Romney delivers powerful message.

[LV426]

You obviously have no knowledge of investing. A teacher with a 403(b) working 40 years can easily have over $1 million if they stay invested in stocks during that period. I know 2-3 people who worked with me who have over a million and I'm sure there are some I don't know about. Many others have much less because they stayed in fixed investments.

Ahhh the glorious stock market. The one that, since the Russia Tax Cut you love, has been growing at its slowest pace since the great recession.

Ahhh the glorious stock market. The one that, just 12 years ago, was in the toilet and had wiped out savings for many soon-to-retire-folks, not to mention wiping out the pensions that invested in the market, like California's pension system did.

This is what you want to put all our savings into?

Are you stupid?

I also have a friend who owns an investment firm who has several clients who are plant workers and teachers who retired early because they accumulated over a million.

I don't believe you.

Firstly, because teacher pensions are in defined-benefit pension plans, which offer teachers a specific payout upon retirement based on a formula, rather than by investment returns.

The pension funds, however, are almost all managed by investment firms. And guess what they do? Make bad predictions that end up costing the pension fund, like what happened with CalPens and the Great Flash Recession.

In most states, teachers become vested—meaning able to withdraw their employers' contributions—in their pension plan five years into their career. But a sizable number of teachers leave the profession before they become vested. (Education researcher Richard Ingersoll estimates that 44 percent of new teachers quit within five years.)

So I don't buy the anecdotes because I feel like you're leaving exculpatory information out. Like these people you know who could have inherited wealth and that is why their retirement savings are so high. Or they are married to a breadwinner whose retirement savings are higher because of higher pay.

That's because teachers and other educators account for 14% of the nation's 8.6 million millionaires.

Well, if they're retired, they are no longer teachers. And secondly, from your link:

Educators, like most millionaires, are likely to be part of a two-income household, which could explain their wealth

For fuck's sake, Flash, way to bury the lede.

So yeah, there are teachers who are millionaires*

* - by marriage

And then there's this bit, that you also left out for obvious reasons (because you're a hack and fraud):

Some 46% of the educators attribute their wealth to inheritance. That could leave them free to pursue a career regardless of the pay.

So...to summarize...you claim that 14% of millionaires are teachers, but what you didn't say was that half of them inherited their wealth, and others are part of a two-income household, which would not make the teachers millionaires, but their family unit millionaires when combined with another income.

You do this sloppy work all the fucking time and you never hold yourself to account for it.

Do you think I won't scrutinize what you post here? Do you think that because you gloss over or don't read links, that means no one else does so you can sneak this shit on through without anyone daring to question your authority or credibility?

Do you think everyone is as fucking lazy as you?

And weren't you also the one who was questioning the whole "60% of wealth is inherited" thing? You did. Then you went and posted a link showing that nearly half of all "millionaire educators" inherited their wealth.

Way to self-own.

 

[Flash]

Cutting spending is economic contraction.

If you pull back spending, and I pull back spending, then who is spending in the economy to make it grow?

Consumer spending, not government spending makes the economy grow. Taking more taxes reduces the money consumers have to spend.

 

[Flash]

.Ahhh the glorious stock market. The one that, since the Russia Tax Cut you love, has been growing at its slowest pace since the great recession.

Ahhh the glorious stock market. The one that, just 12 years ago, was in the toilet and had wiped out savings for many soon-to-retire-folks, not to mention wiping out the pensions that invested in the market, like California's pension system did.

This is what you want to put all our savings into?

Are you stupid?[/QUOTE]

The stock market that has averaged 10% annual returns since its inception (S&P 500) between 1926-2018. It only wiped out savings if idiots sold their funds when they dropped. Those that stayed in the market gained it all back. My 403(b) lost 40% in 2008(?) but by the time I retired (2013) it was back to its highest level. Even a person who retired in 2009 didn't lose anything and gained it all back. Yes, you didn't make anything for those years, but compared to any alternative you are much better off. My 403(b) account pays me three times what my $25,000 Social Security pays and continues to grow and that is just taking the interest and dividends to pay the minimum required distribution.

So I don't buy the anecdotes because I feel like you're leaving exculpatory information out. Like these people you know who could have inherited wealth and that is why their retirement savings are so high. Or they are married to a breadwinner whose retirement savings are higher because of higher pay.

well, if they're retired, they are no longer teachers. And secondly, from your link:

For fuck's sake, Flash, way to bury the lede.

So yeah, there are teachers who are millionaires*

* - by marriage

And then there's this bit, that you also left out for obvious reasons (because you're a hack and fraud):

So...to summarize...you claim that 14% of millionaires are teachers, but what you didn't say was that half of them inherited their wealth, and others are part of a two-income household, which would not make the teachers millionaires, but their family unit millionaires when combined with another income.

You do this sloppy work all the fucking time and you never hold yourself to account for it.

Do you think I won't scrutinize what you post here? Do you think that because you gloss over or don't read links, that means no one else does so you can sneak this shit on through without anyone daring to question your authority or credibility?

Do you think everyone is as fucking lazy as you?

And weren't you also the one who was questioning the whole "60% of wealth is inherited" thing? You did. Then you went and posted a link showing that nearly half of all "millionaire educators" inherited their wealth.

Way to self-own.

You are an idiot. You questioned that any teachers are millionaires. I was proving to you that there are many. The exact numbers don't matter--the point is that many teachers fit this income.

--inherited--ignore those because that was not earned in their retirement account. Also, teacher pension accounts do not apply because they do not manage that account or get what it has earned--they are paid on a formula.

--by marriage--irrelevant. My post was not about retirement income which would obviously be higher with two earners. I was talking about the retirement account of individual teachers (usually 403(b)). If a teacher had over $1 million in their account that was not affected by their spouse.

You ignore what I actually write and come up with irrelevant trivia that does not impact my main point. I said nothing about retirement income so how does spousal income matter?

And of course they are "no longer teachers." They are former teachers and they reached a million while still teachers. And those that quit after five years is irrelevant; of course they are not going to reach a million if they quit teaching. I taught 40 years and paid into my 403(b). Another trivial useless point.

Let's reduce the 14% to 5% for a conservative estimate--that is still 350,000. A pretty big number since your response to teachers being millionaires was "HA."

My original statement was that there are a lot of teachers who have over $1 million in their retirement account. I proved there are at least 350,000. Many of them are probably college teachers because they are the ones who usually have the choice between a 403(b) and a pension.

So, I proved my main point despite all your irrelevant, trivial attempts to argue against an established fact. There are over 350,000 (conservative estimate) teachers who individually earned the money when we eliminate those that inherited it.

This is what you said: "LOL @ the thought of teachers being millionaires."

This is what I proved: 350,000 teacher millionaires (at least)

 

[Flash]

But their share of the income has grown 50% since the Great Conservative Centrist Recession.

So you don't believe that taking a higher share of income will result in an increased share of wealth?

Sure it does, but they are still paying most of the federal individual income taxes and paying a larger percentage of taxes than their share of the income---so they are the only group paying their fair share.

 

[Teflon Don]

Or that tax cuts increase revenue or grow the economy.

No...wait...that's just a lie.

No it's true

You lie

You could tax 100% of revenue and wealth and still run deficits. True story bro

We don't have a taxing problem. We have a spending problem

 

[Mason Michaels]

No it's true

You lie

You could tax 100% of revenue and wealth and still run deficits. True story bro

We don't have a taxing problem. We have a spending problem

But it's Republicans doing the spending,no one more then Trump!

 

[CFM]

Consumer spending, not government spending makes the economy grow. Taking more taxes reduces the money consumers have to spend.

LV doesn't understand that. Taxes could go up or down and it wouldn't change a thing for him since he pays no taxes.

 

[CFM]

But it's Republicans doing the spending,no one more then Trump!

As far as the OP topic, the message Romney sent is that he is still mad Trump handily defeated the person claimed to be the most qualified to ever run for the office and while he couldn't defeat the unqualified black boy making the claim.

 

[LV426]

Sure it does, but they are still paying most of the federal individual income taxes and paying a larger percentage of taxes than their share of the income---so they are the only group paying their fair share.

But again, Flash, they're not paying their fair share if their share of the wealth is increasing because they're taking an increased share of the income gains.

 

[Nordberg]

Dims should draft him into their primary. They love him...and his binders of women and dogs on top of his car.

That is wrong and stupid. We do not like Romney. He just followed the law and rules of evidence once. We feel the same about him as we always did. It is the right that turned on him en-masse. Not us. He is still a wealthy person who governs for the ruling class against the people.

 

[CFM]

Sure it does, but they are still paying most of the federal individual income taxes and paying a larger percentage of taxes than their share of the income---so they are the only group paying their fair share.

Ever notice how the LV's of the world have no problem with taxing higher incomes at a higher percentage but do have a problem with people having higher skills getting a higher percentage of the income gains?

It's like they want the higher skill/income people to pay more in taxes but want their gains to be on the same level as the janitor.

 

[LV426]

The stock market that has averaged 10% annual returns since its inception (S&P 500) between 1926-2018

Great. But, as we know, the market is highly volatile and if you catch it at the wrong time, you get fucked like so many did in 2008-9.

It only wiped out savings if idiots sold their funds when they dropped.

Except that the turmoil in the DJIA was caused by turmoil in the secondary and tertiary asset markets, which focused on non-GSE subprime mortgages that had dramatically weakened lending standards that began in 2004 and extended into 2007. The collapse of the DJIA was tied directly to the collapse of the mortgage securities market.

That's why we had to spend TRILLIONS bailing out Wall Street banks with socialism.

Those that stayed in the market gained it all back.

Yeah, only after an extended period of time. It's not like they got everything back the day after they lost it. Secondly, not everyone got everything back, particularly those seniors who were on the cusp of retiring or had just retired. You make it sound like everyone got everything back, but they didn't. A few people got everything back and more. The wealth was redistributed to the top, which is why since the Great Flash Recession began, the wealthy have taken nearly all the economic gains and consolidated their hold on all stocks traded.

The wealth of the 400 richest Americans in 2009 was $1.7T.

The wealth of the 400 richest Americans in 2019 was $3T.

The richest 1% of American households owns 50% of all stock.

60% of Americans don't own any stock.

Even a person who retired in 2009 didn't lose anything and gained it all back.

Completely fucking wrong.

Firstly, how long did it take to "gain it all back"?

Secondly, where are you getting this metric? What is your source? Because what really happened was that between 2009 and 2019, the wealthy increased their share of stock they control (just like they increased their income), so I don't know what you're talking about when you say everyone got everything back. We didn't. Period.

 

[LV426]

You are an idiot. You questioned that any teachers are millionaires. I was proving to you that there are many. The exact numbers don't matter--the point is that many teachers fit this income.

NO YOU DIDN'T PROVE IT.

What you did was post a general, vague statistic, but then you left out all the qualifiers that put that statistic into perspective.

When half of the people you are talking about got their wealth through inheritance, and it seems the remainder of them are a part of a two-income household, suddenly your claim that there are teachers who are millionaires begins to crumble under scrutiny.

You do that kind of bad faith shit all the fucking time.

It's so fucking lazy, Flash.

So no, there aren't plenty of teachers who are millionaires. There are plenty of teachers who inherited wealth, or who are married to a higher earner that, combined, produce a million-dollar household.

You fucking lied, Flash. On purpose. Then you start to say the qualifiers that are in the fucking article you linked to, are irrelevant. Well, they're only irrelevant for you because they change the complexion of your argument, and you can no longer sincerely or credibly argue that there are plenty of teachers who are millionaires. So it's obvious why you think those qualifiers are irrelevant.

So here's a challenge for you, Flash...of those teachers you claim are millionaires, how many earned and saved that wealth and didn't inherit it, or marry a high earner where their combined household income is $1M+???

I doubt you'll do that work. You're too lazy.

 

[LV426]

And of course they are "no longer teachers." They are former teachers and they reached a million while still teachers.

EXCEPT THAT YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK SAYS HALF OF THEM INHERITED THEIR WEALTH, and that a sizable portion of the remaining are part of a dual-income household.

Bad faith, Flash.

Did you even read your fucking link before posting it? Because it certainly helped me make the point that most wealth in this country is inherited, when you stupidly argued that wasn't true even though you posted a link showing half of all teacher-millionaires inherited their millions.

Lazy, sloppy work.

Let's reduce the 14% to 5% for a conservative estimate--that is still 350,000. A pretty big number since your response to teachers being millionaires was "HA."

Why 5%? Why not 0%? Now you're just arbitrarily pulling numbers out of your ass to rig your argument, post-hoc.

I'm not entertaining your pathetic "estimates", Flash. Because that's accommodating your bad faith.

Instead, you will need to do the actual work of finding out just how many of those million-dollar teachers there are who didn't inherit their wealth, or marry a high-earner where they combined their wealth.

It's your fucking argument, so you need to do that fucking work.

 

[LV426]

No it's true

No, it's not.

Tax cuts do not grow an economy.

We know because we just saw GDP growth for last year, which was the same as it averaged over Obama's final four years.

 

[LV426]

My original statement was that there are a lot of teachers who have over $1 million in their retirement account. I proved there are at least 350,000. Many of them are probably college teachers because they are the ones who usually have the choice between a 403(b) and a pension.

So...thanks for providing such a clear-cut example of sophistry for everyone to see.

What you were arguing was that there are teachers who have millions in retirement accounts that they saved themselves. You wanted people reading this thread to think that there are plenty of smart teachers who take their low wage, save for decades, and retire with millions in their retirement accounts.

However, we come to find out that yes, there are teachers who have millions in their retirement accounts but that is placed within the context that half of them inherited their wealth, and an as-yet-undefined number of them are married to high earners and their combined savings tops $1M.

So what you did was basically argue that apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both fruit.

Are apples and oranges the same, Flash? Or are there differences between the two; stark differences and distinctions that distinguish them from each other. You wouldn't argue that an apple is citrus, would you? Because you're basically arguing that they are when you argue that there are teachers who have millions in their retirement accounts when you leave out the important context that half of them inherited their wealth, and a still-to-be-determined-by-you number are married to high earners and their combined savings are $1M.

You understand what you did, right? The means by which you went about making and then falsely sourcing your argument by dismissing important distinctions that reshape the thrust of what you were arguing as irrelevant.

They were only irrelevant to your argument because they forced it to change.

It's a habit of yours here, Flash. You do that kind of deceptive shit all the time. You post half the story, hoping no one pick sup on it, and then when someone does, you dismiss it as irrelevant.

What a fucking brat.

 

[LV426]

There are over 350,000 (conservative estimate) teachers who individually earned the money when we eliminate those that inherited it.

Not a "conservative estimate"...it's something you pulled out of your ass, post-hoc, to make your argument look better than it actually is.

The truth is you have no fucking idea how many teachers individually earned the money, and you're too fucking lazy or scared to find out.

It's not a Conservative estimate, it's your attempt to redefine the parameters of what you meant because you weren't as buttoned up on this subject as you want people to think.

So you did a lazy Google search, you lazily didn't read the link you provided, and then you lazily dismiss the distinctions your own link describes because they weren't helpful to your shitty argument.

 

[Teflon Don]

No, it's not.

Tax cuts do not grow an economy.

We know because we just saw GDP growth for last year, which was the same as it averaged over Obama's final four years.

you lie

 

[LV426]

you lie

No, you're just a fool.

 

[Flash]

So...thanks for providing such a clear-cut example of sophistry for everyone to see.

What you were arguing was that there are teachers who have millions in retirement accounts that they saved themselves. You wanted people reading this thread to think that there are plenty of smart teachers who take their low wage, save for decades, and retire with millions in their retirement accounts.

However, we come to find out that yes, there are teachers who have millions in their retirement accounts but that is placed within the context that half of them inherited their wealth, and an as-yet-undefined number of them are married to high earners and their combined savings tops $1M.

So what you did was basically argue that apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both fruit.

Are apples and oranges the same, Flash? Or are there differences between the two; stark differences and distinctions that distinguish them from each other. You wouldn't argue that an apple is citrus, would you? Because you're basically arguing that they are when you argue that there are teachers who have millions in their retirement accounts when you leave out the important context that half of them inherited their wealth, and a still-to-be-determined-by-you number are married to high earners and their combined savings are $1M.

You understand what you did, right? The means by which you went about making and then falsely sourcing your argument by dismissing important distinctions that reshape the thrust of what you were arguing as irrelevant.

They were only irrelevant to your argument because they forced it to change.

It's a habit of yours here, Flash. You do that kind of deceptive shit all the time. You post half the story, hoping no one pick sup on it, and then when someone does, you dismiss it as irrelevant.

What a fucking brat.

I said a lot of teachers have a retirement account of $1 million plus.

You said: "LOL @ the thought of teachers being millionaires."

I proved I was right--with a few hundred thousand meeting that criteria. The exact number is not important since even 100,000 would show your comment was uninformed.

And this has nothing to do with teachers, anybody contributing to a retirement account for 40 years with money in a 500 index fund is going to have $1 million plus.

Having $1 million in their retirement account would obviously not include those who inherited their money--so an irrelevant diversion

Having a two-earner couple is also an irrelevant diversion since I said retirement account--not retirement income.

As usual, you think writing a lot of irrelevant nonsense is an argument.

You always get very hostile, insulting, and rude when posters prove you wrong and accuse people of sophistry and being lazy. Then, you drop the topic and we never hear from you again like when I proved about 7 million Obama voters voted for Trump, that you can't legally assault or murder a person because he is a Nazi, that waving a Confederate flag in public is not "intimidation" because you do not understand the legal meaning of that term, that the 90% tax rates raised no more revenue as a percent of GDP as the lower rates of later years, etc.