Any return whatsoever beats SS by a long shot, even if it is a "rip off".
New polls on who we are
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
You are probably old enough that you know you'll get your SS so you don't care about those younger than you who won't. It is an ideological battle for you.
As one who probably won't receive S.S. and who is not a broker I would love to have the option of putting any small amount into a personal account.
cawacko
Well-known member
Dungheap, I'm curious why you feel this is plain wrong because this is how I view S.S. as well.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... if you truly believe that then you are a complete moron when it comes to this issue.
I'm not all that old. I just recognize that the claptrap that the government will default on its obligations to the Trust Fund is claptrap and that with some modest tinkering there is not reason for full benefit payments to be made for the foreseeable future. It's not an ideological battle for me. SS works. No reason to fuck with it too much.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Lol... you are indeed a moron.
If I could guarantee you wouldn't lose your principal, guarantee that you would have a set income for life and guarantee your beneficiaries would get anything that you didn't use... PLUS you have the ability to have the money grow through investments.... that is a ripoff?
But yeah, I see your point... you would rather continue the current ponzi scheme.... cause that worked out so well for Madoff clients...
Because it focuses exclusively on returns on investment in the social security trust fund rather than the trust fund plus ongoing funding of social security through payroll taxes.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You are making the idiotic ASSUMPTION that our currency will always be the reserve currency where we can simply keep printing more and more money to pay our obligations.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
As has been stated, you would be free to CHOOSE whether or not to invest a portion of your SS on your own. You can also CHOOSE to keep it all in the Governments Madoff Ponzi scheme
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
No, I don't invest/gamble very much .. except on myself .. which is why I'm better off than many of my friends and people I know who invested.
SocSec is not an investment tool and we should not GAMBLE on the future of our seniors .. many of whom could not afford to stay alive today without it.
How much would SocSec have lost in this economic disaster we now face?
End of story.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO....again with the fear mongering bullshit from the brainwashed....
Tell us how the Madoff clients feel about ponzi schemes. That is where the current SS system is headed. THAT is a far bigger gamble than investing io Treasury Bonds.
But the Trust Fund invests in Treasury Bonds. Your position is that the government will default on some Treasury Bonds but not others?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I love you man .. I just love it when you talk .. because you are a moron and you make me look so damn good.
Why Social Security ISN'T Going Broke
PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y. (MarketWatch) -- Reports that the Social Security system will soon run out of money have been greatly exaggerated.
As sure as day follows night, the annual report from the board of trustees of the OASDI fund (Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance otherwise known as Social Security) has brought forth alarms that the fund will run out of money in the not-too-distant future.
Although flush with cash now and over at least the next 10 years, the Social Security system is expected to gradually begin paying out more in benefits than it takes in from payroll taxes with the result that by 2041 its assets, in the words of the trustees, will be exhausted.
For those who look at only the summary page, this conclusion is nothing new. Indeed, the trustees have come to the same conclusion every year -- the only exception being the year the fund is expected to run dry.
In 2000, the system's actuaries thought the assets of this fund would be exhausted by 2032. Two years later it was 2037. Now the projected exhaustion date is 2041.
Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which makes these projections as well, recently thought the system will remain solvent until at least 2052.
Me, I don't make these projections personally, but I would like to point out that this year, as has been the case every year in the past, the actuaries have made and released not one but three projections. They call them low cost, intermediate and high cost.
The projection that has provoked these alarms is the intermediate projection. This reflects the trustees' consensus views regarding such inputs as economic growth, productivity, inflation, earnings, employment and interest rates.
Judging by past history, assumptions underlying the intermediate projection are very conservative -- especially when it comes to economic growth. And as you might imagine, the speed at which the economy grows has a lot to do with the other variables -- including the interest the fund earns from investing its surplus in Treasuries.
The intermediate projection assumes that the economy will grow by an annual rate of 2.3% per year between now and 2085. This may be higher than the 1.9% per year that was projected as recently as three years ago, but it is still well below the 3.4% that the economy grew on average between 1960 and 2005.
The actuaries' own low cost projection assumes an average annual growth rate of 2.9% between now and 2085. This is higher than the 2.3% pace embodied in the intermediate projection, but it is still well below the 3.4% average of the past.
Guess what? Under the actuaries' low cost projection, the Social Security system never runs out of money!
That said, you might ask the question why this more realistic projection has escaped politicians from both major parties.
I don't know why, but I can only theorize that it's because they haven't taken the time to read the entire report, which is available on the system's website. Here's the link.
If you go beyond the highlights section to the projections section, you will see exactly what I mean.
In other words -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
From MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={8EC16D27-8104-43B4-871C-95D9A78EBCF1}
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Where are you dummy?
This is just gettin' good.
This is just gettin' good.
Topspin
Verified User
dung are you a programer too?
You could keep the insurance part of ss, invest the asset side.
God do all democrats have to be anti-market. Did one of the far lefties not test me on that before I converted to turbo-lib.
Bac please name an investment that does better than stocks long term?
You could keep the insurance part of ss, invest the asset side.
God do all democrats have to be anti-market. Did one of the far lefties not test me on that before I converted to turbo-lib.
Bac please name an investment that does better than stocks long term?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Social Security is not an investment tool .. AND, what does "long-term" have to do with it?
I ask AGAIN, how much would Social Security have lost in this economic disaster?
Do you believe that the lives of American seniors can wait for "long-term" investments/GAMBLE to pay off?
Following this failed course most American seniors would be eating dog food now or they'd be dead. The system would be as broke as investors.
No. Not a programmer and I'm not anti-market. I'm anti-market risk for individuals in an insurance program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/us/politics/23social.html
Democrats Resisting Obama on Social Security
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: February 22, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama is eager to seek a bipartisan solution to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, people who have spoken with him say, but he is running into opposition from his party’s left and from Democratic Congressional leaders who contend that his political capital would be better spent on health care and other priorities.
The president signaled in his campaign that he would support addressing the retirement system’s looming financing shortfall, in part by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000.
Wow...Obama thinks there's a " looming financing shortfall" and he "MUST RAISE TAXES"???
WTF ? You need to get the message to the Messiah...
Democrats Resisting Obama on Social Security
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: February 22, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama is eager to seek a bipartisan solution to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, people who have spoken with him say, but he is running into opposition from his party’s left and from Democratic Congressional leaders who contend that his political capital would be better spent on health care and other priorities.
The president signaled in his campaign that he would support addressing the retirement system’s looming financing shortfall, in part by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000.
Wow...Obama thinks there's a " looming financing shortfall" and he "MUST RAISE TAXES"???
WTF ? You need to get the message to the Messiah...