My Oh My Maxine

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Oh, another California quitter, eh?

 

I'm not sure if you're referring to my retirement or leaving CA.  Well the first is not quitting and the second is the plan is to retire here.  

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Between her and Warren... 

 

At least they're not calling us "snake oil salesmen".  Thank you Obama.  

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I'm not sure if you're referring to my retirement or leaving CA.  Well the first is not quitting and the second is the plan is to retire here.  

Nah, I'm just busting your balls. LA is counting down the days to 5-20-19 as that is his departure date to potatoland. More power to you in retirement and if you can do that and stay in CA good for you.

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Nah, I'm just busting your balls. LA is counting down the days to 5-20-19 as that is his departure date to potatoland. More power to you in retirement and if you can do that and stay in CA good for you.

 

I know you were.  And funny because was just discussing this with the wife today.  Yes we can afford to retire here (never thought living in Oakland would be the driving factor in that) but the lifestyle would go a lot further if we retired elsewhere.  The issue is we know the are real well and not sure, at my age, I want to start over again in someplace like Idaho. Yeah...you da ho.  

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I know you were.  And funny because was just discussing this with the wife today.  Yes we can afford to retire here (never thought living in Oakland would be the driving factor in that) but the lifestyle would go a lot further if we retired elsewhere.  The issue is we know the are real well and not sure, at my age, I want to start over again in someplace like Idaho. Yeah...you da ho.  

 

At what point does CA get around to deciding that your retirement savings is "hoarded" wealth, and in the interests of income equality they should confiscate it, and you should be limited to retiring on what the state gives you?

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

At what point does CA get around to deciding that your retirement savings is "hoarded" wealth, and in the interests of income equality they should confiscate it, and you should be limited to retiring on what the state gives you?

 

Well on a serious note they are going to have to do something to salvage Social Security.  Increasing the ages when people may take it is one idea that makes sense.  Another, which is a bad idea, is have it means tested.  So you may have put into the system but not get anything out because you were too responsible.  

[IDBillzFan]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

At what point does CA get around to deciding that your retirement savings is "hoarded" wealth, and in the interests of income equality they should confiscate it, and you should be limited to retiring on what the state gives you?

 

Right about the moment the state lawmakers decide to take the bullet train to Merced to hold a summit discussing how to fund Calpers.

[3rdnlng]

55 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I know you were.  And funny because was just discussing this with the wife today.  Yes we can afford to retire here (never thought living in Oakland would be the driving factor in that) but the lifestyle would go a lot further if we retired elsewhere.  The issue is we know the are real well and not sure, at my age, I want to start over again in someplace like Idaho. Yeah...you da ho.  

I've mentioned this on here before but I spent 8 months traveling the country back when I had a daughter not yet in school. My wife and I sold our home, put furniture in storage and bought a motorhome. We saw a lot of the country while we kept an eye out as to where we might want to live. At that time I had to also consider where I could earn a living. If you and your wife did something along this line you could do it without the burden of thinking about making a living. Just a suggestion.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I know you were.  And funny because was just discussing this with the wife today.  Yes we can afford to retire here (never thought living in Oakland would be the driving factor in that) but the lifestyle would go a lot further if we retired elsewhere.  The issue is we know the are real well and not sure, at my age, I want to start over again in someplace like Idaho. Yeah...you da ho.  

 

If you're all about the warmth, there's Arizona and Texas, both of which are probably more rational than California.

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

If you're all about the warmth, there's Arizona and Texas, both of which are probably more rational than California.

 

You can take Arizona off the "rational" list. It's all but lost at this point. Way too many progressive Californian's there.

[Uncle Joe]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Well on a serious note they are going to have to do something to salvage Social Security.  Increasing the ages when people may take it is one idea that makes sense.  Another, which is a bad idea, is have it means tested.  So you may have put into the system but not get anything out because you were too responsible.  

I think they should remove the SS cap on wages. 
And not let the "fund"' get raided by other interests.

[keepthefaith]

11 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said:

I think they should remove the SS cap on wages. 
And not let the "fund"' get raided by other interests.

 

Agree the fund should be fire-walled off from any other use.  Wasn't it Nixon that changed that law back in the 70's?  Dumbass.

 

As for the cap, there would be huge implications for companies that employ higher wage people as they would then have to contribute "their share" of about 7% unless the law were written differently.  We shouldn't ask companies to do that.  Frankly I think we start by offering lump sum tax free buyouts at a certain age to people with higher net worth which will pay them less than they would draw otherwise.  Many I think would take it and invest it themselves.  Other than that I think we should raise the employee portion withheld and simply be honest with people that it's what's necessary to keep it in the black and still provide benefits. 

[Chef Jim]

21 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said:

I think they should remove the SS cap on wages. 
And not let the "fund"' get raided by other interests.

 

They should only remove a cap on the wages if they remove the cap on the income at the other end.  

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Agree the fund should be fire-walled off from any other use.  Wasn't it Nixon that changed that law back in the 70's?  Dumbass.

 

As for the cap, there would be huge implications for companies that employ higher wage people as they would then have to contribute "their share" of about 7% unless the law were written differently.  We shouldn't ask companies to do that.  Frankly I think we start by offering lump sum tax free buyouts at a certain age to people with higher net worth which will pay them less than they would draw otherwise.  Many I think would take it and invest it themselves.  Other than that I think we should raise the employee portion withheld and simply be honest with people that it's what's necessary to keep it in the black and still provide benefits. 

 

I think there also needs to be more education of personal finance. A LOT more education.  If people knew how much better off they'd be if they took the amount of money that is being taxed for SS and invested that amount.  We could almost do away with any kind of retirement safety net.  I just did a quick calculation.  If someone put aside $200 a month for 40 years at a reasonable return of 8% they'd have a nest egg of about $650,000.  You could pull about $40,000 out of that at a conservative rate of about 5% return that money would last until you're 95.  Who needs SS if you know how to save, invest, plan and distribute.  Keep in mind I didn't inflate the distribution number but you look at SS lately and that's not getting much of a COLA either. 

[njbuff]

I feel sorry for James Brown's wig.

[/dev/null]

2 minutes ago, njbuff said:

I feel sorry for James Brown's wig.

 

that's not James Brown's wig, that's an alien parasite from a planet at war with the planet the thing on Donald Trump's head came from

[sherpa]

Not trying to bump this, but her statements as chairperson of the Financial Services Committee are positively frightening,

 

The link I provided is quite short, but in addition to being completely ignorant on the student loan issue, she further soils herself at at the 50 second mark/

 When accusing these guys of not making loans to small businesses, the response is that "We have made 8 billion dollars in loans to small businesses...."

She then tells them, seemingly completely ignorant of the response, that "her time is up." 

 

Got to admit, in the interest of full disclosure, I've got a thing for Maxine. 

I flew the Dulles to LA thing for two years straight.

She was on all the time leaving Dulles on Friday and coming back on Monday.

She was incredibly pretentious and rude, to the point where I used to make it a point to get to the cockpit door early to try to force eye contact or any kind of human respect interaction with her.

She would always drop her head in an intentional effort to not acknowledge me or others.

She would have her "staff member" drop all her reading crap on her 1st class seat, then go to his seat in the back.then, board very late,never talk to or even address anybody except to eat, and leave an absolute trash pile in her seat.

Completely dismissive an rude.

 

She is one of about five people of the hundreds of pols/celebs I carried that were completely rude.

Rant complete.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

6 hours ago, sherpa said:

Not trying to bump this, but her statements as chairperson of the Financial Services Committee are positively frightening,

 

The link I provided is quite short, but in addition to being completely ignorant on the student loan issue, she further soils herself at at the 50 second mark/

 When accusing these guys of not making loans to small businesses, the response is that "We have made 8 billion dollars in loans to small businesses...."

She then tells them, seemingly completely ignorant of the response, that "her time is up." 

 

Got to admit, in the interest of full disclosure, I've got a thing for Maxine. 

I flew the Dulles to LA thing for two years straight.

She was on all the time leaving Dulles on Friday and coming back on Monday.

She was incredibly pretentious and rude, to the point where I used to make it a point to get to the cockpit door early to try to force eye contact or any kind of human respect interaction with her.

She would always drop her head in an intentional effort to not acknowledge me or others.

She would have her "staff member" drop all her reading crap on her 1st class seat, then go to his seat in the back.then, board very late,never talk to or even address anybody except to eat, and leave an absolute trash pile in her seat.

Completely dismissive an rude.

 

She is one of about five people of the hundreds of pols/celebs I carried that were completely rude.

Rant complete.

 

 

There's much to be said about a person according to the way they treat other people. Your mini-rant is entirely believable. The arrogance that she displays in public no doubt is brought about by her abject ignorance. It's her cover to hide her inadequacies that in spite of, she has risen to a prominent and important position in Congress. How she gained (and remains in) such a position of power is beyond belief. This could not be done with a media that reported even a modicum of the truth.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

There's much to be said about a person according to the way they treat other people. Your mini-rant is entirely believable. The arrogance that she displays in public no doubt is brought about by her abject ignorance. It's her cover to hide her inadequacies that in spite of, she has risen to a prominent and important position in Congress. How she gained (and remains in) such a position of power is beyond belief. This could not be done with a media that reported even a modicum of the truth.

 

Truth. Still, there are certain districts you could run a pile of dogschit, and as long as they had a -D (or -R to be fair) next to their name, they'd win.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

Truth. Still, there are certain districts you could run a pile of dogschit, and as long as they had a -D (or -R to be fair) next to their name, they'd win.

Yes, quite a tribute to the muted media. How someone like a Hank Johnson wasn't run out of office for his comment regarding Guam tipping over is beyond comprehension.

[Chef Jim]

19 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

Truth. Still, there are certain districts you could run a pile of dogschit, and as long as they had a -D (or -R to be fair) next to their name, they'd win.

 

Oh no doubt but there absolutely has to be someone of better character and leadership skills in her district with a D next to their name. It’s almost as if it’s a requirement to be a spoiled immature child to be elected to any level of public service. And this goes for left/right/center. And I’ve said it a million times Twitter is going to kill this Republic. The childish Twitter wars that go on are as sad as some of the “debates” here.