Social Conservatism = nanny state!

[Minister of Truth]

Okay, good... So whats the difference?

To begin with, there is at least two sects of Christianity in America (obviously there are thousands, especially as a result of non-denominationalism), so there could never be a national religion based upon Christianity. The individual states did originally, with Quaker Penn. (although there was religious freedom), Episcopal Virginia, Congregational Conn., etc.

As a country that was founded and built by Christians, revolves around Christian holidays, and polls at about 76% Christian identity, we are a Christian nation.

 

[Jarod]

To begin with, there is at least two sects of Christianity in America (obviously there are thousands, especially as a result of non-denominationalism), so there could never be a national religion based upon Christianity. The individual states did originally, with Quaker Penn. (although there was religious freedom), Episcopal Virginia, Congregational Conn., etc.

As a country that was founded and built by Christians, revolves around Christian holidays, and polls at about 76% Christian identity, we are a Christian nation.

Okay, but that excludes the many in this nation who are not Christian. I am more comfortable with calling it a "Christian Nation" if by that you are not saying its the official religen... But I belive such a statement is ignorant of the contrabution to our nation by many other groups.... It would be like saying we are a "White Nation"....

 

[DamnYankee]

How do you propose to force people to save? Also, how many people know how to invest? And let's not forget those dudes who buy and sell stocks with your money get paid per trade, whether or not you make money, so their incentive is to trade. More than a few people have lost small fortunes giving their money to "financial advisers". Privatizing SS would be a disaster.



Unfortunately, that wouldn't work either. Are we to expect a person to contribute to a savings plan or medical plan if, for example, they need a new roof on their home? Any sense that those plans are private or voluntary will result in people wanting that money for other reasons.



That's a bogus argument. It's no different than giving the grocery store owner money. You already paid taxes on your money. Why should the grocery store owner pay taxes on the same money?

That's the problem, the way income is defined. Income should be any money received. It is, after all, money coming in.

1. You do it now with SS. Require a certain percentage in bonds, just like any well-balanced portfolio.
2. Again, we do it now.
3. Because you're not related to the grocer.

 

[DamnYankee]

Where?

In your link.

 

[apple0154]

Don't you think that relieving people of the responsibility to manage their own finances is a recipe for disastrous dependence?

That all depends. In the short term most people can manage, however, retirement savings is a whole new ball game.

Look, we sit here and discuss this as if SS has always been around and people never had a chance to save on their own. The reality is SS was instituted after we witnessed the failure of people not planning for their retirement or not having insurance if they become disabled or not having sufficient funds so their family could survive if they died prematurely.

It's the same thing with other government programs. They came into being after it was shown they were needed. Every country, every society, started out with no social programs. Every program came about because the "you're on your own" idea didn't work very well.

 

[apple0154]

nobody is stating that people should be left to die on the streets, but what power or authority does the government have to force me to live at some certain standard? your own words 'be responsible', should be applied to every aspect, but with that responsibility also goes to being accountable for any of your bad decisions.

The government's obligation is to make sure people do not become destitute. Why? Because destitute people do crazy things.

Look at all the protesters today. There's even talk of rebellion. Imagine if all those folks were really starving. Imagine if they were all seriously ill and dying. Imagine someone having worked all their life then losing their home and not even having money for food or medical care.

 

[apple0154]

first, who's authority is telling me to put a certain amount away. please cite where that power resides...

second, why should you have to support me when i'm old?

The power resides in the purpose of the Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

For a start the elderly starving and dying will not insure domestic tranquility.

 

[apple0154]

1. You do it now with SS. Require a certain percentage in bonds, just like any well-balanced portfolio.
2. Again, we do it now.
3. Because you're not related to the grocer.

Why should a person be forced to save? If you're against the government saving your money and you want to take responsibility why should the government say you have to buy bonds? Maybe Real Estate is a better investment. After all, it was for a long time.

Maybe a person believes they'd be better off paying for their child's university education instead of buying bonds. Their child will earn a high income and support them. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to do that?

That's exactly what people did down through history. They all had a plan. Unfortunately, many didn't work out. That's why we have SS.

3. Why should it make a difference whether we're related to the grocer? Money coming in is income.

 

[DamnYankee]

Why should a person be forced to save? If you're against the government saving your money and you want to take responsibility why should the government say you have to buy bonds? Maybe Real Estate is a better investment. After all, it was for a long time.

Maybe a person believes they'd be better off paying for their child's university education instead of buying bonds. Their child will earn a high income and support them. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to do that?

That's exactly what people did down through history. They all had a plan. Unfortunately, many didn't work out. That's why we have SS.

3. Why should it make a difference whether we're related to the grocer? Money coming in is income.

1. They're are forced to give up their money now with SS. They can borrow off their investments to pay for college or real estate just like they do now.
3. Now you're not just backpedaling but being obtuse.

 

[apple0154]

1. They're are forced to give up their money now with SS. They can borrow off their investments to pay for college or real estate just like they do now.
3. Now you're not just backpedaling but being obtuse.

And how many borrowed off their investments to buy homes over the last 5 years or so and are now under water?

The income tax problem has to do with what is classified as income. Take capital gains, for example, or any other vehicle that results in a person receiving money at a lower or non-existent tax rate.

A poor individual is taxed on every penny he gets because every penny he gets is from wages. It's blatantly unfair.

 

[cawacko]

Why should a person be forced to save? If you're against the government saving your money and you want to take responsibility why should the government say you have to buy bonds? Maybe Real Estate is a better investment. After all, it was for a long time.

Maybe a person believes they'd be better off paying for their child's university education instead of buying bonds. Their child will earn a high income and support them. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to do that?

That's exactly what people did down through history. They all had a plan. Unfortunately, many didn't work out. That's why we have SS.

3. Why should it make a difference whether we're related to the grocer? Money coming in is income.

The argument is not to eliminate social security. SS will still be forced savings by the government. The argument is allow people control over their forced savings. And by control that's not saying the ability to put one's entire retirement in one stock. They are conservative options but allow the individual better returns than are possible now.

 

[DamnYankee]

And how many borrowed off their investments to buy homes over the last 5 years or so and are now under water?

So?

 

[apple0154]

So?

So if their savings were used as collateral that means their savings are gone if they decide to walk away from their home mortgage. On the other hand would they be allowed to walk away? If those savings were forced savings like SS then why wouldn't the government demand they pay them back meaning they would be obliged to keep their house and pay for it when it is worth less than the mortgage held on it?

What would be the solution? Allow them to walk away and the bank take those guaranteed funds, funds put away for retirement, or insist the person stay in the house and keep paying for it?

If the first solution is chosen then private retirement funds would be a joke. People would borrow against them and lose them. If the second solution is chosen then bankruptcy laws wouldn't apply to that money and the person would remain in debt throughout a large portion of their life.

 

[apple0154]

The argument is not to eliminate social security. SS will still be forced savings by the government. The argument is allow people control over their forced savings. And by control that's not saying the ability to put one's entire retirement in one stock. They are conservative options but allow the individual better returns than are possible now.

The problem is the amount demanded for SS is the very minimum required for retirement. There is no leeway for loss. While many people may make more money what happens to the person who doesn't? And that's the very reason behind SS.

We have to remember there was a time before SS. SS was implemented because people didn't save or invest properly.

If the government is willing to allow people to privately run a portion of their plan but still guarantee those individuals a basic level of support, regardless of how their investments turn out, then the other side of the coin should be the government can appropriately tax those individuals who do very well. There has to be some kind of a risk/benefit arrangement.

 

[cawacko]

So if their savings were used as collateral that means their savings are gone if they decide to walk away from their home mortgage. On the other hand would they be allowed to walk away? If those savings were forced savings like SS then why wouldn't the government demand they pay them back meaning they would be obliged to keep their house and pay for it when it is worth less than the mortgage held on it?

What would be the solution? Allow them to walk away and the bank take those guaranteed funds, funds put away for retirement, or insist the person stay in the house and keep paying for it?

If the first solution is chosen then private retirement funds would be a joke. People would borrow against them and lose them. If the second solution is chosen then bankruptcy laws wouldn't apply to that money and the person would remain in debt throughout a large portion of their life.

Who has said people should be able to borrow against their personal SS account? No one. Where are you coming up with that? Making shit up?

 

[cawacko]

The problem is the amount demanded for SS is the very minimum required for retirement. There is no leeway for loss. While many people may make more money what happens to the person who doesn't? And that's the very reason behind SS.

We have to remember there was a time before SS. SS was implemented because people didn't save or invest properly.

If the government is willing to allow people to privately run a portion of their plan but still guarantee those individuals a basic level of support, regardless of how their investments turn out, then the other side of the coin should be the government can appropriately tax those individuals who do very well. There has to be some kind of a risk/benefit arrangement.

Dude seriously are you afraid to walk across the street without holding someone's hand? I apologize for saying that and being an ass but its freaking true. The idea of personal accounts is not for people to try and gamble and get rich its about allowing people the option to get better returns. Again the options proposed are very conservative options and people are not allowed to invest all of their savings. Your attempt to portray poor and hungry and homeless people on the streets because they gambled away their SS money is not an option and therefore not going to happen. Quit being afraid.

 

[DamnYankee]

So if their savings were used as collateral that means their savings are gone if they decide to walk away from their home mortgage. On the other hand would they be allowed to walk away? If those savings were forced savings like SS then why wouldn't the government demand they pay them back meaning they would be obliged to keep their house and pay for it when it is worth less than the mortgage held on it?

What would be the solution? Allow them to walk away and the bank take those guaranteed funds, funds put away for retirement, or insist the person stay in the house and keep paying for it?

If the first solution is chosen then private retirement funds would be a joke. People would borrow against them and lose them. If the second solution is chosen then bankruptcy laws wouldn't apply to that money and the person would remain in debt throughout a large portion of their life.

This is the standard Lib-tard argument whenever the market drops or a segment drops. Yet the plan the is being discussed is over a 45 year history, and a balanced portfolio market has always outpaced the government return on Social Security, and by a huge margin. Real estate is simply another segment of the market, and an important part of a balanced portfolio.

 

[apple0154]

Who has said people should be able to borrow against their personal SS account? No one. Where are you coming up with that? Making shit up?

Not at all. Do try and follow along. When I asked what difference it would make if a person paid into SS or a personal SS account Damn Yankee responded in msg 89, "They're are forced to give up their money now with SS. They can borrow off their investments to pay for college or real estate just like they do now."

Did you see today's headline? http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/how-fidelity-could-reform-the-401-k-plan-system-but-wont/19603085/

(Excerpt) According to Fidelity Investments, withdrawals from 401(k) plans are on the rise. This is a troublesome sign. The average 401(k) plan balance at the end of the second quarter of this year was a paltry $61,800 -- hardly enough to "retire with dignity."

Plan participants reduced their balances by taking loans or obtaining hardship withdrawals. A staggering 22% of participants have loans outstanding, and 62,000 participants took hardship withdrawals. This doesn't bode well. (End)

If someone requires medical care and has a personal SS account how long before the rules are changed to allow individuals to borrow against it? Would it make sense to deny a person a hip replacement operation resulting in them having money for retirement but being unable to walk?

 

[apple0154]

Dude seriously are you afraid to walk across the street without holding someone's hand? I apologize for saying that and being an ass but its freaking true. The idea of personal accounts is not for people to try and gamble and get rich its about allowing people the option to get better returns. Again the options proposed are very conservative options and people are not allowed to invest all of their savings. Your attempt to portray poor and hungry and homeless people on the streets because they gambled away their SS money is not an option and therefore not going to happen. Quit being afraid.

As long as there is sufficient money in SS to look after them if they fail. That's the reason behind SS. Unless you think no one will fail. Unless you believe every investor, every stock on your "conservative list", is going to do well.

And as I noted earlier what will happen when emergencies arise? Does the 55 year old guy lose his job and home because he can not afford a hip replacement even though he has the money in a private SS account? He will be unemployed so he won't be contributing to his private account any more meaning he will end up with less money at retirement than if he took some money out now and had the operation.

If someone loses their job and defaults on their mortgage do we allow them to lose their home when they have funds in a private SS account? Rather than take, say, ten thousand to cover the mortgage for a period of time until he gets back to work do we prevent him from accessing that money resulting in a much greater loss due to losing his home from a repo sale?

There's a reason for SS. Other ways were tried for literally thousands of years. People did end up destitute. I's not a fear. It's a legitimate concern. Who do you propose pays for the destitute? Should we have a sur-tax on the retiree's pension who made good on the stock market so we can support the guy who didn't fare well? Would you be willing to accept the right to invest privately if it came with the obligation to help support the less fortunate, through additional taxes, if you did well? If not, what's your solution?

 

[apple0154]

This is the standard Lib-tard argument whenever the market drops or a segment drops. Yet the plan the is being discussed is over a 45 year history, and a balanced portfolio market has always outpaced the government return on Social Security, and by a huge margin. Real estate is simply another segment of the market, and an important part of a balanced portfolio.

It all depends on when one retires. Let me give you an example.

My wife worked for a town that had a pension plan. (Government job.) When she quit, being an accountant, she took all the funds and invested them in term deposits This was around 2004-5. Had she left the funds with the town the total value of her retirement account would have been considerably less than what it is now.

People who retire now or retired a couple of years ago got the shaft. A friend of mine lost approximately 30% off the value of his retirement account and he's close to retirement. He has a problem.

Let's use some figures as an example. If someone had $100,000 and lost 30% they'd have $70,000. Not only have they lost the interest on the missing $30,000 but, in all likelihood, they would have to draw on the principal. Let's say they take $2,000. Now they have $68,000 left. Then we have year two and year three and by year four the retirement account is close to $60,000. They will never recover.

The person who didn't retire still has the $70,000 and when things improve they'll see the profit from $70,000 as opposed to the profit the retiree will see from $60,000.

One does not have a large window in which they can retire. Usually it's a matter of a few years and many, seeing a bad year, hang on hoping for a boost and we all know what happened this time.