Did Bush ever invest Social Security monies?

I just remembered the SNL skits with Gore repeatedly saying "It's goin' in a L-O-C-K-B-O-X," and I remembered that the competing argument for how to save Social Security was to invest it, like a mutual fund.

Was this ever done during the Bush administration?

EDIT: and, if SS goes under, will any of us get our money back? It doesn't seem fair, and would most likely result in a total loss of confidence in government programs to provide income

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nope

 

Oops, I'm sorry - not medicare, Social Security. I'll edit.

 

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Nope

It makes me worried - if nothing's done soon (by conservatives OR liberals) then I won't get my money back when I'm 65. That, to me, is the BIGGEST example of broken promises that I've seen in politics in my 18 years.

 

[ElFenix]

the system is doomed to failure and has been since people stopped having babies in the US at a level higher than replacement rate.

if the money is put in a "lock box" it would just be a drag on the economy and gov't receipts, including SS, would decline and we'd be in an even deeper hole. investing it in capital turns it into little more than a gov't mandated savings account.

heres an idea, since you're young, and you have time, start putting money into index funds. almost nothing outperforms them over decades long terms.

 

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the system is doomed to failure and has been since people stopped having babies in the US at a level higher than replacement rate.

if the money is put in a "lock box" it would just be a drag on the economy and gov't receipts, including SS, would decline and we'd be in an even deeper hole. investing it in capital turns it into little more than a gov't mandated savings account.

heres an idea, since you're young, and you have time, start putting money into index funds. almost nothing outperforms them over decades long terms.

That's a good idea, but I need liquidity in my funds. Sorry, but I can't afford to put my life savings in a locked-away high-yield fund. If the (past AND present) U.S. government had kept its promises about retirement income, then I wouldn't have to worry about it when I'm 18.

Besides, if the system is doomed to failure, how the hell can I get my money back? I've given WELL OVER $1000 to Social Security over the past 5 years. I'm gonna need that back sometime, and if SS goes under, then I want it back now.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the system is doomed to failure and has been since people stopped having babies in the US at a level higher than replacement rate.

if the money is put in a "lock box" it would just be a drag on the economy and gov't receipts, including SS, would decline and we'd be in an even deeper hole. investing it in capital turns it into little more than a gov't mandated savings account.

heres an idea, since you're young, and you have time, start putting money into index funds. almost nothing outperforms them over decades long terms.

That's a good idea, but I need liquidity in my funds. Sorry, but I can't afford to put my life savings in a locked-away high-yield fund. If the (past AND present) U.S. government had kept its promises about retirement income, then I wouldn't have to worry about it when I'm 18.

Besides, if the system is doomed to failure, how the hell can I get my money back? I've given WELL OVER $1000 to Social Security over the past 5 years. I'm gonna need that back sometime, and if SS goes under, then I want it back now.

i don't think you understand what i'm saying... i'm giving you a stock market tip for what to do with your savings... and an index fund is usually pretty liquid. not locked into it like a CD or something. and i don't mean you need to worry about it when you're 18 but when you graduate from that school up there and get a job you should be putting money away. first because social security was never intended to fully fund your retirement. second because you'll have a lot more disposable income than when you have... say... a wife and two kids. third because compound interest is a good thing.

the promises were impossible to keep anyway.

 

I was definitely planning on investing money in order to fund my retirement. My parents do the same thing to fund theirs. But the real point of my thread is, how is the government going to repay us for that money that we gave them with the expectation that the younger generation would pay for us?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jumpr
I was definitely planning on investing money in order to fund my retirement. My parents do the same thing to fund theirs. But the real point of my thread is, how is the government going to repay us for that money that we gave them with the expectation that the younger generation would pay for us?

unless theres some population boom they can't.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the system is doomed to failure and has been since people stopped having babies in the US at a level higher than replacement rate.

if the money is put in a "lock box" it would just be a drag on the economy and gov't receipts, including SS, would decline and we'd be in an even deeper hole. investing it in capital turns it into little more than a gov't mandated savings account.

heres an idea, since you're young, and you have time, start putting money into index funds. almost nothing outperforms them over decades long terms.

That's a good idea, but I need liquidity in my funds. Sorry, but I can't afford to put my life savings in a locked-away high-yield fund. If the (past AND present) U.S. government had kept its promises about retirement income, then I wouldn't have to worry about it when I'm 18.

Besides, if the system is doomed to failure, how the hell can I get my money back? I've given WELL OVER $1000 to Social Security over the past 5 years. I'm gonna need that back sometime, and if SS goes under, then I want it back now.

Social Security is not a retirement fund. It is a poverty mitigation fund at best. Do not rely on it as your retirement.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Social Security is not a retirement fund. It is a poverty mitigation fund at best. Do not rely on it as your retirement.

We have a winner!

 

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Social Security is not a retirement fund. It is a poverty mitigation fund at best. Do not rely on it as your retirement.

We have a winner!

I understand this concept. But even more than the situation with WMD in Iraq, I feel that the government taking my money, promising to give it back, and NOT doing it is the biggest lie I've ever been told. To me, this is bullsh!t. And I want that money back if at all possible.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Social Security is not a retirement fund. It is a poverty mitigation fund at best. Do not rely on it as your retirement.

We have a winner!

I understand this concept. But even more than the situation with WMD in Iraq, I feel that the government taking my money, promising to give it back, and NOT doing it is the biggest lie I've ever been told. To me, this is bullsh!t. And I want that money back if at all possible.

its not possible. the old people out-vote you.

 

[rbV5]

Did Bush ever invest Social Security monies?

What monies? there is no social security monies to invest.

 

[Vic]

Social Security is not a vested fund like your 401(k) or IRA. The monies do not exist except on paper. There is and never was anything to invest. It was one of the stupidest and most dishonest campaign promises I have ever heard and one of the reasons (along with my predictions of war in '03) that I voted for Gore.

 

[LeadMagnet]

I herd he invested it in Sun Microsystems stock in 2000 or was it MCI?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
I herd he invested it in Sun Microsystems stock in 2000 or was it MCI?

LOL!

 

[jeremy806]

There is no fund.

The government simply writes the check and the funds come straight from the Fed.

We will all get are money back, but it sure will not have the purchasing power that it had when we put it in.

Jeremy806

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: jeremy806
There is no fund.

The government simply writes the check and the funds come straight from the Fed.

We will all get are money back, but it sure will not have the purchasing power that it had when we put it in.

Jeremy806

From an actuarial viewpoint, there is a fund. All deposits are fully accounted for and are then used by the government for current operating expenses. The extent to which the fund is secured depends on your confidence in the US government to meet it's future commitments. It's reasonable to assume there will be future adjustments to the administration of the social security benefits (we've seen these already with increases in the eligibility ages and taxation of benefits) but the program will continue in a similar form to the current system.

You also have to keep in mind that it is an "insurance" program, not a "pension" program. If you die early, you family gets benefits in spite of how little you put into the system.

Worry about Social Security is, in my opinion, misplaced. The recent flap in the press about the supposed 44 trillion dollar future shortfall in government funding glossed over the fact that the projection showed 36 trillion of the 44 to be in the Medicare program. We don't really have any serious problems with Social Security and budget deficits when you compare them to the potential Medicare problems.