Personal contacts & Phone numbers

Run–do not walk–in the other direction.

[quote=NASD Newbie]Run–do not walk–in the other direction.[/quote]

I did.

You want a salary and income? Get a non-sales job.  Go punch a clock and collect a wage.

Seriously. I'm not trolling.

Jesus man get out of there now. I interviewed with them 3 yrs ago back when I didn't know tit for tat about the industry. I gave them my cashier checks to pay for my own licensing and studying and the day I was supposed to begin, my ass tightened and I kindly asked for my money back.

Interview with Ameriprise, Ed Jones, Chase....anywhere but First Investors.

The honest to god truth is, it's not even a standard Draw system. They just use that as a front until they slap the old pyramid scheme on you where you end up paying your "mentors" money for doing business.

None of the quality firms operate this way. A quality firm will train you at their expense. They will pick up all the fees for tests and registrations. All will pay you a salary that declines over time, gradually weening you from salary to 100% commission. All will have you sign a training agreement that obligates you to repay them their training cost should you fail. That amount is amortized over time and, to the best of my knowledge rarely enforced. 

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Jesus man get out of there now. I interviewed with them 3 yrs ago back when I didn’t know tit for tat about the industry. I gave them my cashier checks to pay for my own licensing and studying and the day I was supposed to begin, my ass tightened and I kindly asked for my money back.

Interview with Ameriprise, Ed Jones, Chase....anywhere but First Investors.

The honest to god truth is, it's not even a standard Draw system. They just use that as a front until they slap the old pyramid scheme on you where you end up paying your "mentors" money for doing business.

[quote=Slim2None]

Do you know anything about Ernst and Young?
[/quote]

Don't sit down and ask them, "Is it true that figures never lie, but liars always figure?"

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Slim2None]

Do you know anything about Ernst and Young?
[/quote]

Don't sit down and ask them, "Is it true that figures never lie, but liars always figure?"

[quote=Slim2None] [quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Slim2None]

Do you know anything about Ernst and Young?
[/quote]

Don't sit down and ask them, "Is it true that figures never lie, but liars always figure?"

[/quote]

Can you elaborate? I'm intrigued by your comment.
[/quote]

Ernst and Young is an example of the latest groups to join the wars--CPA firms.

For years small practioners have been getting licensed by places like HD Vest and First Global--but it's relatively new that the big worldwide accounting firms have been starting a securities selling effort.

So now, rather than getting a lead from a CPA friend you're going to find them trying to take your business away from you.  If you were an investor who would you figure is more qualified to help you with your retirement plan--some guy who can't spell or your CPA?

Oh, I forgot the question.  The liars always figure statement is just a line that has been around for years–nothing meant to be implied–just that accounting firms use figures.

You know who else is taking Series 7 and 66 so that they can play in the wars?

Law firms--yep lawyers.  Rank who you think the investors will trust to manage their money:

Lawyers, accountants, Schwab, a Vice President at Merrill Lynch, or some guy who doesn't know how to capitalize a sentence that is operating an "Indy" storefront next to a Chinese restaurant?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

You know who else is taking Series 7 and 66 so that they can play in the wars?

Law firms--yep lawyers.  Rank who you think the investors will trust to manage their money:

Lawyers, accountants, Schwab, a Vice President at Merrill Lynch, or some guy who doesn't know how to capitalize a sentence that is operating an "Indy" storefront next to a Chinese restaurant?

[/quote]

They will trust the best salesman.  This could come from any of these professions.

[quote=braves fan][quote=NASD Newbie]

You know who else is taking Series 7 and 66 so that they can play in the wars?

Law firms--yep lawyers.  Rank who you think the investors will trust to manage their money:

Lawyers, accountants, Schwab, a Vice President at Merrill Lynch, or some guy who doesn't know how to capitalize a sentence that is operating an "Indy" storefront next to a Chinese restaurant?

[/quote]

They will trust the best salesman.  This could come from any of these professions.

[/quote]

There is a lot to be said for that.

However, do you think that the accountant or lawyer has a built in credibility that can trump salesmanship?

I should also add banks to the list.  From where I sit the dismantling of Glass Stegal has created three professionals who have a stronger claim on a client's loyalty that trumps a traditional broker or advisor.

Accountants should be able to take all the business, but they're somewhat nerdish and not agressively pursuing the investment side--however their trade groups are really pushing it as a way to augment their income.

Bankers shold be major players, but they hire the Wall Street's rejects and ex tellers and until that changes they will never break out.

Lawyers are still an unknown.  The American Bar Association worries about arbitration and litigation being filed against their membership and is not endorsing the concept.  Nonetheless some agressive firms, and a lot of the sole practioners are joining forces with broker dealers that are being established to represent them.

As I said earlier, everybody in this business had better have a plan for how they're going to keep their customers from talking to the competition.  Perhaps you should become a CPA and transfer your license to HD Vest or First Global.

Who knows?

Don't have a college degree so you can't become a CPA or an attorney?

Bummer.

old dino,

where you're sitting from ...... we call that the reading room in our house. Your advice smells exactly like that room too!

[quote=eddjones654]

old dino,

where you're sitting from ...... we call that the reading room in our house. Your advice smells exactly like that room too!

[/quote]

I wouldn't word it quite as sternly, but I have to agree.  Granted, there will be some clients that will have a specific credential in mind that they require their advisor to have, but for the most part, I doubt that will be anything outside of a CFP.  Even at that, I question how many clients will require the CFP of their advisor.  Unfortunately, this is what leaves the door open for shady characters to enter our business and sell unsuitable investments.  The only thing that will change this is a stricter licensing requirement from the NASD and SEC.  Something similar to the requirements for doctors and lawyers.  Something where you can't decide that you want to sell investments and less than 6 months later be licensed to sell and charge fees.  I think it would be very prudent to make the NASD exams similar to the bar exam.  Sure would weed out alot of folks in the business just because they can't find any other gig.

[quote=braves fan]

I wouldn't word it quite as sternly, but I have to agree.  Granted, there will be some clients that will have a specific credential in mind that they require their advisor to have, but for the most part, I doubt that will be anything outside of a CFP.  Even at that, I question how many clients will require the CFP of their advisor.  Unfortunately, this is what leaves the door open for shady characters to enter our business and sell unsuitable investments.  The only thing that will change this is a stricter licensing requirement from the NASD and SEC.  Something similar to the requirements for doctors and lawyers.  Something where you can't decide that you want to sell investments and less than 6 months later be licensed to sell and charge fees.  I think it would be very prudent to make the NASD exams similar to the bar exam.  Sure would weed out alot of folks in the business just because they can't find any other gig.

[/quote]

Sadly, it seems unlikely that Wall Street will raise bar regarding qualification--if anything it is being lowered as the insurance industry becomes more and more participatory in securities.

Prudential, in its various forms, is the largest licenser of NASD reps.  If you think they are going to sit by and allow the exams to become more difficult, or allow educational requirements to be implemented you just don't understand the NASD.

Now, what the NASD can do is be very accomodating to professions that by definition require college educations.  The lawyers and accountants.

You're misguided if you think that Mr. and Mrs. Jones with half a million or more in some sort of qualfied plan are not talking to an accountants or a lawyer about estate planning.

Do you think that accountant or lawyer has an inside track if he or she tells Mr. and Mrs. Jones, "Are you aware that we manage accounts in this firm?  We have a selection of fifty-two full time professional managers who will manage your funds with the same care they give to their huge pension plan customers.  May I give you some information about them?"

My point is that you had best have a plan for what to do if your business suddenly disappears.

I have said all along that retail brokering is not a profit center for a brokerage firm.  "Mother Merrill" would barely notice the loss in firm wide profits if their entire branch office network just closed up and went away.

You need to hear this stuff, many of you are young and have families who are depending on you--at least keep your ear to the ground and understand that the only consant in life is that things change.

[/quote]

Sadly, it seems unlikely that Wall Street will raise bar regarding qualification--if anything it is being lowered as the insurance industry becomes more and more participatory in securities.

Prudential, in its various forms, is the largest licenser of NASD reps.  If you think they are going to sit by and allow the exams to become more difficult, or allow educational requirements to be implemented you just don't understand the NASD.

Now, what the NASD can do is be very accomodating to professions that by definition require college educations.  The lawyers and accountants.

You're misguided if you think that Mr. and Mrs. Jones with half a million or more in some sort of qualfied plan are not talking to an accountants or a lawyer about estate planning.

Do you think that accountant or lawyer has an inside track if he or she tells Mr. and Mrs. Jones, "Are you aware that we manage accounts in this firm?  We have a selection of fifty-two full time professional managers who will manage your funds with the same care they give to their huge pension plan customers.  May I give you some information about them?"

My point is that you had best have a plan for what to do if your business suddenly disappears.

I have said all along that retail brokering is not a profit center for a brokerage firm.  "Mother Merrill" would barely notice the loss in firm wide profits if their entire branch office network just closed up and went away.

You need to hear this stuff, many of you are young and have families who are depending on you--at least keep your ear to the ground and understand that the only consant in life is that things change.

[/quote]

Scarey but true. And to top that off JB Hunt now requires 3 years of over the road experience before they'll hire you as a driver. Talk about timing! Some of us are facing a bleak future.

A side note: A friend recently applied for a sales position at a local car dealership. He was "eliminated from consideration" because he didn't have a college degree. The bar is getting higher everywhere. 

[quote=tjc45]

A side note: A friend recently applied for a sales position at a local car dealership. He was "eliminated from consideration" because he didn't have a college degree. The bar is getting higher everywhere. 

[/quote]

Actually what that does is portray the public schools as a joke.  Today's high school graduates are for all practical purposes unemployable in anything other than manual labor type stuff.

But they feel good about themselves and understand the joy of having two daddies.

[/quote]

...understand the joy of having two daddies.

[/quote]

That last comment added nothing productive and only stands to stir up trouble on what was a decent thread.  Please consider this before posting things like this in the future.

[quote=braves fan]

...understand the joy of having two daddies.

That last comment added nothing productive and only stands to stir up trouble on what was a decent thread.  Please consider this before posting things like this in the future.

[/quote]

You don't find joy in having two daddies?  You need to me more sensitive, more in touch with diversity.

[/quote]

Actually what that does is portray the public schools as a joke.  Today's high school graduates are for all practical purposes unemployable in anything other than manual labor type stuff.

But they feel good about themselves and understand the joy of having two daddies.

[/quote]

Actually the trades are suffering. Not enough grads who want to work with their hands. And they pay very well. Carpenters with three years of experience and a union card are pulling six figures in our area.

Sorry, I don't understand the two daddies comment.

[quote=tjc45]

Sorry, I don't understand the two daddies comment.

[/quote]

It's just as well--I've been asked to stop talking about it.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=tjc45]

Sorry, I don't understand the two daddies comment.

[/quote]

It's just as well--I've been asked to stop talking about it.

[/quote]

Well, I haven't been asked.  It is all about the emphasis on the feel good agenda being pushed in our public schools by certain political action groups to "include" all kinds of thoughts, feelings and lifestyles at the expense of actually teaching children functional skills. Like.....oh, I don't know....reading, writing, spelling, math, history, geography and science.  Instead we are teaching second graders that it is Ok for little Tommy to have two daddies or two mommies or mabye several of each.  

Also, we don't want anyone to have their little feelings bruised by not winning a game or having a paper graded with less than an A in a subject.  Therefore, we don't allow scoring (competition is baaaaaad).  So, we create a generation of dunces that expect the world to be a "happy place" where everyone wins and nobody is a big meanie.  Except that once they graduate from school they probably cant even read what I just wrote and they certainly couldn't write it themselves.

Clear?   

[quote=babbling looney][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=tjc45]

Sorry, I don't understand the two daddies comment.

[/quote]

It's just as well--I've been asked to stop talking about it.

[/quote]

Well, I haven't been asked.  It is all about the emphasis on the feel good agenda being pushed in our public schools by certain political action groups to "include" all kinds of thoughts, feelings and lifestyles at the expense of actually teaching children functional skills. Like.....oh, I don't know....reading, writing, spelling, math, history, geography and science.  Instead we are teaching second graders that it is Ok for little Tommy to have two daddies or two mommies or mabye several of each.  

Also, we don't want anyone to have their little feelings bruised by not winning a game or having a paper graded with less than an A in a subject.  Therefore, we don't allow scoring (competition is baaaaaad).  So, we create a generation of dunces that expect the world to be a "happy place" where everyone wins and nobody is a big meanie.  Except that once they graduate from school they probably cant even read what I just wrote and they certainly couldn't write it themselves.

Clear?   

[/quote]

That's a good post, except what does it have to do with having two daddies or two mommies?

[/quote]

Clear?   

[/quote]

Yep

[quote=braves fan][quote=babbling looney][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=tjc45]

Sorry, I don't understand the two daddies comment.

[/quote]

It's just as well--I've been asked to stop talking about it.

[/quote]

Well, I haven't been asked.  It is all about the emphasis on the feel good agenda being pushed in our public schools by certain political action groups to "include" all kinds of thoughts, feelings and lifestyles at the expense of actually teaching children functional skills. Like.....oh, I don't know....reading, writing, spelling, math, history, geography and science.  Instead we are teaching second graders that it is Ok for little Tommy to have two daddies or two mommies or mabye several of each.  

Also, we don't want anyone to have their little feelings bruised by not winning a game or having a paper graded with less than an A in a subject.  Therefore, we don't allow scoring (competition is baaaaaad).  So, we create a generation of dunces that expect the world to be a "happy place" where everyone wins and nobody is a big meanie.  Except that once they graduate from school they probably cant even read what I just wrote and they certainly couldn't write it themselves.

Clear?   

[/quote]

That's a good post, except what does it have to do with having two daddies or two mommies?

[/quote]

It has to do with the fact that having two daddies, two mommies, two goats and three parakeets at home should  have nothing to do with our educational system.

YET, we seem to be spending time teaching "values" in school instead of knowledge.  It is not the job of the educational system to confirm or deny anyone's lifestyle. That information is completely irrelevant as to whether you can conjugate a verb or what the molecular weight of iron or the location of the Himalayas or have the skill to balance your check book.  Teaching values is the responsibility of the parents of the children and whether or not you like those values is also irrelevant.

Again, I state, we are raising a generation of absolute ignoramuses who don't have the basic knowledge to get and hold a job much less function in a global economy. 

[quote=babbling looney]

Again, I state, we are raising a generation of absolute ignoramuses who don't have the basic knowledge to get and hold a job much less function in a global economy.

[/quote]

SAY IT!

Well gee whiz people!  We can’t expect people to actually be PARENTS just because they have kids, can we?  Isn’t it the job of the public school system to raise children for us?

[quote=babbling looney][quote=braves fan][quote=babbling looney][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=tjc45]

Sorry, I don't understand the two daddies comment.

[/quote]

It's just as well--I've been asked to stop talking about it.

[/quote]

Well, I haven't been asked.  It is all about the emphasis on the feel good agenda being pushed in our public schools by certain political action groups to "include" all kinds of thoughts, feelings and lifestyles at the expense of actually teaching children functional skills. Like.....oh, I don't know....reading, writing, spelling, math, history, geography and science.  Instead we are teaching second graders that it is Ok for little Tommy to have two daddies or two mommies or mabye several of each.  

Also, we don't want anyone to have their little feelings bruised by not winning a game or having a paper graded with less than an A in a subject.  Therefore, we don't allow scoring (competition is baaaaaad).  So, we create a generation of dunces that expect the world to be a "happy place" where everyone wins and nobody is a big meanie.  Except that once they graduate from school they probably cant even read what I just wrote and they certainly couldn't write it themselves.

Clear?   

[/quote]

That's a good post, except what does it have to do with having two daddies or two mommies?

[/quote]

It has to do with the fact that having two daddies, two mommies, two goats and three parakeets at home should  have nothing to do with our educational system.

YET, we seem to be spending time teaching "values" in school instead of knowledge.  It is not the job of the educational system to confirm or deny anyone's lifestyle. That information is completely irrelevant as to whether you can conjugate a verb or what the molecular weight of iron or the location of the Himalayas or have the skill to balance your check book.  Teaching values is the responsibility of the parents of the children and whether or not you like those values is also irrelevant.

Again, I state, we are raising a generation of absolute ignoramuses who don't have the basic knowledge to get and hold a job much less function in a global economy. 

[/quote]

Amen, sister!!!

This is an easy bandwagon to jump on...except that we all start sounding like Bill O'Reilly....

The sad thing is, up until someone pointed it out recently, I didn't know that the SAT had been watered down in the mid-90's.  I was seeing all these 1200-1300 SAT scored, and I couldn't believe how dense these kids seemed.  The lightbulb came on when I discovered that SAT scores were significantly inflated compared to what I was accustomed to.

Hopefully I'm just a cynic, but man, some of these "smart" students seem awfully dense and completely lacking in the common sense area.

Indyone:

Hopefully I'm just a cynic, but man, some of these "smart" students seem awfully dense and completely lacking in the common sense area.

---------------------------------------------

Replace "students" with the word "adults" and I was saying that statement 30 years ago.

…know what you’re saying…it’s sad that ours is the only intelligent generation on the planet…

Actually fellas, teaching common sense is highly discouraged among the public schools and university's these days.  It seems that someone invariably gets offended, and you know most Americans, 'My feelings are hurt, therefore someone must owe me money".

As long as they professors only teach what's in the approved textbooks (for the free thinkers among you, check out a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me") they're lawsuit-resistant.

Too many lawyers...

So what I hear a few of you saying (NASD, Babbling etc...) is that we shouldn't teach our kids about different cultures, socio-economic backgrounds, religious beliefs etc.....?  Hmmmmmmmmm sounds great.  I probably would have grown up a 'closet' racist had that been the case at my school.  Thank GOD I had 'big brother' there to help me realize the ignorance of my parents.....I would extrapolate and propose that this is a positive thing for our society.

It would be plain out stupid to enter a world of EXTREMELY diverse origin and background without a few tools to understand and 'get along' with others.  I still can't understand why educating kids about 'reality' is a bad thing.

Yes it is Ok for little Jimmy to have two daddies, even if I don't agree with it, 'cause it's not my choice and therefore none of my business.  A world of ignorance and misunderstanding is essentially disfunctional.  This is not about values, it's about having a functional society where people can walk the streets without fear of persecution because they are a Moslem, Black, Gay whatever.  No matter what your religious/political background you have to learn to get along with all sorts of people and how can you do that if you grew up in a home that teaches you that 'Black folk' are not O.K.?

It's always easy for people who haven't walked in anothers shoes to discredit their experience and tell them to "quit complaining and fall in line". 

Some of the comments in this thread are shockingly ignorant.  I am greatful that I don't feel discomfort around homosexuals ANYMORE, since I learned that HOMO's are bad as a kid........still doesn't mean that I desire or agree with their lifestyle choices, it's just not my business.

BTW.......I AM NOT a fan of the current state of public school in the least and currently homeschool my two daughters because of some of the issues that have been addressed here. 

Never the less I think that the comments about two daddies etc..... sound like they came straight out of Billy Buford Clemm The Swamp Rats' toothless mouth.  They should be teaching that it's not O.K. to inbreed, alright there NASD Easy Trader?  But then I haven't walked in your shoes so I should take my own advice I guess.

[quote=dude]

Some of the comments in this thread are shockingly ignorant.  I am greatful that I don't feel discomfort around homosexuals ANYMORE, since I learned that HOMO's are bad as a kid........still doesn't mean that I desire or agree with their lifestyle choices, it's just not my business.

[/quote]

Ah, the whine of the liberal.  "I feeeeel that it is none of my business."

Do you feel that way about somebody who wants to have the Ten Commandments posted on the wall of every school room in the country?  Is that none of your business?

How about parents who think that they should be given their child's share of the school budget in their town--a voucher--and take that voucher to any school?  Are you for that?

How about eliminating the estate tax?  Would you be in favor of allowing somebody to leave everything they have to whomever they want without taxing a single penny of it?

How about progressive taxation?  Do you believe that somebody who earns (say) $500,000 should pay tax at a greater rate than somebody who earns $50,000?  In other words the "fair share" becomes a larger percentage as you earn more--is that part of your beliefs?

How about gay marriage.  Do you think that they're pushing too hard when they demand that the decent segment of society accept the concept that any combination of people can get married--instead of settling for legislation that allows all the legal rights of a heterosexual married couple, except the term married?

How about the military.  Do you believe that our troops are doing good things in Iraq inspite of the relatively few horror stories we hear?

How about Israel?  Do you believe that Israel is the cause of the trouble in the Middle East?  Do you think that they should just turn the other cheek when they are attacked?

The other day you--I think--indicated that you would rather have a President Hillary Clinton than a President George W Bush.  That would seem to indicate that you're much more in touch with your feminine side than with reality.  Would that be a fair characterization?

Babbling, NASD NEWB,

Do you not realize that by attacking the schooling system and calling today's generation of kids "idiots" that you are essentially calling your generation an idiot as well?

Who do you think implemented the system to begin with? Aliens from the future?

What is your opinion of this?

How about Israel?  Do you believe that Israel is the cause of the trouble in the Middle East?  Do you think that they should just turn the other cheek when they are attacked?

What does that have to do with being a Liberal? are you insinuiating that those who do (think Israel is the cause for everything) is a Liberal? The last thing I would do is call any Arab living in the Middle East a Liberal.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Babbling, NASD NEWB,

Do you not realize that by attacking the schooling system and calling today's generation of kids "idiots" that you are essentially calling your generation an idiot as well?

Who do you think implemented the system to begin with? Aliens from the future?

What is your opinion of this?

[/quote]

In 1969 LBJ signed a whole slew of legislation mandating massive changes in the nation--including in the schools.

For the first time in our nations history we had "diversity" in the classroom.

During the 1970s there was a valiant attempt to teach these diverse groups what had been taught all along in places like Thomas Jefferson High School--even though the "new" students were unable to benefit from the classes because they were not "getting it."

Finally, around 1980 educators settled on the idea of not teaching things that were beyond the grasp of everybody in the classroom--entire subjects were simply dropped from the schedule.  Things that members of the class of 1965 had as mandatory subjects were electives, or not there at all, for the class of 1965.

Entire subjects were "reworked."  It was decided that there were too many white people in the US history books, so lots of them were just purged.  In the early editions of the purged books Benjamin Franklin was just gone--he had not been a president so there was no reason for him to be in history books.  In his place was (i.e.) Harriet Tubman.

But some entire subjects were just gone--which left holes in the schedule.  Those were filled with odd ball things like classes in "Respect."  Students were taught to feel good about themselves and to respect everybody else on earth.  Young kids were encouraged to report their parents for using nasty words or talking negatively about other people.

By the time the 1990s arrived kids who were starting in school as the changes came about were graduating from college and entering the ranks of teaching.

If Mrs. Jones was never taught about Benjamin Franklin how is she going to know about him?  If Mr. Patterson, the math teacher, took dumb downed math courses how is he going to be able to be a challenging teacher?

The schools are now firmly in control of people who believe that their role is to engineer a utopian society where everybody is equal.  They measure everything by the gap between the top and bottom levels.

For example--and the numbers are just examples--in 1965 94% of all white kids could read at grade level while only 54% of minority kids were reading at grade level.  The gap was an unacceptable 40%.

These days 70% of white kids can read at grade level and 50% of minority kids can read at grade level.  The gap has narrowed to only 20 points and that is considered an accomplishment to today's education community.

They are working towards no difference at all.  There are some of us who believe that the only way that will ever happen is when nobody can read--so the rates are 0% and 0%, which according to modern education theory is perfection.

The entire fiasco cannot be blamed on a single generation--it is the unintended consequence of people of good will.

While I will agree with you that our school system has become watered down in some areas, how exactly is it that we are continually making medical and technological advancements?  Is it because we are becoming more ignorant?  Hard to believe.  It is because we are attaining more knowledge.  While there is a sect of society that is nothing more than imbuciles who have no cultural exposure beyond television and pop culture, there is another sect of my generation that is continuing to better themselves and to build upon what the foundation that the great men and women that have gone before us have laid.  The ironic thing is that you preach about personal responsibility, yet blame it on the school system and liberals that our students aren't learning anything.  Last time I checked, each and every student has the ability to pick up a book and read.  If they can't afford one, they can visit the local library.  Those that strive to learn, will.  Those who do not, will be left behind and their job will be outsourced.  Guess what? When that happens, I won't feel sorry.  If you don't like that you're job went overseas, find a way to make yourself more marketable. 

I guess my point in this whole rant is to show that you can have a strong belief in personal responsibility, yet still think that making a comment like NASD made about two daddies is completely ignorant.  If things were so good previously in schools and society, how far back do you propose we go?  Maybe we can have black and white schools or water fountains.  Maybe we can find some KKK members to run around with sheets over their head.  While you rant about all of the errors in society, please do not forget all of the progress that we have made.  Please also do not think that I am saying everything is ok because I "feel good".  The truth is, I "feel good" because I believe everything is ok.

One day, about five years ago I was visiting with my best friend.

His son was home from college with three buddies.

We got to talking about things, drawing comparisions between what it was like when we were their age and the way it was then.

One of them, in all sincerity, asked my buddy, "Mr. Martin, what was it like before color?  Did you have difficulty dealing with not being able to see colors, like dogs can't?  How did you know if the traffic lights were red or green?

This guy, a college sophomore or junior, thought that sometime around 1960 the world became colorful. That before that everything was black and white.

It is impossible to underestimate how dumb anybody less than forty actually is.

The reason the country still advances is because those who graduated from college before 1980 or so are not dumbed down.

The youngest of those who were not hurt by the dumbing down are now in their mid forties--the country has about twenty years left before the smartest people in society are those who understand that it's not a good idea to pee in the river upstream from where the water is drawn.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

It is impossible to underestimate how dumb anybody less than forty actually is.

The reason the country still advances is because those who graduated from college before 1980 or so are not dumbed down.

[/quote]

I have to say that making a blanket generalization like this is the most ignorant thing that I have ever heard in my life.  It is statements like this that make me ashamed to be a conservative.

[quote=braves fan]

I have to say that making a blanket generalization like this is the most ignorant thing that I have ever heard in my life.

[/quote]

That statement alone verifies how woefully uneducated and informed you actually are.

Yeah u guys under 40 r real dumb… Here’s something to scare you.



The president who will decide if you get your social security is likely now under 40. I know you don’t have a portfolio, so I hope we make some reel god dessisions for yours saces

[quote=bankrep1]Yeah u guys under 40 r real dumb... Here's something to scare you.

The president who will decide if you get your social security is likely now under 40. I know you don't have a portfolio, so I hope we make some reel god dessisions for yours saces[/quote]

Presidents cannot determine the fate of Social Security.  Had civics been taught in schools since 1970 that would be known.

Ultimately the decision to cut your benefits or keep them will be made by a future president.

[quote=bankrep1]Ultimately the decision to cut your benefits or keep them will be made by a future president.[/quote]

No it won't it will be made by a future Congress.  The President has very little to do with Social Security.

You must be so ashamed.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=braves fan]

I have to say that making a blanket generalization like this is the most ignorant thing that I have ever heard in my life.

[/quote]

That statement alone verifies how woefully uneducated and informed you actually are.

[/quote]

Why is that?

Are you retarted? President Bush proposed private accounts, not congress. They have to pass whatever the president proposes or modify it etc. but ultimately it will be a president in his 2nd term who says your benefits will be reduced or payroll taxes will be increased, both unpopular actions.

Avg Life expectancy in 1935- 63, Social Security Retirment Age-65

Avg Life expectancy in 2006- 80+, Social Security Retirment Age-65

Anyone see a problem?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

One day, about five years ago I was visiting with my best friend.

Well, acutally a guy who was confined to a wheelchair and unable to move or speak so I think he just loves to hear me talk talk talk, He's my BESTEST friend...

His son was home from college with three buddies.

We got to talking about things, drawing comparisions between what it was like when we were their age and the way it was then.

I was giving them the same long boring diatribe about my life experiences that I spew in this forum... how smart I am, how dumb kids are today.... you know....

One of them, in all sincerity, asked my buddy, "Mr. Martin, what was it like before color?  Did you have difficulty dealing with not being able to see colors, like dogs can't?  How did you know if the traffic lights were red or green?

Of course I did not realize that the brain deficiency I suffer from does not allow me to recognize SARCASM when I hear it....

This guy, a college sophomore or junior, thought that sometime around 1960 the world became colorful. That before that everything was black and white.

It is impossible to underestimate how dumb anybody less than forty actually is.

So I IMMEDIATELY decided to label him STOOPID- Just like I do everyone who does not agree with me or stroke my ego....

The reason the country still advances is because those who graduated from college before 1980 or so are not dumbed down.

The youngest of those who were not hurt by the dumbing down are now in their mid forties--the country has about twenty years left before the smartest people in society are those who understand that it's not a good idea to pee in the river upstream from where the water is drawn.

PEE ESS I am in my mid-forties.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Jesus man get out of there now. I interviewed with them 3 yrs ago back when I didn't know tit for tat about the industry. I gave them my cashier checks to pay for my own licensing and studying and the day I was supposed to begin, my ass tightened and I kindly asked for my money back.

Interview with Ameriprise, Ed Jones, Chase....anywhere but First Investors.

The honest to god truth is, it's not even a standard Draw system. They just use that as a front until they slap the old pyramid scheme on you where you end up paying your "mentors" money for doing business.

[/quote]

What's a "tat"?

[quote=bankrep1]Are you retarted? President Bush proposed private accounts, not congress. They have to pass whatever the president proposes or modify it etc. but ultimately it will be a president in his 2nd term who says your benefits will be reduced or payroll taxes will be increased, both unpopular actions.[/quote]

Didn't you just say that the President proposed private accounts to replace part of Social Security but Congress did not go along?

How that that square with your statement that the president will, in a second term, announce that benefits will be reduced or taxes will be raised.

Did you take any type of civics class?  What is the role of the legislature?  Is the President a form of King?

[quote=braves fan]

Avg Life expectancy in 1935- 63, Social Security Retirment Age-65

Avg Life expectancy in 2006- 80+, Social Security Retirment Age-65

Anyone see a problem?

[/quote]

Let me guess--the President is going to have to do something to fix Social Security.  You know, acting as King.

I’m done with u

Q: What do Michael Jackson and the Atlanta Braves have in common?

A: They all wear a glove on one hand for no apparent reason.