A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 34 of 725
Quote:I don't recall telling my secret: The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need by Andrew Tobias. The title is true. I bought this book when I was 25 and over the decades the money piled up.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh. We all know. You only tell us everyday about it.
https://thepiratebay.org/search/Tobias/0/99/0
You already know some lessons from Chapter 2: A Penny Saved Is Two Pennies Earned
“I walked home to save bus fare.” “Gee, you could have saved a lot more by not taking a taxi.” —OLD JOKE
You could jump to the Appendix: Still Not Sure What to Do?
If everything you’ve read so far leaves you unsure what to do, let me grab you by the hand and make it this simple: short of inheriting or marrying wealth, the surest way to become rich is to save all you can and invest it for long-term growth. If you save at least 10% of each paycheck and earn a 7% annual return, it will take just over 30 years to grow your nest egg to equal ten years of income. You can then quit work and, with a little kick from Social Security, stay at approximately the same standard of living for the rest of your life. Or keep working (or save even more) to build a yet more comfortable margin of safety.
How do I save 10% of income? If you have a retirement plan at work, just have a portion of your pay automatically shunted to it (namely, whatever portion the company matches with a contribution of its own). For the rest, instruct your bank to set up an automatic monthly transfer from your checking account to your investment account or Roth IRA. There are people in the world making 10% less than you who are not ragged and homeless. Live like them.
How do I earn 7% a year? This is the hard part, because the 7% has to be the real return, after taxes . . .
Read the book to find out.
The author, Andrew Tobias, was treasurer of the Democratic National Committee from 1999 until 2017. This is a thread for Democrats Only.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's not a secret. That's investing 101.
Good advice giving the TPB link for the book though.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dollars, Cents and Republicans
www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/dollars-cents-republican-sadism.htm
l
Democrats want to strengthen the social safety net. Republicans want to weaken it. Why?
G.O.P. opposition to programs, from food stamps to Medicaid, is usually framed in monetary terms. For example, Senator Orrin Hatch, challenged about Congress’s failure to take action on the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a part of Medicaid that covers nearly nine million children — and whose federal funding expired back in September — declared that “the reason CHIP’s having trouble is that we don’t have money anymore.”
But is it really about the money? No. Consider three stories about health care policies.
First, there’s the saga of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court allowed states to opt out of this expansion. But accepting expansion should have been a no-brainer for every state: The federal government would initially pay the full cost, and even in the long run it would pay 90 percent, meanwhile bringing money and jobs into state economies.
Yet 18 states — all of them with Republican-controlled legislatures, governors or both — still haven’t expanded Medicaid. Why?
For a while you could argue that it was about cynical political strategy: Medicaid expansion was a policy of Barack Obama, and Republican state governors didn’t want to give a Democratic president any policy successes. But that story can’t explain states’ continuing resistance to the idea of providing health coverage to thousands of their own citizens at minimal cost.
No, at this point it’s clear that G.O.P. state governors are actually willing to hurt their own states’ economies to deny access to health care.
Second, there’s the issue of work requirements for Medicaid. Some states have been petitioning for years for the right to force Medicaid recipients to take jobs, and this week the Trump administration declared that it would allow them to do so. But what was driving this demand?
The reality is that a vast majority of adult Medicaid recipients are in families where at least one adult is working. And a vast majority of those who aren’t working have very good reasons for not being in the labor force: They’re disabled, they’re caregivers to other family members or they’re students. The population of Medicaid recipients who “ought” to be working but aren’t is very small, and the money that states could save by denying them coverage is trivial.
Oh, and of the 10 states reportedly seeking to impose work requirements, six have accepted the A.C.A. Medicaid expansion, which means that most of the money they could save by kicking people off would be federal, not state, dollars. So what’s this about?
The answer, surely, is that it isn’t about the governor saving state money.
Finally, there’s the case of children’s health insurance. Again, federal funding expired back in September, and millions of children will lose coverage soon if that funding isn’t restored. So what will it cost the Treasury if Congress does what it should have done months ago, and restores funding? The answer, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is — nothing. Or actually less than nothing. In fact, a 10-year extension of CHIP funding would save the government $6 billion.
How is this possible, given the roughly $14 billion a year CHIP currently spends on health? The key point, laid out in a budget office analysis a few months ago, is that many (but not all) families whose children are currently covered by CHIP could alternatively be covered by subsidized private insurance through the Obamacare exchanges.
Private insurance is, however, considerably more expensive than Medicaid, which uses its bargaining power to hold down costs. (The cost of private insurance has gone up even further now that Republicans have repealed the individual mandate, worsening the risk pool.) As a result, subsidies for private insurance would end up costing more than the direct coverage children currently get through CHIP.
And don’t imagine th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ex-Union Boss Calls Trump A ‘Con Man’ And ‘Liar’ As Carrier Lays Off 215 More Workers
A former Steelworkers union boss has blasted Donald Trump as a “con man,” an “idiot” and a “liar” as Indianapolis air-conditioning and furnace company Carrier Corp. laid off 215 more workers Thursday. The company has sent a third of its jobs to Mexico since Trump boasted a year ago about a $7 million state tax incentive deal for the company to keep jobs in the U.S.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-liar-carrier-layoffs_us_5a5
7e57ee4b0720dc4c59342?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It was common during 2016 for Republican senators to be sharply critical of Trump — Marco Rubio (R-FL) called him a “con artist,” and Ted Cruz (R-TX) called him “totally amoral,” while according to Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “if we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed [...] and we will deserve it.” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) decided to take the unusual measure of standing by his election-year criticisms of Trump even after Trump won. Last fall, for example, he told the mayor of Mesa, Arizona, that if the GOP becomes “the party of Roy Moore and Donald Trump, we are toast.” His criticisms of Trump didn’t come from a standpoint of ideology but rather from a stance that Trump is personally intemperate.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Ex-Union Boss Calls Trump A ‘Con Man’ And ‘Liar’ As Carrier Lays Off 215 More Workers
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where was huffington post for 8 years when this country was loosing 10's of thousands of good jobs during the Obama administration? lol
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Rubio and Cruz were fellow contenders for the Nomination in the campaign year of 2016, exaggerated quotes are expected.
Originally posted by second:Quote:It was common during 2016 for Republican senators to be sharply critical of Trump — Marco Rubio (R-FL) called him a “con artist,” and Ted Cruz (R-TX) called him “totally amoral,” while according to Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “if we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed [...] and we will deserve it.” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) decided to take the unusual measure of standing by his election-year criticisms of Trump even after Trump won. Last fall, for example, he told the mayor of Mesa, Arizona, that if the GOP becomes “the party of Roy Moore and Donald Trump, we are toast.” His criticisms of Trump didn’t come from a standpoint of ideology but rather from a stance that Trump is personally intemperate.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Ex-Union Boss Calls Trump A ‘Con Man’ And ‘Liar’ As Carrier Lays Off 215 More Workers
y
Quotes from The Usual Suspects of RINOs who cannot find enough microphones to spout for, like Graham and Flake, are even more useless.
A little context could make your posts less useless. Perhaps you could provide Oprah's take on each of your political topics?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:HuffPost spent 8 years shoveling Obama's shit. And they still are.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Where was huffington post for 8 years when this country was loosing 10's of thousands of good jobs during the Obama administration? lol
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The context is that Ted Cruz did not endorse Trump even at the Republican Convention. Cruz got booed there. If Cruz is to be reelected to the Senate, he can't keep reminding Texans that Trump is amoral. Trump has not become moral; Cruz has stopped pointing to Trump's morals.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Rubio and Cruz were fellow contenders for the Nomination in the campaign year of 2016, exaggerated quotes are expected.
Quotes from The Usual Suspects of RINOs who cannot find enough microphones to spout for, like Graham and Flake, are even more useless.
A little context could make your posts less useless. Perhaps you could provide Oprah's take on each of your political topics?
For two easy examples of Trump's amorality, there is story about Trump's lawyer paying $130,000 to a porn star in today's newspaper. Trump denies knowing Stephanie Clifford. He also denies calling countries "shitholes" on the same front page. As JewelStaiteFan said, "A little context could make your posts less useless." That's context on Trump and why Cruz stopped talking about Trump's morality. It doesn't change Trump's behavior and it hurts Cruz, so why would Cruz talk about it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Democrats should be willing to prosecute banksters for fraud, rein in the Fed, negotiate with drug companies for lower prices, increase manufacturing at home, and stop meddling abroad. Don't forget SECOND that under Saint Obama, the wealth gap kept increasing at the same rate as under Bush.
If I'm to believe the numbers, instead of the propaganda, when I see that trend reverse thanks to Democrats, THEN I'll believe that they have our interests at heart, Until then, it's all just DNC mouthing pious words and stupid people believing them
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME