The new party of no?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes. Losing 35-40% of one's investments had quite the negative effect on Wall Street's reputation with "the average American". Thank goodness Social Security didn't get privatized by Bush The Second - it would have been a blood bath.

So the trillions made by the average americans over the last 30 years not only by individual investments and retirement funds but by institutional investments such as pension funds is negated by losses? I guess you forgot that there is risk involved and no one was complaining when their nest eggs went up 500% during the boom times...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the trillions made by the average americans over the last 30 years not only by individual investments and retirement funds but by institutional investments such as pension funds is negated by losses? I guess you forgot that there is risk involved and no one was complaining when their nest eggs went up 500% during the boom times...

You missed the entire point. Or are simply avoiding it purposely with a straw man regarding the investment world, which is not the topic.

Currently Social Security funds are not in "risk involved" investments. To privatize social security would put them there. The private sector lost nearly half their investments when Wall Street crashed. Thank goodness that wasn't their Social Security funds, privatized by Bush.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You missed the entire point. Or are simply avoiding it purposely with a straw man regarding the investment world, which is not the topic.

Currently Social Security funds are not in "risk involved" investments. To privatize social security would put them there. The private sector lost nearly half their investments when Wall Street crashed. Thank goodness that wasn't their Social Security funds, privatized by Bush.

I started a thread to ask a few simple questions about the views of the boards participants (democrats in particular) on the strategy employed now by the Democrats and whether you are comfortable with party leadership which now considers Obama to be center-right?

I have not even seen one attempt to answer those questions.

I asked JMS if he thought that mutual funds (and in turn those who are invested in them) benefitted from the dotcom bubble.

He failed to answer and wants to move the conversation to the fees chargedd by funds.

But I am the person who is avoiding topics or creating "strawmen"?

So it is ok to make a blanket statement that Wall Street cost the average investor 30-40% but I have to break financial sectors down?

And who talked about SS finds other than you?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I started a thread to ask a few simple questions about the views of the boards participants (democrats in particular) on the strategy employed now by the Democrats and whether you are comfortable with party leadership which now considers Obama to be center-right?

I have not even seen one attempt to answer those questions.

I asked JMS if he thought that mutual funds (and in turn those who are invested in them) benefitted from the dotcom bubble.

He failed to answer and wants to move the conversation to the fees chargedd by funds.

But I am the person who is avoiding topics or creating "strawmen"?

So it is ok to make a blanket statement that Wall Street cost the average investor 30-40% but I have to break financial sectors down?

And who talked about SS finds other than you?

When in doubt, just start flingin' random contentions out!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

When in doubt, just start flingin' random contentions out!

Perhaps someone could explain what is so random about what i asked? Why are you so afraid to answer the questions? They arent that tricky.