Why should people be given a choice on SS ?

[Tom]

I think the OP touches on a very important point, the fact is that old people and sick people will be taken care of some way or other, and many of the alternatives to Social Security and Medicare are a lot more expensive than these programs are.

And from an economic and wealth building potential point of view, I think there is good evidence that a certain amount of stability is a very good thing. For the same reason it makes sense for corporations to use derivativers and insurance as hadges against catastrophic loss, a sensible saftey net that applies to everyone creates a stable economic enviroment.

But it's true we can't spend too much on the safety net or it kills economic opportunity, so it's a question of balance. For me anyway.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I have 401k, IRA, and unsheltered brokerage accounts, and am very comfortable doing my own investing, so why don't I support partially privatizing SS right now?

1. As the OP notes, if we allow risky investments and people misuse them, bleeding hearts will still probably make the rest of us cover some of the losses so "grandma doesn't have to eat cat food."

2. I'm not convinced that the account tracking and investment choices will be run efficiently. The administration expense estimates I've read are 50% above what Vanguard charges me, and I have no reason to trust that the costs won't double or triple. The current SS is a much simpler program to manage.

3. Trillions in new government debt to finiance the transition.

4. Privatizing itself does nothing to fix the income vs. benefits paid shortfall in SS.

We can't afford to do this when we're already running close to half-trillion annual deficits.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Because it's their money and their retirement?

CsG

Way to miss the point. If they screw up and loose everything, they are NOT going to be hung out to dry. We are going to have to support these people and how do you think we will do that, ah yes, with Social Security.

Ah, so you feel the gov't knows better than the stupid citizens - how very nice of you. Since you think the gov't knows what's best for people, what else are you going to let control for you?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

SS is not to be one's only retirement. It was never intended to be solely relied upon

this is complete bs

pick up a history book, thats exactly what it was intended for, it was meant to give elderly that didn't have a huge life saving a chance at a livable retirement

Uh, so what exactly are you using to back up this apparent assertion that it was intended to be "solely relied upon"?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: misle
Last I heard, the purposed plan would only let you divert up to 4% of your SS tax to investments. So, if the market goes belly up, that person only has 96% left to live on. That doesn't seem like a huge gamble to me.

Shhh... I think you missed the #1 rule of posting in P&N discussions about SS.

#1 - Thou shalt not bring logic to the table. It frightens the socialists.


Don't worry, I break that one all the time

CsG

 

[mordantmonkey]

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: polm
I don't get this whole argument that the American People deserve to choose whether they want their SS money to be put into risky investments.

If these people's investments fail, and they have NO money to fall back on, then who in the world is going to have to take care of them ?

I'm thinking that those with no SS money will have to be supported by the rest of the nation. We can't just have a bunch of broke old people walking around sick and homeless...can we ?

#1 It's only a portion of their retirement
#2 The SS money will only be allowed in certain stocks that aren't considered risky
#3 How can democrats be "Pro choice" but against the choice of retirement?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ntdz
#3 How can democrats be "Pro choice" but against the choice of retirement?

Dead babies are one thing, but people deciding how their own money is spent is going a little too far!!!

 

[dannybin1742]

Uh, so what exactly are you using to back up this apparent assertion that it was intended to be "solely relied upon"?

i don't know about you but i graduated high school in michigan where they teach this thing called "american history" which was taught in 9th (and more in depth if you wanted in 10th)

now i don't know what high schools in iowa are teaching these days , but this is just common knowledge, and if you can't seem to reaslise that, and need a google reference, maybe you need to turn off your computer and go pick up a high school level history book.

i refuse to link my comment, when it is common knowledge amongst those of us in acadamia, who understand american history in terms of events and why things happened
the way they did

i will pose this question to you:

would you care to explain to me what McCarthyism is and why its important to american history and how does it pertain to the political party you are supporting?

you might realise what your party has done in the past and what they have been doing for the last 4 years

reading and education will get your farther in life than sitting in front of a computer or googling all you answers, pick up a book

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

Uh, so what exactly are you using to back up this apparent assertion that it was intended to be "solely relied upon"?

i refuse to link my comment, when it is common knowledge amongst those of us in acadamia,

English literature professor I presume ? ;p

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

Uh, so what exactly are you using to back up this apparent assertion that it was intended to be "solely relied upon"?

i don't know about you but i graduated high school in michigan where they teach this thing called "american history" which was taught in 9th (and more in depth if you wanted in 10th)

now i don't know what high schools in iowa are teaching these days , but this is just common knowledge, and if you can't seem to reaslise that, and need a google reference, maybe you need to turn off your computer and go pick up a high school level history book.

i refuse to link my comment, when it is common knowledge amongst those of us in acadamia, who understand american history in terms of events and why things happened
the way they did

i will pose this question to you:

would you care to explain to me what McCarthyism is and why its important to american history and how does it pertain to the political party you are supporting?

you might realise what your party has done in the past and what they have been doing for the last 4 years

reading and education will get your farther in life than sitting in front of a computer or googling all you answers, pick up a book

Ah yes, dodging the question. Go figure. SS was NEVER intended to be solely relied upon. I don't know who brainwashed you into thinking that but from your other views I would have to guess they planted more than this SS gargage you are spewing.

Here, I'll help you out with your own words:
"it was meant to give elderly that didn't have a huge life saving a chance at a livable retirement"
Why oh why did you use "have a huge life savings"? What about a small one? Do you know what "solely" means? "acadamia" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Damn, Michigan needs more help that I thought... oh and btw, I didn't go to high school in Iowa

Answer the question - quit dodging.

CsG

 

[Jhhnn]

From CsG, much earlier in the thread-

"Also, I'd like to point out that the current SS system has no assets backing it's "IOUs" so the same question can be asked - what if the gov't fails to repay those fake IOUs because they've already spent the money?"

Back to the usual fearmongering and disinformation, I see... The SS trust's holdings are backed by the full faith and credit of the US govt, just like the US securities held by international bankers and our own financial elite.

Basically, what you and the Bush Admin are saying is that we can't trust the govt to fulfill their obligations because the people running the govt are corrupt, and borrowing us into an inescapable hole. But wait a sec... who's running the govt?

The counter argument to collapse in the financial markets leading to govt collapse also holds true- that collapse of the govt's finances will lead to collapse of the financial markets, too, with greater certainty than the reverse scenario... Whose policies are promoting such a collapse?

So we're being sold the idea that we should not trust the govt we elected, with whom we have some actual recourse, but should trust their pals in the financial markets, instead, with whom we have no recourse whatsoever. Obviously, according to W, we can afford to borrow indefinitely, to actually borrow our way out of debt by transferring the SS trust obligations to private investors, without any negative consequences whatsoever... well, except for the 2018 issue, which, uh, err, well, I mean, that is, uhh... Look over there- Terrarists! Nukes! Gay Marriage! Activist Judges!

Don't worry, though, I'm sure we'll find a way to feed the folks who might lose it all in this financial boondoggle- if we can still feed ourselves after the Bushistas are done with us...

 

[Jhhnn]

D/P

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG, much earlier in the thread-

"Also, I'd like to point out that the current SS system has no assets backing it's "IOUs" so the same question can be asked - what if the gov't fails to repay those fake IOUs because they've already spent the money?"

The SS trust's holdings are backed by the full faith and credit of the US govt, just like the US securities held by international bankers and our own financial elite.

So what I stated was true. Thanks for backing me up.

CsG

 

[Genx87]

now i don't know what high schools in iowa are teaching these days , but this is just common knowledge, and if you can't seem to reaslise that, and need a google reference, maybe you need to turn off your computer and go pick up a high school level history book.

If SS was designed to be relied upon 100% then why is it just a hair above the poverty line? In 40 years when benefits are cut by 20% it will be below it!

i refuse to link my comment, when it is common knowledge amongst those of us in acadamia, who understand american history in terms of events and why things happened
the way they did

Of course because people who hide in the classroom have a firm grasp of the real world.

i will pose this question to you:

would you care to explain to me what McCarthyism is and why its important to american history and how does it pertain to the political party you are supporting?

you might realise what your party has done in the past and what they have been doing for the last 4 years

reading and education will get your farther in life than sitting in front of a computer or googling all you answers, pick up a book

It is interesting a person as self important and educated as yourself cant even stay on task but instead deflect.

Since we like history so much lets go a bit further back and look at which party brought slavery down in this country. And if you think what is happening now is anything like McCarthy then I suggest picking up those very history book your proclaim to know and re-read them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, CsG, except you left out the most important part-

"Basically, what you and the Bush Admin are saying is that we can't trust the govt to fulfill their obligations because the people running the govt are corrupt, and borrowing us into an inescapable hole. But wait a sec... who's running the govt?"

Is this a symptom of some form of denial by omission induced by belief in faith-based uber right agitprop?

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, CsG, except you left out the most important part-

"Basically, what you and the Bush Admin are saying is that we can't trust the govt to fulfill their obligations because the people running the govt are corrupt, and borrowing us into an inescapable hole. But wait a sec... who's running the govt?"

Is this a symptom of some form of denial by omission induced by belief in faith-based uber right agitprop?

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

So what you're saying is, you're smarter than the rest of us, so you can force us all into the SS system whether we like it or not? Um, thanks, dad.

 

[Genx87]

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

Bush's plan doesnt involved investing in individual stocks. You will have funds to choose from like the federal thrift program. The thrif program have been very successful for federal employees.

Your fear mongering that another Enron will wipe out the private accounts is unfounded.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

Bush's plan doesnt involved investing in individual stocks. You will have funds to choose from like the federal thrift program. The thrif program have been very successful for federal employees.

Your fear mongering that another Enron will wipe out the private accounts is unfounded.

This whole debate over risk is irrelevant anyway, IMHO; it's my right to assume as much risk as I desire. If I want to "invest" all my retirement funds on the ponies down at the local horsetrack, that's my right. The great thing about the Federal TSP program is not that it allows various investment options (which is also great), but that's it's optional; no one is forced to participate (although you'd likely be foolish not to).

 

[dannybin1742]

If SS was designed to be relied upon 100% then why is it just a hair above the poverty line? In 40 years when benefits are cut by 20% it will be below it!

because even at just above poverty, its still livable, something is better than nothing, and to you second sentence, if the pubs hadn't blow through the surplus and put us in an indefinate state of military spending expansion, this would be a non-issue, but that digressing

Of course because people who hide in the classroom have a firm grasp of the real world.

people who got by in school with passing grades make retarded statements like this, and no i don't hide in the classroom, i respect education and recognise that its a way to get ahead in life if you start out with little, and want to be somthing, come back when you have somthing more substantial-

because i worked my ass off in high school, i got an academic/athletic scholarship, i have a college degree, i have no debt at all, i own my car, i have about 10-11k in stocks, this is what education get you if you respect it, can you say the same about yourself, againt i'm digressing

It is interesting a person as self important and educated as yourself cant even stay on task but instead deflect.

Since we like history so much lets go a bit further back and look at which party brought slavery down in this country. And if you think what is happening now is anything like McCarthy then I suggest picking up those very history book your proclaim to know and re-read them.

that was 140 years ago, parties change, the major racist element of the slavery/ democratic party have moved to your republican party, look at trent lott and strom thurmond

i brought up mcCarthyism because you gopies cannot answer my simple question, i have yet to see a thread where one of you brownshirt answers that question, "HOW DID MCCARTHY COME TO POWER, WHY DID HE FALL" then you'll realise whats wrong with the fringes of your party that are currently running the country

look at the parrallels between your "election boot observers and right to challenge voting credentials and the civil rights movement, you will seem some simmilarities, history is repeating itself whether you want to admit it or not

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

Bush's plan doesnt involved investing in individual stocks. You will have funds to choose from like the federal thrift program. The thrif program have been very successful for federal employees.

Your fear mongering that another Enron will wipe out the private accounts is unfounded.

This whole debate over risk is irrelevant anyway, IMHO; it's my right to assume as much risk as I desire. If I want to "invest" all my retirement funds on the ponies down at the local horsetrack, that's my right. The great thing about the Federal TSP program is not that it allows various investment options (which is also great), but that's it's optional; no one is forced to participate (although you'd likely be foolish not to).

Is it also "your right" to burden society with your potential failure to invest wisely ?

(if, in fact, the debate over risk is irrelevant, as you claim)

you see, I want to have an insurance plan that guarantees I won't have to pay for the financial mistakes of others. I'm not sure if SS takes care of that, but IMHO it should. Anything we have to do to make sure it does that job, I am all for.

Will the private account system ensure a greater likelihood that I won't have to pay as much, or more, than the current system has me paying ?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

Bush's plan doesnt involved investing in individual stocks. You will have funds to choose from like the federal thrift program. The thrif program have been very successful for federal employees.

Your fear mongering that another Enron will wipe out the private accounts is unfounded.

This whole debate over risk is irrelevant anyway, IMHO; it's my right to assume as much risk as I desire. If I want to "invest" all my retirement funds on the ponies down at the local horsetrack, that's my right. The great thing about the Federal TSP program is not that it allows various investment options (which is also great), but that's it's optional; no one is forced to participate (although you'd likely be foolish not to).

Is it also "your right" to burden society with your potential failure to invest wisely ?

(if, in fact, the debate over risk is moot)

Who says I'm burdening society? I can take care of myself just fine, thank you very much! Have I come to your house with a tin cup, looking for a hand-out? I've worked since I was 12, and worked my way through college and graduate school. Show me how I'm a burden.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

Bush's plan doesnt involved investing in individual stocks. You will have funds to choose from like the federal thrift program. The thrif program have been very successful for federal employees.

Your fear mongering that another Enron will wipe out the private accounts is unfounded.

This whole debate over risk is irrelevant anyway, IMHO; it's my right to assume as much risk as I desire. If I want to "invest" all my retirement funds on the ponies down at the local horsetrack, that's my right. The great thing about the Federal TSP program is not that it allows various investment options (which is also great), but that's it's optional; no one is forced to participate (although you'd likely be foolish not to).

Is it also "your right" to burden society with your potential failure to invest wisely ?

(if, in fact, the debate over risk is moot)

Who says I'm burdening society? I can take care of myself just fine, thank you very much! Have I come to your house with a tin cup, looking for a hand-out? I've worked since I was 12, and worked my way through college and graduate school. Show me how I'm a burden.

come back to me when you are 75, and hypothetically, with a zero balance savings due to failure to invest properly ? How will you handle a situation like that ?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

Bush's plan doesnt involved investing in individual stocks. You will have funds to choose from like the federal thrift program. The thrif program have been very successful for federal employees.

Your fear mongering that another Enron will wipe out the private accounts is unfounded.

This whole debate over risk is irrelevant anyway, IMHO; it's my right to assume as much risk as I desire. If I want to "invest" all my retirement funds on the ponies down at the local horsetrack, that's my right. The great thing about the Federal TSP program is not that it allows various investment options (which is also great), but that's it's optional; no one is forced to participate (although you'd likely be foolish not to).

Is it also "your right" to burden society with your potential failure to invest wisely ?

(if, in fact, the debate over risk is moot)

Who says I'm burdening society? I can take care of myself just fine, thank you very much! Have I come to your house with a tin cup, looking for a hand-out? I've worked since I was 12, and worked my way through college and graduate school. Show me how I'm a burden.

come back to me when you are 75, and hypothetically, with a zero balance savings due to failure to invest properly ? How will you handle a situation like that ?

How will I handle a situation like that? By not getting in that situation! That's why I diversify, study investments, etc. Like I've said before, I don't need you, the government, or anyone else holding my hand. Like people believe in preventive medicine, I believe in preventive financial planning.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

Bush's plan doesnt involved investing in individual stocks. You will have funds to choose from like the federal thrift program. The thrif program have been very successful for federal employees.

Your fear mongering that another Enron will wipe out the private accounts is unfounded.

This whole debate over risk is irrelevant anyway, IMHO; it's my right to assume as much risk as I desire. If I want to "invest" all my retirement funds on the ponies down at the local horsetrack, that's my right. The great thing about the Federal TSP program is not that it allows various investment options (which is also great), but that's it's optional; no one is forced to participate (although you'd likely be foolish not to).

Is it also "your right" to burden society with your potential failure to invest wisely ?

(if, in fact, the debate over risk is moot)

Who says I'm burdening society? I can take care of myself just fine, thank you very much! Have I come to your house with a tin cup, looking for a hand-out? I've worked since I was 12, and worked my way through college and graduate school. Show me how I'm a burden.

come back to me when you are 75, and hypothetically, with a zero balance savings due to failure to invest properly ? How will you handle a situation like that ?

How will I handle a situation like that? By not getting in that situation! That's why I diversify, study investments, etc. Like I've said before, I don't need you, the government, or anyone else holding my hand. Like people believe in preventive medicine, I believe in preventive financial planning.

I'm sorry, but even though you maybe a financial whiz, I assume the majority of this nation are not quite as investment savvy as you. Would you agree ?

Either way, even for a investment tycoon such as yourself, the market is an undeniable risk.

You may thing that risk is small...but I beleive that ANY risk with such an importat system is too much of a gamble to take.

I would prefer a system that basically just took my SS moneys, locked them up, and gave them back when I retire. Obviously the system has been abused, and must be repaired, but it doesn't change what I envision as the perfect scenario.

Simple fact is that we cannot trust the majority of the people to invest wisely/properly. We also cannot trust the bonds/funds market, even if history has proven it's abitlity to return on investment. We just cannot, because we cannot truly predict the future.

Why can't we just remove the caps on SS contributions ? Why can't we just enact legislation that keeps our governments hands off our SS money ? Why can't we just repeal the Bush tax cuts to help pay down our debt and allow SS to regain its value ?