A bullet dodged

[Cancel7]

I work with a Harvard guy who graduated in AL Gores class. He told me that we will not see average returns over the next 10-20 years of more then 8%. days of long term double digit are over until after the baby boom hump. I wonder if hes correct.

Problem with privatization is that we owe now. So you would have to take a huge hit to the deficit right from the getgo. Secondly companies put in 50% for you and under privatization I know for a fact that they would NOT increase your pay (BTW I also have inside details on what they would do if we received national health care and it would be to provide a supplemental insurance and thats it.. they take the rest back for there bottom line) so you would have to ensure that companies still paid in somehow. Third you have to put restrictions on what people invest in because at the end of the day if people dont have ss and squandered there private accounts we cant just let them die on the streets.

Bushs plan sucked. Not only did it limit what you could invest in (as expected) but it made you forfeit like 50% of your benefit in order to participate. The math worked out to be (and im just going from memory) that you would have very little difference in what you would have gotten anyways if it performed to there estimates and you take all the risk on.

Well, this post deserves some positive rep points Chap!

I especially like how you hit on one big point they never wanted to talk about - if you partially privatize, that's money taken from SS. That's one way ensure its demise. No one ever asked bush where that money was coming from either. Only democrats have to answer: Where is the money coming from? Republicans can just happy ass along.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

AHZ is often the life of a party. Usually the only one to liven things up.

Thank you, STY.

 

[cawacko]

Privatization of SS was one of the few things that Bush offered that I supported. Even with the recent meltdown, there would be a MUCH greater rate of return over the long haul for workers.

Most people younger than me, and even those in my generation, just assume that Social Security will not be there when we retire, anyway. For anyone who opposes privatization, I would love to hear the alternative.

Because one is a Democrat or Republican obviously does not mean one must agree with all policies put forth by the party. But I will admit to being surprised that this is one where you differ. Social Security is one of the crown jewels of FDR, the new deal and the Democratic Party. However I am in complete agreement with you. Allowing an individual the option to put a (small) portion into a higher returning vehicle is a great program. At 36 i'm not young but i'm not near retirement either. I would love the opportunity to have that type of account.

 

[Cancel3]

Sorry the truth burns your fascist skin.

Hey, your insult had nothing to do with male genitals or anal sex.

Our little asshat is acting all grown up! Makes me so proud.

 

[Bonestorm]

Because one is a Democrat or Republican obviously does not mean one must agree with all policies put forth by the party. But I will admit to being surprised that this is one where you differ. Social Security is one of the crown jewels of FDR, the new deal and the Democratic Party. However I am in complete agreement with you. Allowing an individual the option to put a (small) portion into a higher returning vehicle is a great program. At 36 i'm not young but i'm not near retirement either. I would love the opportunity to have that type of account.

You probably do. It's generally called a 401(k).

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Hey, your insult had nothing to do with male genitals or anal sex.

Our little asshat is acting all grown up! Makes me so proud.

Dick butt sex.

 

[cawacko]

You probably do. It's generally called a 401(k).

Yes I do that as well. There are others that don't have a 401k option and even with a 401k option that doesn't mean its ok to accept the patry return S.S. offers.

 

[Cancel7]

Yes I do that as well. There are others that don't have a 401k option and even with a 401k option that doesn't mean its ok to accept the patry return S.S. offers.

cawacko what did I tell you during the great Bush Bamboozle try? I told you you're not getting SS privatized and that I was on the march! And what happened? Well, we drove Pete King for one, over the edge. Oh, it's true it's not a far drive, a hop skip and half a jump really. But as part of the progressive coalition, I stalked his district gathering signatures and letters, and demonstrated outside of his campaign office. He finally blew his stack and started answering the letters with crazy talk like "you should go to bed thanking god for george w bush every night' and "you don't know what you're talking about". They ended up in Newsday. Oh, it was fabulous!

And, you didn't get SS privatization, and you are going to continue not getting it!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I never read the details of Bush's plan, but I like the idea of privatization.

You're kind of a market guy, right? Let's say they are able to implement some kind of partial privatization; doesn't that provide basically a steady investment flow to the market that grows every year w/ the growing working population, and is that at all significant for the market's fortunes?

Or do most of the market's fortunes tie more into foreign investment?

If you are assuming privatization equals money going into the stock market, say the S&P, then yes, it would provide a foundation for the market itself in the constant additions by the workforce. If the privatization provides options for Treasuries and/or the S&P, then it would obviously depend on what people chose to invest in.

Chap... yes, it is a transfer of risk to privatize. The same as going from pensions to 401k's by so many corporations. Some firms kept their pensions, others went with the new 401k's. It too transfered risk to the individual.

Personally, that is what I prefer. Because we all have seen what can happen to the pensions when corporations go under. We all have seen how easy it is for Congress to change SS payment amounts etc... The risk there (with the government/corporations) is greater in my opinion.

 

[Chapdog]

Because one is a Democrat or Republican obviously does not mean one must agree with all policies put forth by the party. But I will admit to being surprised that this is one where you differ. Social Security is one of the crown jewels of FDR, the new deal and the Democratic Party. However I am in complete agreement with you. Allowing an individual the option to put a (small) portion into a higher returning vehicle is a great program. At 36 i'm not young but i'm not near retirement either. I would love the opportunity to have that type of account.

3 legged stool for retirement.
SS is only 1 leg of your retirement stool. You should also be saving at a minimum at your age a combined amount of close to 10% of your pay into a retirement vehicle like a 401k or IRA if you dont have a pension. If you have a pension you can prob save a little less but check with a financial planner or do a retirement calculator. You should also save money for your third leg in a home or savings account. Real estate is a great way to save there. Id much rather buy a second vacation home or something that I can use while im saving via paying the mortgage. my plan is to pay first mortgage off as fast as i can versus saving alot retail then to buy a second home by age 40 and bang that mortgage out in 15-20years. then i can ditch one of the houses when i retire as my third leg.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Because one is a Democrat or Republican obviously does not mean one must agree with all policies put forth by the party. But I will admit to being surprised that this is one where you differ. Social Security is one of the crown jewels of FDR, the new deal and the Democratic Party. However I am in complete agreement with you. Allowing an individual the option to put a (small) portion into a higher returning vehicle is a great program. At 36 i'm not young but i'm not near retirement either. I would love the opportunity to have that type of account.

True, it was a highlight of FDR's new deal.... AT the time. The problem is that it lacked any type of foresight. It was designed for people to start taking out money at age 65 (upon retirement) at a time when the average life expectancy was around 67. People were not expected to live off of it for 20-30 years. Second, they used the ponzi scheme to fund it... which is doomed to fail once the number of workers contributing falls below the level of people withdrawing funds.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

3 legged stool for retirement.
SS is only 1 leg of your retirement stool. You should also be saving at a minimum at your age a combined amount of close to 10% of your pay into a retirement vehicle like a 401k or IRA if you dont have a pension. If you have a pension you can prob save a little less but check with a financial planner or do a retirement calculator. You should also save money for your third leg in a home or savings account. Real estate is a great way to save there. Id much rather buy a second vacation home or something that I can use while im saving via paying the mortgage. my plan is to pay first mortgage off as fast as i can versus saving alot retail then to buy a second home by age 40 and bang that mortgage out in 15-20years. then i can ditch one of the houses when i retire as my third leg.

SS is one leg that is GONE for our generation. It will not last. At least not as the current system stands. They either have to cut benefits or push back the age when people are able to start drawing off it. The age of benefit eligibility has not been adjusted for increased life expectancy. That is a huge part of the problem.

 

[Cancel7]

SS is one leg that is GONE for our generation. It will not last. At least not as the current system stands. They either have to cut benefits or push back the age when people are able to start drawing off it. The age of benefit eligibility has not been adjusted for increased life expectancy. That is a huge part of the problem.

Krugman has written extensively on this, and says that SS is not in the trouble people say that it is, and that it's going to be around with a few tweaks to it, just like Reagan tweaked it. He says that Medicare is in much bigger trouble and that is why health care reform is job one.

I figure he knows better than guys on a message board, so I have never let the big SS panic catch on with me.

 

[uscitizen]

Krugman has written extensively on this, and says that SS is not in the trouble people say that it is, and that it's going to be around with a few tweaks to it, just like Reagan tweaked it. He says that Medicare is in much bigger trouble and that is why health care reform is job one.

I figure he knows better than guys on a message board, so I have never let the big SS panic catch on with me.

the biggest real SS crisis is the around 3 trillion of spent SS surplus that the govt will have to pay back from general funds.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Krugman has written extensively on this, and says that SS is not in the trouble people say that it is, and that it's going to be around with a few tweaks to it, just like Reagan tweaked it. He says that Medicare is in much bigger trouble and that is why health care reform is job one.

I figure he knows better than guys on a message board, so I have never let the big SS panic catch on with me.

While I agree that Medicare is in even worse shape, he is wrong about SS. He simply does not like the idea of privatization and thus continues to work against it. It does not need 'tweaks'... it needs massive changes, whether it is done through privatization or through other methods. It cannot survive in its current state.

 

[Bonestorm]

While I agree that Medicare is in even worse shape, he is wrong about SS. He simply does not like the idea of privatization and thus continues to work against it. It does not need 'tweaks'... it needs massive changes, whether it is done through privatization or through other methods. It cannot survive in its current state.

Well, if you say so . . .

 

[KingCondanomation]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/a-bullet-dodged

A bullet dodged

What would have happened if George W. Bush had actually succeeded in his plan to privatize Social Security? Ask the Italians.

Italy did for retirement financing what President George W. Bush couldn’t do in the U.S.: It privatized part of its social security system. The timing couldn’t have been worse.

The global market meltdown has created losses for those who agreed to shift their contributions from a government severance payment plan to private funds meant to yield higher returns.

…

Gaetano Turchetta, a Rome office manager, made the irreversible move to a private plan after a union representative boasted of the potential for 20 percent annual returns. The 43- year-old father of three now says he would sign with “two hands and two feet” if he could switch back.

Waterdoctal story that isn't even yours.
Of course you can lose money in private investments, but over any 10 year span you are going to make more than the small but guaranteed returns you get from SS.

There is nothing wrong about giving people choice and control over their own future.

 

[cawacko]

cawacko what did I tell you during the great Bush Bamboozle try? I told you you're not getting SS privatized and that I was on the march! And what happened? Well, we drove Pete King for one, over the edge. Oh, it's true it's not a far drive, a hop skip and half a jump really. But as part of the progressive coalition, I stalked his district gathering signatures and letters, and demonstrated outside of his campaign office. He finally blew his stack and started answering the letters with crazy talk like "you should go to bed thanking god for george w bush every night' and "you don't know what you're talking about". They ended up in Newsday. Oh, it was fabulous!

And, you didn't get SS privatization, and you are going to continue not getting it!

Congratulations. That still doesn't change the financial condition of S.S. or its miniscule return which will ultimately have to addressed whether you like it or not.

 

[Bonestorm]

Congratulations. That still doesn't change the financial condition of S.S. or its miniscule return which will ultimately have to addressed whether you like it or not.

But SS isn't an investment. It's insurance. What do "returns" have to do with insurance?

 

[cawacko]

While I agree that Medicare is in even worse shape, he is wrong about SS. He simply does not like the idea of privatization and thus continues to work against it. It does not need 'tweaks'... it needs massive changes, whether it is done through privatization or through other methods. It cannot survive in its current state.

Yeah, if Krugman says so it must be...

For folks like Krugman its an ideological thing where he wants government to have more control over the economy and less individual economic choice. So in his mind S.S. is fine as long as we eventually raise taxes on the rich and businesses and additional 20% to 30% etc S.S. will meet its obligations. Otherwise he once again is spouting economic falsehoods.