in Vornado. In early 2007, the building was valued at $917 million.
So since 1998 they've had $450 million, and a $100 million share of The Vornado Real Estate Trust.
Worse comes to worse they can probably buy it-the Senate seat.
Oh and since the $100 million share of The Vornado Real Estate trust I'm sure that $100 million since 1998 has grown.
The Vornado Real Estate Trust-
Divisions
Vornado Realty Trust controls over $20 billion in assets, including $12.7 billion in real estate net of depreciation and amortization, $2.8 billion in cash, and $1.5 billion of investments as of 3Q07. These holdings are divided into the following divisions:
New York Office
1290 Avenue of Americas
Bloomberg Tower
20 Broad St
770 Broadway
150 East 58th St
640 Fifth Ave
689 Fifth Ave
40 Fulton St
330 Madison Ave
595 Madison Ave
Mutual of New York Building
90 Park Ave
350 Park Ave
One Penn Plaza
Two Penn Plaza
11 Penn Plaza
888 Seventh Avenue
155 Spring St
909 Third Ave
40-42 Thompson St
866 UN Plaza
100 West 33rd St
7 West 34th St
330 West 34th St
29 West 57th St
31 West 57th St
49 West 57th St
50 West 57th St
Washington D.C. Office
Arlington/Rosslyn-Courthouse
Rosslyn Plaza C
Rosslyn Plaza E
Rosslyn Plaza D
Rosslyn Plaza North
Arlington Plaza
Courthouse Plaza One
Courthouse Plaza Two
Crystal City
Bethesda/Democracy Plaza
One Democracy Plaza
Two Democracy Plaza
The Bedford Building
The Camalier Building
The Champlain Building
The Westmoreland Building
Reston/Dulles Corridor
Reston Executive Center I
Reston Executive Center II
Reston Executive Center III
Commerce Executive Park III
Commerce Executive Park IV
Commerce Executive Park V
Skyline City, Falls Church, VA
Skyline One
Skyline Two
Skyline Three
Four Skyline Place
Five Skyline Place
Six Skyline Place
Seven Skyline Place
One Skyline Tower
Tysons Corner/Fairfax
Fairfax Square
Tysons Dulles Plaza I
Tysons Dulles Plaza II
Tysons Dulles Plaza III
Washington, D.C.
1700 K St
1725 DeSales St
1999 K St
1925 K St
800 17th St (PNC Center)
1919 M St
1101 17th St
2101 L St
1150 17th St
1776 K St (Montgomery Building)
1666 K St
1750 Pennsylvania Ave
1730 M St
1140 Connecticut Ave
Nassif Building
Cont.-
Malls
Bergen Town Center, NJ
Beverly Connection, CA
Broadway Mall, NY
Downtown Crossing, MA
Green Acres Mall, NY
Kings Plaza , NY
Las Catalinas Mall, PR
Manassas Mall, VA
Monmouth Mall, NJ
Montehiedra Town Center, PR
Oakdale Mall, NY
Rego Park Center, NY
Springfield Mall, VA
The Shops On Lake Avenue, CA
Waterside Place, MA
New York City Retail
Upper West Side
211-217 Columbus Ave
Upper East Side
1035 Third Ave
677-679 Madison Ave
759-771 Madison Ave
828-850 Madison Ave
Midtown West
27-29 West 57th St
31 West 57th St
49 West 57th St
50 West 57th St
825 Seventh Ave
888 Seventh Ave
1740 Broadway
Plaza Hotel District
640 Fifth Ave
689 Fifth Ave
595 Madison Ave
Midtown East
Bloomberg Tower
909 Third Ave
964 Third Ave
968 Third Ave
150 East 58th St
715 Lexington Ave
Grand Central
90 Park Ave
330 Madison Ave
Times Square
1540 Broadway
UN District
866 UN Plaza
Pennsylvania Plaza
One Penn Plaza
Two Penn Plaza
11 Penn Plaza
Manhattan Mall
7 West 34th St
330 West 34th St
Hotel Pennsylvania
435 Seventh Ave
484 Eighth Ave
Union Square
4 Union Square South
25 West 14th St
Greenwich Village
692 Broadway
770 Broadway
SOHO
122-124 Spring Street
386 West Broadway
387 West Broadway
73 Wooster
478-486 Broadway
40-42 Thompson St
Wall St
40 Fulton St
20 Broad St
New York State Retail and Strip Malls
Amherst Shopping Center, Amherst, New York
Broadway Mall, Hicksville, New York
Bruckner Plaza, Bronx, NY
Burnside Plaza, Inwood, New York
Commack Shopping Center, Commack, New York
Dewitt Shopping Center, DeWitt, New York
The Flushing, Queens Center, Queens, NY
Forest Plaza, Staten Island, NY
Meadowbrook Commons, Freeport, New York
Freeport Shopping Center, Freeport, New York
Green Acres Mall, Valley Stream, NY
Henrietta Shopping Center, Henrietta, New York
Kings Plaza Shopping Center, Brooklyn, NY
Menands Shopping Center, Menands, NY
New Hyde Park Center, New Hyde Park, NY
North Syracuse Plaza, North Syracuse, NY
Oakdale Mall, Johnson City, New York
Forest Hills Shopping Center, Queens, NY
Rego Park Center, Rego Park, Queens, NY
Rochester Plaza, Rochester, New York
South Hills Mall, Poughkeepsie, NY
Merchandise Mart
Chicago, Il
- The Merchandise Mart
- Kitchen & Bath Design Center
- 350 West Mart Center/Chicago Apparel Center
High Point, NC
- High Point Market
- Suites at Market Square
- Plaza Suites
Washington, D.C.
- The Washington Design Center
- Kitchen & Bath Design Center
New York City
- Architects & Design Building
- 7W New York
- Kitchen & Bath Design Center
Los Angeles, CA
- L.A. Mart
Matt- "I think you are assuming they are just calling it "The Kennedy Seat". As in, it will always be called that even after someone else wins it. But I would say any Senator's seat is a seat in their name until someone else comes along to take it or win it or be a replacement."
1. Given the seat was held by a Kennedy or Kennedy retainer (1960-62) since 1952, it is a 57 year-old family trophy the media believes the heirs of Camelot are entitled to, "to keep the Dream Alive" (barf!)
2. Curiously, though, our political system says it is a seat by which the People of Massachusetts and the State of Massachusetts is represented in Federal government through the officeholder.
If the citizens are dumb enough to put another Kennedy in or Teddy's wife as long as she uses the "magic name" - well - that's their sorryass fate.
When was the last time a Kennedy actually had to make a buck?
Steven-
Take your Moby act some where else.
wv:berdshe
Revenant: Shouldn't Joe get extra points for his public love affairs with leftist dictators? Half-a-point maybe?
madawaskan
Why does it matter that the Kennedy's are rich? Does it bother you that the Bushes are rich too?
Revenant said...
Well, let's consider Joe's qualifications and how they compare to Teddy's.
missed a couple.
- Divorced First wife in 91.
- First wife opposed an annulment that Kennedy desired on the grounds that he was not mentally competent to enter into a marriage in the first place.
- Kennedy remarried in a civil ceremony in 93.
- In 96, the first wofe discovered a secret annulment had been granted on her marriage. She appealed to the Vatican, which reversed the annulment
Joe is on the payroll of Hugo Chavez and CITGO
Matt-
I always thought it was you guys that had the complex!?
And, I'm thinking the Kennedy's got them beat.
Wasn't it the Kennedy's that whined about the rich capitalist Romney?
Cedarford
Point taken.
Note, though, that this article refers to it as the 'so called' Kennedy seat. The fact that is is 'so called' actually changes everything. I took it further, which technically was incorrect.
The fact still remains - in laymen terms - that it is his seat because he was still serving a term.
I mean, if you talk to most people they would accept someone saying something like, 'Hey, who do you think will take [or fill] Kennedy's seat?'
We know it is not really his seat. And yes it is really the people of MA seat. But who says, 'Hey, who do you think will fill the people of MA Senate seat?"
Would be sort of odd.
madawaskan
Rich Romney
I don't know? Did Kennedy say that about Romney?
The argument that someone is rich is a weak argument because most everyone in the Senate is rich. So it begs the question who should represent the poor or the working class? How many poor or working class folks get in the Senate while they are still poor and working class? Not many. If any, actually. So what matters most is what a senator does with the seat when they get it. You are probably a Republican and I'm sure you have no trouble with rich Republican senators. And you shouldn't. Unless they only represent Wall Street's interest.
Wait... they all do.
I guess you don't vote?
In the senate race against Romney there were lots of charges about Romney and his money.
btw-when it came to picking a "Kennedy" to manage The Chicago Merchantise Mart somehow that came down to-
Sargent Shriver....about the least "Kennedy" of the bunch.
Irish Eyes are smiling in the borough of Boston which has always been the alotment of Sir Kennedy and his heirs in perpetuity since a time that the mind of man goes not back to.
Hey when the Kennedy's sell their interest or share of The Vornado Real Estate Trust then maybe I'll believe that they have Wall Street's interests in mind, over their own.
Then at least American shareholders and employees would stand half a chance.
cannot help but be moved.
Emotions work in cliches.
The seat of the Senior Senator from Massachusetts is held by Kerry, effective for the past couple days.
the Kennedy clan will have to reveal whether it wants to keep the seat in the family.
This line, in the opening paragraph, really pissed me off. Don't the voters of MA have anything to do with who gets to represent them in the Senate?
I've been thinking for some time that repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good thing.
" have read enough of your posts to know that this couldn't possibly be a Republic anymore."
Heh. Good one.
But someone's got to tell you how things will actually work out when your goddamned utopia fails.
It's rather simple to make predictions about the actual versus desired outcomes of policies started by socialists. Their ideological blinders prevent them from ever seeing what is rather obvious and frighteining.
And because you're just another leftist youth too eager to conform to dare question the liberal received wisdom that has been part of your pedagogy since before you were reliably continent, you'll never see what's coming until it smacks you in the face.
Hell, if you're like most leftists, even then you won't know.
madawaskan
Wow, so I guess you accuse the Kennedy's of not only being rich but being greedy capitalists. How UnAmerican of them....
Crazy I know but being rich and looking out for the financial interests of your family and your investments is not a crime either.
Better not get too critical of capitalists or you'll have Pogo calling you a communist.
So Liberals like calling themselves Progressives because they support things like dynasties? Must be some sort of in-joke I'm not getting.
Why does it matter that the Kennedy's are rich? Does it bother you that the Bushes are rich too?
It bothers that the Kennedys keep supporting laws aimed at keeping me from *becoming* rich -- for example, high income taxes, capital gains taxes, and death taxes, plus of course all sorts of efficiency-killing red tape and pointless restrictions on business. They're classic examples of limousine liberals -- people who climbed the ladder of success and are now trying to pull it up after them.
Pogo
Yeah, but according to your point of view we have been a socialist country since the 1930's [or earlier] so the way I see it the middle class was built and maintained on this kind of socialism. You know like the GI Bill and social security and many more.
So, yeah, if the America that has become the greatest country in the world has been built on socialism [taxes actually] then call me a socialist.
" you accuse the Kennedy's of not only being rich but being greedy capitalists".
Not capitalists, but leftists, out to keep everyone else from becoming wealthy. They are the US nomenklatura.
"So, yeah, if the America that has become the greatest country in the world has been built on socialism [taxes actually] then call me a socialist"
Well, we're no longer the richest country, thanks to the socialist President.
What is it we're greatest at, that socialism hasn't fucked up?
Social security? It's broke Matt. Insolvent. Just like 1000 current US banks.
Medicare? It's broke, too, Matt. Insolvent.
Do you understand the phrase eating your seed corn?
That's socialism.
Read a little Thomas Sowell before you pontificate in things you clearly know nothing about.
Matt-
If you understand how Real Estate Trusts work-it's pretty passive-the Kennedys pretty much rest on it-they don't have to know business, they don't have to compete-it's pretty much like being on cruise control since Joe Kennedy Sr.
wv:reers
They have money and the Catholic guilt that comes from that and the middle class are the selfish ones that don't want to pay out the wazoo in taxes.
"the middle class was built and maintained on this kind of socialism"
Yes, you have believed everything you have ever been told; that much is certain.
And you can be relied on to do what you're told; that too is certain.
Revenant
Income tax is not high enough to keep you from being rich. Trust me. The tax rates in this country were higher from the 1950's to the 1980's when this country built itself up to enormous wealth.
I don't know what you make but I have a tough time believing that the taxation right now can keep a good capitalist down.
And, also, show me some Republicans you complained about for being Limousine liberal like. Because at the end of the day they all are. But that doesn't mean they can't support tax breaks or health care programs or civil rights programs that are good for us all. But you know this.
America is the greatest country in the world due to it's culture of representative democracy, freedom, it's work ethic, and Capitalism.
Democrats have Elitists at the top many of them who are filthy stinking rich simply from passive real estate investment-
Want-
Nancy Pelosi's holdings?
Or Dianne Feinstein's?
Yet , Democrats are the party of the "little people".....allegedly.
Squeezing the middle class for quite awhile now.
Matt wrote:
"So what matters most is what a senator does with the seat when they get it."
The single class of US "investors" that has done the best of All, better than any mutual fund operators, is .... US Senators. Their increase in net worth while in the Senate cannot be matched by any other investor type. I'd mention Charlie Rangel, to take just a single example, who has doubled his net worth in the last year, but of course he's not a Senator, so I can't. Of course there's always Harry Reid....
I don't know about you, Matt, but I ascribe the truly phenomenal economic and investment success of our Senators to mere coincidence. You take a big enough batch of monkeys, and you'll find a group of 100 of them making 27 straight passes at craps; that's our Senate, that's "what they do with the seat when they get it."
WV immachi - the type of conception by which Senators are engendered.
Pogo
Yes, Social Security and Medicare are going broke. Everyone knows that. That doesn't mean they have not worked. It just means we need to rethink how to continue to finance them. Because I guarantee you politicians who won't fix it will be quickly gone - while politicians who will fix it will be seated for years to come.
Think about it. A lot of folks showing up at the town halls are freaked out that their Medicare will be cut off. And they're the Republicans in the group. What happens if it is cut off some day.
Yeah, it won't be pretty.
You can send all the Thomas Sowell columns you want to the elderly. But I guarantee you it won't replace a social security check or a medical plan that pays for most of their expenses.
But you can try. That is what I called blind ideology. You're more interested in the words Thomas Sowell writes than you are in the actual programs that have been working for years.
Socialism? Yes. Successful socialism? Yes. Crazy Stalin communism? Ummm, No.
Oh and speaking of California with that supposed rich tax base where is California?
Busted.
You think Hollywood pays their taxes?
No- they pay their accountants and lawyers for loopholes.
"Income tax is not high enough to keep you from being rich."
Income tax, business taxes, regualtions on businesses, products made illegal or impossible by legislation, State taxes, fees, and fines, coupled with massive unfunded obligations and other debt spending mean that every citizen in the US now owes $38,000.
The debt as % of GDP in 1980 was 33%. In 2000 it was 58%. The debt under Obama is projected to double to exceed 100% of GDP.
If you do not understand how that kind of massive debt will undermine the future of this country, you sue your college for malpractice.
"Yes, Social Security and Medicare are going broke. Everyone knows that. That doesn't mean they have not worked."
Yes, Matt, that's exactly what it means. They were both Ponzi schemes, which can be said to have 'worked' until the last suckers are left holding the bag.
Living well by credit card spending also 'works' until the money stops rolling in and bills must be paid.
" It just means we need to rethink how to continue to finance them."
No shit, Sherlock. That's what all failed Ponzi schemes do: look for a bail-out.
"What happens if it is cut off some day. Yeah, it won't be pretty."
And you can thank FDR for designing a program that he knew would fail, but not for a couple generations, and put off until tomorrow what he should have doen from the start, when it would have been far less painful.
The pain you speak of is the fault of socialists, for having created the Ponzi scheme in the first place.
Good intentions pave the road to hell.
I think the seat should go to Sheila Rauch Kennedy.
Joe's first wife. Real wife. Not fake, oops I'm sorry I lost my mind so our 2 kids are illegitimate wife.
WV = scfkqlfi
Pronounced "scqualify" with a silent f
Means what the Kennedys would do to the rest of us while they live off their trust funds.
Pray daily that the Dems use nepotism to fill Fat Teddy's seat.
The natives are awakened now and angry. Putting Joe Kennedy or Reggie in Ted's seat and then putting young Biden in the Delaware seat will add more high octane fuel to the revolutionary fires.
Social security? It's broke Matt. Insolvent. Just like 1000 current US banks.
Yet it keeps chugging along, decade after decade, despite the constant howlers from the right. Oh, and I bet grandma is glad Republicans didn't get their way and stuck all her money in SS into the markets.
Pogo
Your historical view is off a bit. FDR set up Social security in 1935. He did not necessarily set it up with a plan for the far far future. Who does? But more importantly Social Security is expected to last with no changes until 2037. So that means FDR set up a plan to run for 100 years. Not bad, actually. Especially since he had no idea about what the future would bring. He also set it up to deal with the Great Depression. So I think we can forgive FDR for protecting the elderly and not thinking about how Social Security will provide benefits a century later.
And it is not a Ponzi scheme. It's a pay-as-you go insurance program that is soon to be challenged by demographic changes. But it can be fixed. And, yes, it will be fixed by perhaps raising the cap on social security payroll taxes.
Many people and businesses won't like that. But even more will be upset if it is cut off some day.
Social Security is okay because it can be fixed actuarily in an instant, by raising the retirement age.
That overhanging liability is only a liability because it's assumed that won't happen. But it obviously will happen.
It's already been done once, and the sky did not fall.
Tsk tsk tsk, oh Ann, didn't you know? The Kennedy's own that seat by default. Why, no one, but I mean no one could ever take the high office and not be a Kennedy. Why, that's sacrilege.
FDR set up Social security in 1935. He did not necessarily set it up with a plan for the far far future.
FDR set up social security to lock up the retiree vote for himself in 1936 and thereafter. Which it did. And, yeah, he was that calculating and cynical.
"So that means FDR set up a plan to run for 100 years."
Bullshit.
Social security is insurance against outliving your savings, is all.
Anything more is mission creep.
People on the average though have to save enough for an average retirement.
Social security covers what happens when you live longer than average.
Just like homeowner's insurance covers what happens when your house burns down.
Pogo
Okay, so I am right. Thanks for admitting it in your interesting way. FDR did good by setting in place a system that will work for at least 100 years.
G Joubert
Let's say for the sake of argument that FDR only set up social security because he was cynical. Do you think all the elderly people who benefited all these years should be angry about it? I mean, that's a pretty good outcome for cynicism.
Anyway I think you may be cynical. I mean would you also claim that LBJ only set in motion Civil Rights so that minorities would vote for him? If so what's the alternative? No rights?
Matt said:
"But more importantly Social Security is expected to last with no changes until 2037. So that means FDR set up a plan to run for 100 years. Not bad, actually. "
Matt:
With all due respect,the Dems and the Reps have increased the Soc Sec tax rate from 1% to more than 12%. In fact, a 1,200% increase in the tax rate over 40 years is an enormous "change" not to mention the increase in the soc sec ceiling of 1,000%.
The way the program has been mis-managed is a very poor tribute to Roosevelt's great "unchanged" plan.
It has become "de rigeuer" in this country to bash the rich. How sad. The so-called rich have the funds to create new companies and jobs. Many that benefit by it, spit on it. I wonder why.
I was told from a very early age that the world does not owe me a living and neither do we. Unfortunately, too many of the newly rich believe that the government should provide for the masses because they are too stupid to provide for themselves. That is the mantra but it is really about power for the "ruling Class" as I am sure many of you know.
It goes without saying that the Kennedy's are new class but no class.
And so it goes...
Yes, Social Security and Medicare are going broke. Everyone knows that. That doesn't mean they have not worked.
LOL
Ugh, that Joe Kennedy reminds me of Joe Wilson of Plamegate. They both have that skeevy Jerry Springer look. i.e., perfect for the Senate!
At least the term is not unique to Kennedy. I remember when Jesse Helms retired his seat was referred to as the Helms seat. Liddy Dole won that seat and was there for a six year term, but when Kaye Hagan beat Dole I heard many refer to it again as the Helms seat. Of course Democrats like to say they now control the Jesse Helms seat. That carries a lot more symbolism than saying they won Elizabeth Dole's seat.
Isn't it the drugs and alcohol and babes seat?
AJ Lynch
Social Security changes
You are correct. I meant to say if nothing changes with the funding of the fund it will last until 2037. [Or that is what I understand to be the case].
But, yes, they have made adjustments to taxes to fix it along the way.
knox
Chuckle or not, the system - although it has problems - had helped millions of elderly Americans. Without the monthly checks many would be destitute. Also important to note that Social Security helped the elderly retire earlier than they used to in the 1930's thus opening the job market to younger folks.
It's got a while to go too before it is in trouble. And it will be fixed. No politician would get rid of it. Not at this stage. And certainly not after the recent performance of the stock market and 401k investments.
"Pogo
Okay, so I am right."
You must be reading a different thread, son.
FDR succeeded in making the poor and minorities into net losers via SSI, because they pay in far more than they ever get out, due to their shorter lifespans, transferring all their money to middle class white women, who gained the most from this Ponzi scheme.
Why do you hate the poor and the minorities, Matt?
Matt:
Why not let people keep more of their own money........ the current system allows the pols to mismanage our money then they cover that up by raising the tax rates every few years.
Matt,
The average life-expectancy of the social security beneficiary, for which the first check was issued in January, 1940, was 53.9 for males, and 60.6 for females. Oh, the original retirement age was 65. Do the math. You'll get two answers: the average male was dead 11 years, 3 months before drawing Social Security, and the average female was dead 4 years, six months before drawing a check. The second answer is, of course, cynicism.
Matt:
Keep this in mind. Pogo may find a cure for cancer which will lead to people living longer lives which will bankrupt soc sec way before 2037!
Of course, if Obama finds out, he will just have Pogo eliminated.
And since Social Security, as rhhardin said, "is insurance against outliving your savings", the poor and minorities, being shorter-lived on average, are thus cheated out of not only any SSI benefits, that they paid into for years, they are not able to transfer their hard-earned wealth onto their kids, to make their lives better. Instead, they give it to middle class and wealthy white women.
Why do you hate the poor and the minorities, Matt?
Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich famously described a seat in the US Senate as “a fucking valuable thing.” Blago had a point; Senate seats are in fact much too “fucking valuable” to permit them to be appropriated a family heirlooms. Yet the Senate adheres to primogeniture more closely than ever.
Until Senator Kennedy’s death, one in eight Senators could be said to reflect the body’s hereditary character.
Details here:
http://www.pecuniarius.com/blog/?p=122
Good thing that it wasn't Barney Frank who died.
"I'm running for Barney Frank's seat" would be an iffy campaign slogan.
Income tax is not high enough to keep you from being rich.
I didn't say our current tax rates were enough to keep me from becoming rich. I referred to the Kennedys' support for higher taxes -- higher quite obviously meaning "higher than they are now".
Trust me. The tax rates in this country were higher from the 1950's to the 1980's when this country built itself up to enormous wealth.
You're confusing the highest marginal tax rate (which was indeed higher in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s) with the effective tax rate on the first and second income quintiles (which is much higher today than it was in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, although still not nearly as high as people like the Kennedys would like).
And, also, show me some Republicans you complained about for being Limousine liberal like.
Show me one you think I should have complained about and didn't.
Because at the end of the day they all are. But that doesn't mean they can't support tax breaks or health care programs or civil rights programs that are good for us all. But you know this.
Sure, it is hypothetically possible that Kennedy could have supported tax breaks, health care programs ,or civil rights programs that were good for us all. It is just that he didn't. :)
and I bet grandma is glad Republicans didn't get their way and stuck all her money in SS into the markets.
Hm.
For every dollar you invested in the stock market on the day it peaked, you now have $0.67. A 33% loss -- ouch. On the other hand, every dollar you invested 20 years ago is now worth $3.53, and every dollar you invested 40 years ago you have $11.68.
For every dollar you have paid into Social Security, you now have $0.00. But that's ok, because the government saved $0.00 of that on your behalf, reducing your total losses to... er, 100%. Oops. All you have is an empty promise that the government will give you SOME money back, if you live long enough, and if the government stays solvent. The government is currently less solvent than Enron. Good luck with that.
It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that investing in the markets is safer than trusting the government. The United States government depends on the stability of the world economy, not vice-versa. You can't say for certain that the United States government will exist in 40 years, and you certainly can't say for certain that any given social program will. But you can say for certain that people will still be buying and selling.
Here's an interesting if not symbolic photo of Obama from the funeral.
Kennedy Seat? (whew!) That's a hella big seat. He'd have to eat a lotta cheeseburgers to fill that seat.
every dollar you invested 40 years ago you have $11.68.
..and after inflation, that $11.68 is worth about $5.92 in 1969 dollars.
So, over forty years, adjusted for inflation, you make 12 percent a year on the average, and you have very high risk if you didn't choose your shares wisely.
-jcr
--wonder what is the estate tax rate this year?
Whatever it is, bet TK's estate won't pay a fraction of it. Tho legions of shopkeepers and farmers with assets of a few million (rather than a TK few hundred million) will be in the same bracket as TK and will pay the whole confiscatin' percentage of the thing.
How can this be? Because they won't have TK's legacy offshore tax shelter trust chartered on the island of Fiji.
But that's okay. At least TK the tax-shelterman wasn't ALSO a huge power behind that 50% estate tax.
Jeez, can ya imagine --that would've been SO shameless. SO hypocritical. So immoral. So corrupted greedy cynical royalist.
Oh --what's that you say? He WAS a huge power behind that 50% estate tax?
Oh wow. Man that really stinks.
Pogo, you've bought into the Dems lie of every American owing $38,000. Every American does not pay taxes, so the amount is closer to $100,000 for tax-paying Americans.
Dear Matt, that's why things are going broke. The people who pay will never be able to pay off the $100K. Much less the $300K that Obama is piling on top. Dope.
Very true, Jack.
No one has even commented on the worst thing about all this.
John F. Kerry is now the Senior Senator from Massachusetts.
In academia, we would call it the Kennedy Chair. Funny how politics is morphing.
Why next, politicians will be demanding tenure.
For their sake, I hope the supporters of FDRs "wisdom" get to see a social security check when they can retire at the age of 80 (thats a possible fixes Matt talks about).
"""that has been part of your pedagogy since before you were reliably continent"""
I stand in awe, Pogo!
wv: samli
obAnagram: mails
This could be fun!
It's nothing but a journalistic trick. Frank Phillips calls it The Kennedy seat, but he wants to pretend it's more than just him, so it becomes "the so-called Kennedy Seat".
The beauty of this formulation is that if the phrase ever becomes an embarrassment, Frank Phillips can chastise the public for calling it "The Kennedy Seat" without ever taking responsibility for the fact that he calls it that.
Journalists do this all the time.
So, over forty years, adjusted for inflation, you make 12 percent a year on the average, and you have very high risk if you didn't choose your shares wisely
So don't by individual stocks. The figures I cited assumed you invested in a DJIA index fund. Those are low risk. Historically they've been NO long-term isk -- yes, even counting crashes like the one this last year.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा