I have enough socked away to keep me at my present level of living even if inflation trims it 50%, unless I get a catastrophic illness that my insurance decides not to cover. Then I’m screwed, but then just about anyone would be screwed – 401k or no 401k – diversified portfolio or no diversified portfolio. If you are Steve Jobs or Bill Gates you get the good stuff – the rest of us can only hope that the terrible beam of focused light puts off straying onto our little ant bed until we have grown very old.

Tom, I agree that Obama’s handling of the auto companies and the economy in general is not good. I think now that the banks needed to be propped up for the simple reason that no business can be conducted without them. But I think the auto companies should have been allowed to go through the normal, everyday, plain vanilla bankruptcy.

On your political views, I know many independents who feel as you, that most (some say “all”) politicians of whatever stripe are liars. A logical extrapolation of that view is, eventually, a rush to anarchy, since no one can be believed.

It’s not that everyone cannot be believed – it’s that every word a politician utters has to be taken with a grain of salt. The logical thing to do, since you broach the subject, is to judge politicians(or anyone else) on their actions and not so much their words. Politicians often use words as a smokescreen.

And these days they all are compelled to mouth the approved platitudes, whether speaking from the Right or the Left. Who knows what they privately believe. Maybe it’s always been that way. But what they must publicly do … well, now that’s where they have to truly reveal themselves for assessment by the citizens. Look at how they vote on bills, what bills they back, what issues they push and not only what they may say but also where they chose to say it.

Gross venality aside, I think Liberals/Progressives/the Left tend toward a legalistic view, and Conservatives/ the Right tend toward a moral view. Law is based on debate; the winner is simply the better debater, saying whatever it takes. Morality is based on right vs. wrong.

Sure, morality is based on right and wrong. But right and wrong is based on each person’s opinion on what is right and what is wrong. And these matters of right and wrong and lies can be complicated. These issues have been recognized, thought about and debated as far back as we have a written record. For me it’s not a simple black and white matter. To get to the point: I wish there were a way to quantify and prove it one way or another which side, Right or Left, lies more often. But there are problems of definition and categorization and other problems so that the question does not easily lend itself to a scientific resolution.

I read both sides. I have The Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Media Matters, Talking Point Memos, Matthew Yglesias and Politico bookmarked in a folder labeled “The Opposition” at this moment. These change from time to time, except The Daily Kos and Huffington Post are always bookmarked. I give them all a good reading every week or so. It is very difficult to do this because I feel the anger and frustration rise inside me as I read. But you know, I can tell you for certain that they think OUR side is always lying.

They think WE are not sincere and are hiding behind false principles for reasons of expediency. They believe WE exaggerate. They think the media favors the Right! Really – they do! They enjoy pointing it out when they think some person or politician on the Right lies or is in their eyes obviously in the wrong. And sometimes I think they are correct in their suspicions. And Tom, people can rationalize anything.

Anyway, from this exposure I think that a lot of what both sides label as “lies” are not lies per se. They are examples of hyperbole with some truth in them, they are mistakes in judgement or opinion that are later labeled as lies by the opposition, they are mistakes in interpretation, such as quoting out of context, etc. and are not lies in the classic sense. Sometimes a prominent person will simply say something that is stupid – but it is a rare person that doesn’t occasionally say something erroneous or stupid.

This is a complicated subject that I can only touch upon in a comment. To sum up: I think that no side lies any more than any other side and that how you perceive this issue usually depends on where you are coming from politically and philosophically.

That said, I will say that it seems that the Right is more tolerant of opposing opinion than the Left – which is a different issue than the lying issue. However, it also seems to me that there are exceptions even to this. For example, opinion on abortion and other hot button issues. Both sides are generally pretty intolerant on certain issues.

This toleration thing plays itself out in personal relationships and group interactions. I paint and I write poetry. There are groups in my locale that have to do with art and poetry and there are forums and such on the internet. But I know from bitter experience that if I attempt to participate and if they find out where I stand politically that I am immediately persona non grata. I will be labeled as a sexist, racist, fascist, Nazi, warmonger, a stupid, ignorant person, a bad poet, a bad painter, etc. There are NO exceptions allowed. You toe the Progressive line or else. The bias is inexorable. Ad hominem attacks are the rule, especially among poets.

Opinion on art and literature is a subjective thing in the first place so it is very easy to rationalize a vicious attack on the artist which in reality is motivated by politically based thoughts into being perceived by the attacker as merely an honest but vigorous critique.

On your political views, I know many independents who feel as you, that most (some say “all”) politicians of whatever stripe are liars. A logical extrapolation of that view is, eventually, a rush to anarchy, since no one can be believed.

Gross venality aside, I think Liberals/Progressives/the Left tend toward a legalistic view, and Conservatives/ the Right tend toward a moral view. Law is based on debate; the winner is simply the better debater, saying whatever it takes. Morality is based on right vs. wrong.

About half of my cash is in CDs, with long term fixed rates. A couple are maturing soon and I’ll shop around for favorable rates for them. The other half resides in interest bearing savings accounts – just in case I need to skip to Mexico when the shooting starts. Here lately I’ve been thinking about buying gold. Although I’m still in the thinking and researching stage I have actually opened an account with the US Mint. I may never use it but it’s there. With all the currency being printed by the Fed inflation becomes a real danger to savers like myself. But even with inflation, I’ll bet on my cash(or maybe gold) against your risky stocks as a safer hedge against hard times.

Too many point to go through, however I will point out that yes, I’m going by the over all market index. Diversified portfolios have been around for many many decades now, few fall prey to the whole “A few companies go broke and I’m screwed” thing. Those that do decided that they could manage their money better and didn’t understand. A well diversified investment plan very very closely mirrors the over all index (mine does) so that is a valid measurement.

Stocks are *not* quick money and that is what got so many people in trouble. Day traders and the like along with a tremendous uptick in stock values in the late 90′s fooled a LARGE amount of people. Unless you are truly dedicated and know how to work it (and even then it is still something of a crap shoot) you are more than likely going to loose big. If you put your money in only a few companies then you also run a similar risk (but sadly you do not get the possibility of those huge monetary gains – the epitome of stupid investing).

As to links? If you *really* need me to link to market indexes for you to know how much everything has grown since Reagan’s years then you are lost anyway. If you *really* need me to link to what diversified investment is then, once more, you aren’t going to be able to understand the links. I’m not about to link you to my own personal investments.

“Really? Well, since it’s anecdote time, a person close to me had put a considerable amount money into 2 different mutual funds and her net worth has fallen below her original investment in recent months. I guess she wasn’t as smart as you, huh? Didn’t pick the right funds, maybe. But not to worry, right? If she sits tight she’ll get it all back through the stock market and you are absolutely sure of that, correct?”

Yes, I am absolutely sure that one of two things will happen in the long term assuming she did what every investment broker recommends – she will either gain her money back or the US will have fallen enough that it is a moot point.

If you take my own 401k for the last 5 years or so I’m down roughly 5%, if you take it from the last 10 or so I’m up by about 10% (OTOH my social security is up a whopping less than 1% – talk about some good investing there!!!). Again, later investors that came in on a high are not going to do well for a while, especially when it was a “bubble”.

Nor was I particularly smart in picking stocks – heck I didn’t directly pick any. I just checked a number of industries to put it into and what risk (half low risk/low income, 1/4 medium, 1/4 high and I picked highly diversified industries – that is I didn’t tie all my money in housing related fields). In fact when I read the suggestions on the paper work I was filling out it recommended something along those lines. I also chose two different providers for each of my 401k’s – indeed my choice of AIG was a particularly bad one at this point yet with the money spread out enough it didn’t hurt too much.

I do not know if she wasn’t as smart as me, is unrealistic in her expectations, or just didn’t bother to learn enough to know which boxes to check on her investment application. You can decide for yourself if she was stupid (apparently so since you seem to think that type of investment is), but I’ll be happy with mine and would jump on the ability to opt out of SS and put it into a 401k type program. As Tom says if things keep going the way they are your “safe” isn’t going to be so great.

A good example is “the 40 million Americans (aka “of us”) who don’t have health insurance”. “American” in this context is a big lie by the definition I live by because it includes Latin Americans, some 10-12 million here illegally.

I see quotes but no attribution. Who are you quoting, Tom? As far as I can tell no one really knows how many illegal workers there are in the US because they live under the radar. The comprehensive immigration bill offered by McCain and Kyle awhile back that was shot down by Cornyn would have given us a pretty good figure but it was not to be. The flames of anti-immigration fervor were fanned very high and the bill, along with a reliable number for illegal workers in the US, was burned to a crisp.

The non-insured also include the millions of healthy 20-somethings who don’t buy it because they don’t need it, in a free choice that affords them more iPhones and dates and takeout food. Plus those millions who are between jobs but will return to coverage within the year. So we’re gonna convulse US healthcare, 17% of GDP, with enormous employment, for the maybe 15 million who don’t have it and can’t get it? That’s 5% of the population. Based on lies, or, if you prefer, gross oversimplifications, but intentionally done . Purpose: power grab; soft totalitarianism.

Who are you debating, Tom? I am not in favor of anything regarding healthcare that I’ve heard coming from the Democrats. I’m certainly not in favor of any “convulse” of the healthcare system. I don’t want to bankrupt the insurance companies – I just want them to compete and innovate with an eye to lessening the cost of their product and making their operations more efficient – like the standardized administrative transactions that were proposed by Bill Kristol years ago. Standardization of a few things would cost them very little in the way of money or effort – but nooooo – they want it ALL their way – even the relatively trivial aspects. But they NEVER lobby politicians, right?

As for “lies” about healthcare, I agree that Obama’s figures on the cost of his healthcare proposals are way off the mark – I trust the CBO, not Obama on that. But really, Obama is not the first President to paint a rosy picture about the figures on programs proposed by his administration – it’s pretty much a trait of ANY President – whether they be Right or Left. Liberal columnists used to enjoy hauling Bush over coals regularly for doing the same thing – even Reagan, back in the day.

But I really would like to know where you get your figures on the “20-somethings” that are so disturbing to you. I have the idea that the problem of the non-covered is larger than you think but I am willing to read any link to reliable sources which support your view.

I think too that the unemployed that return to work may not necessarily find an employer that offers health insurance as a benefit. Many employers do not offer health insurance as a benefit. Indeed, many offer no benefits at all. I hasten to add that I am not in favor of forcing any employer to offer benefits to employees.

I am also pretty sure that the cost of healthcare for those that ARE insured could be much improved and believe the insurance companies are the key for this. Insurance that is too costly even for those willing to buy insurance(the 40-somethings?) doesn’t do anyone any good – least of all the insurance companies themselves in the long run. Those lazybones need to be shaken out of the soft little beds they’ve been making for themselves for 30 years – that’s all. Competition is good for the soul, even for the reluctant.

I’ll add another thought – there needs to be a cap on malpractice judgements to get the malpractice insurance down. I don’t fault the insurance companies much on this – the culprits here are the lawyers that bring these frivolous suits. If it weren’t so lucrative for the legal beagles the sue-happy idiots would have a difficult time finding a lawyer willing to take their case. Venue-shopping and judge-shopping are practices that also need to be made to cease. The outlandish cost of malpractice insurance for doctors is a significant factor in the rising healthcare costs.

Finally, Tom, it seems to me that when the Democrats “power grab” you have a tendency to label it “totalitarianism.” Would you be so critical in your terminology if it were the Republicans who had the filibuster-proof Congress and a President in office? I wonder ….

It is all well and good for you to favor the GOP for reasons of national defense. But to shrug your shoulders about illegal immigration, for example, is to shrug off the law of the land. That shruggery (to coin a word that rhymes with thuggery) has far-reaching implications; if the law isn’t enforced here, why enforce it there?

Gee, tom, I must really be ticking you off for you to hurl the “thuggery” word. But not to worry – I won’t hold it against you – it was kind of clever, actually. Shades of the Music Man:

Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital “T”
That rhymes with “P”
And that stands for Pool,

Besides, I know from your comments over the years that your passions run high and that’s not necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Just watch that blood pressure, buddy.

But back to reasoned discourse – I don’t “shrug” my shoulders over illegal immigration, Far from it. My hope is that something humane and sensible will be done sometime in the future – as has been tried unsuccessfully in the past. The legislation we are living under now, passed during the Reagan years, is satisfying to no one.

The Republicans need to get out from behind this wedge issue they’ve created before they alienate the Latino vote forever. It’s a monster, stitched together in their very own laboratory, that’s about to eat them. Take a look at the demographics sometime. The Latinos are the fastest growing voting bloc in the US but even the Cuban-Americans – which the GOP used to be able to count on – went for Obama. Read the short article at the link below to get an idea of the scope of the problem that the Republicans have with Latinos – all due in my opinion to the silly anti-immigration shenanigans committed by the GOP in the past few years. If you live by demagoguery you die by demagoguery.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/The_GOPs_Hispanic_problem.html

That has recently happened in the UK. The overworked, handicapped and p.c. constabulary decided some 130 types of crime by existing statute would not longer be investigated nor prosecuted.

I am happy to discuss, even debate, anything. But we must agree on common definitions such as “What is a lie?”.

Tom, I think we both know and agree on what’s a lie. The issue is whether one group lies much more than the other. I think they all lie from time to time – you think it’s only the Democrats.

Actually, no, we would have still been better off with it privatised in the stock market. Look at the market indexes from back then vs now – even at its worst.

But by telling the readers to look at “market indexes” aren’t you basing your assertion on the performance of ALL stocks/bonds during the last, say, 20 years(you don’t bother to define the time period)? Even allowing you may be correct(you offer no links or raw numbers to check), I can’t imagine a scenario where a hypothetical stock broker would be willing or even able to invest an individual’s money into every single corporation that offers stocks or bonds on the exchanges. Given that little hitch wouldn’t how your hypothetical investment perform depend on an individual stockbroker making good picks – instead of the overall performance of the entire market? That is unless you are trying to claim that every stock ever issued has given a good return over the time period covered. Overall pictures can look OK but individual investors still get the shaft more often than I’m comfortable with. Investing is gambling.

Have you also done research on how many public corporations have ceased to exist during the last 20 years – thereby rendering their stock worthless? Just asking. Too bad for those hypothetical Social Security investors, I guess.

Now, the people who recently switched over (or recently invested) expecting a quick return when they retire in 5-10 years got screwed, but then “quick bucks” are always risky.

Oh, I agree that investing in stocks(“quick bucks”) is “risky.” You will probably get a better return than working the slots in Vegas, but then again, maybe not. It depends on luck and acumen – which I’ll leave to smart folks like you. Myself, I want all my spare change in a savings account – especially money I’m counting on to support me after my working life is over – which includes payments to me through the Social Security Administration.

If they sit for a 30 year investment (as your SS money is) then it will work out and if it doesn’t, well lets just say the country is so screwed it doesn’t matter where your money is.

Well, maybe you believe that if YOUR “30 year investment” doesn’t work out then I am “screwed” also. Me, I think if you lose all YOUR money through investments that I’LL still be better off – because I don’t risk my money – I save. And I don’t want MY Social Security payments to fall into YOUR money hole, either.

Indeed, were I allowed to right now I would certainly put it there – by the time I retire I will have made MUCH more that way even if I have a few major losses as it goes forward. My mutual funds got hit hard, yet they will still have made quite a bit of money by the time I retire.

Really? Well, since it’s anecdote time, a person close to me had put a considerable amount money into 2 different mutual funds and her net worth has fallen below her original investment in recent months. I guess she wasn’t as smart as you, huh? Didn’t pick the right funds, maybe. But not to worry, right? If she sits tight she’ll get it all back through the stock market and you are absolutely sure of that, correct?

A good example is “the 40 million Americans (aka “of us”) who don’t have health insurance”. “American” in this context is a big lie by the definition I live by because it includes Latin Americans, some 10-12 million here illegally. The non-insured also include the millions of healthy 20-somethings who don’t buy it because they don’t need it, in a free choice that affords them more iPhones and dates and takeout food. Plus those millions who are between jobs but will return to coverage within the year. So we’re gonna convulse US healthcare, 17% of GDP, with enormous employment, for the maybe 15 million who don’t have it and can’t get it? That’s 5% of the population. Based on lies, or, if you prefer, gross oversimplifications, but intentionally done . Purpose: power grab; soft totalitarianism.

It is all well and good for you to favor the GOP for reasons of national defense. But to shrug your shoulders about illegal immigration, for example, is to shrug off the law of the land. That shruggery (to coin a word that rhymes with thuggery) has far-reaching implications; if the law isn’t enforced here, why enforce it there? That has recently happened in the UK. The overworked, handicapped and p.c. constabulary decided some 130 types of crime by existing statute would not longer be investigated nor prosecuted.

I am happy to discuss, even debate, anything. But we must agree on common definitions such as “What is a lie?”.