Obama (aka whiner) treated like a dog?

[cawacko]

The government doesn't have to print money. There is money available.

Let's try an analogy. A working couple buys a house and opens a joint account for home maintenance. Each of them also have an account for recreation/pleasure and a savings account. Each month they contribute to their respective accounts along with the house account.

One day the roof leaks. Cost to repair: $10,000. Total in house account: $7,000. What do they do? Look at each other and come to the conclusion they don't have the money to fix the roof? Or do they take money from their respective recreation and/or savings accounts? Would you say they don't have the money to replace the roof?

The government has the money or will obtain it, through taxes, just as they obtain money for other things. They can do exactly what the couple will do, take some money from other accounts. The war account, the NASA account, Parks and Recreation account, etc.

The same principal applies to Medicare.

It's all about priorities. What's moronic is to infer the richest country in the world can not support it's seniors.

where is this money that you say exists to fund these trillions in liabilities?

 

[cawacko]

Any way you slice it the less contributions, the less money available for payout which means the retirees who don't do good with private investments are going to suffer even more then they do now.

As for SS being unsustainable that's just nonsense. The government can raise mandatory contributions and tax back benefits from high income recipients. By simply taking contributions from SS and allowing people to invest privately the result will be some well-to-do seniors while others will end up in poverty worse than today.

The purpose of SS is to ensure seniors do not end up in poverty. The goal is not to ensure seniors live the life of those 90s "Freedom 55" ads. (The ads portrayed a couple, supposedly 55ish, alone on a moving sail boat rivaling a cruise ship standing on deck with a drink. I guess the deck hands were down below.):lol:

Anyway, the point is any change has to address the security of the poorest, most incompetent senior. That's the purpose of SS. That's why it was implemented. It's not meant to be ones only investment if one can afford to invest more.

What do you suggest we do about the poor elderly? Should the government simply increase taxes on the people who invested successfully in order to help support the poor? Or do you favor cutting benefits by the 7% proposed for private investment?

For maybe the hundreth time you do understand the investment options are very limited to conservative choices? Does that make sense? Does it need to be framed in another way to make it more clear because I would be glad to. CONSERVATIVE options. Meaning an individual cannot put it in some individual stock they have no clue about. That is not an option.

So quit with the false b.s. that someone could lose all their investment and have to choose between medication or food.

And the beauty is you can choose not to have a personal account. Pretty simple.

 

[Good Luck]

Imagine if the privatizing had gone through a few years ago when first suggested by the Repubs and people had invested on their own. What would a retired person's income look like today?

Why imagine, when we can look at the numbers?

In July of 2004, when the topic was first being felt out by the Bush II admin during their reelection bid, DJIA stood at 10,080. Today it closed at 10415.24. Not very good compared to standard IRAs for the same period of time, but then again, a whole lot better than being put in T-bills so the government can spend it via the general fund. (And most definitely a lot better than your remark implies.)

But lets go back to other times the idea of privatization (which you read as investing in the stock market.) In July of 1992, about the time Bush I was gearing up for reelection, DJIA stood at 3270. Again, it closed today at 10415. That's a bit more than 3X ROI, or about 6.5% annual ROI compounded.

Going back farther, to 1984: DJIA was at 1206. Coming to today, we see over 8X ROI. And that includes ALL of the drop offs, panics, and recessions.

What you nannypants continue to fail to see is stock market losses are short term, while investment of SS funds is long term. Long term there has always been a good payoff. The only ones who lose in crashes are the ones who panic and sell off during (or worse, after) the decline. Smart people who sit tight invariably gain it all back and then continue to increase. Worst case scenario for an individual is having to put off their planned retirement a few years, which considering Unc Sam's plans to increase the SS retirement age again, is also no long term loss compared to current SS structure.

In short, your fear mongering about the instability of stock market investing is dead assed wrong. (as usual)

 

[Good Luck]

The government has the money or will obtain it, through taxes, just as they obtain money for other things. They can do exactly what the couple will do, take some money from other accounts. The war account, the NASA account, Parks and Recreation account, etc.

Do you practice this level of sheer unadulterated ignorance, or does it take careful practice?

What do you think the deficit is? It's government spending more than they get from all sources. What do you think the national debt is, which currently stands at over 13 Trillion dollars? It's the accumulation of almost 100 years of deficit spending. The annual interest on the national debt could run a decent sized country.

In short, no they do NOT do what the couple does. The government spends money whether they have it or not, which is little different than simply printing more as needed. But why run printing presses when they can just tell the fed reserve to up the numbers in their computers? End result is the same: government spending non-existent money and then wondering why the economy is so unstable.

 

[apple0154]

where is this money that you say exists to fund these trillions in liabilities?

"All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

Remember Cheney's famous words when asked about the Iraq war? Something to the effect, "It was an option and we could afford it."

Hey, maybe being in debt for trillions spent on SS and Medicare and the new health plan will prevent some future war monger from making such an asinine remark? Who knows? And then there's the side benefits like, oh, say, saving American lives and having young adults grow up with both legs and both arms.

Where would you rather see your tax dollars going?

 

[apple0154]

For maybe the hundreth time you do understand the investment options are very limited to conservative choices? Does that make sense? Does it need to be framed in another way to make it more clear because I would be glad to. CONSERVATIVE options. Meaning an individual cannot put it in some individual stock they have no clue about. That is not an option.

So quit with the false b.s. that someone could lose all their investment and have to choose between medication or food.

And the beauty is you can choose not to have a personal account. Pretty simple.

There are seniors, today, having to choose between medication and food. Not some future scenario. It's happening today. Others taking bus trips to Canada to obtain cheaper meds.

What will the future hold when contributions to SS are cut even more even if it's just 7%?

 

[Timshel]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/20/is-the-aarp-willing-to-bargain

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports what’s been obvious to anyone following the deficit debate—that the deficit commission is likely to recommend Social Security cuts. But reporter Laura Meckler buries the lede: The AARP, the influential seniors’ lobby that one might expect to be the biggest single interest-group barrier to any such cuts, is now saying that it may be open to a deal that reduces benefits

 

[cawacko]

There are seniors, today, having to choose between medication and food. Not some future scenario. It's happening today. Others taking bus trips to Canada to obtain cheaper meds.

What will the future hold when contributions to SS are cut even more even if it's just 7%?

a personal account is not cutting your SS. damn, not that hard to understand.

where is Topspin with his turbo-libs don't understand economics? And to add to that a CANADIAN turbo-lib. Even worse!

 

[apple0154]

Why imagine, when we can look at the numbers?

In July of 2004, when the topic was first being felt out by the Bush II admin during their reelection bid, DJIA stood at 10,080. Today it closed at 10415.24. Not very good compared to standard IRAs for the same period of time, but then again, a whole lot better than being put in T-bills so the government can spend it via the general fund. (And most definitely a lot better than your remark implies.)

But lets go back to other times the idea of privatization (which you read as investing in the stock market.) In July of 1992, about the time Bush I was gearing up for reelection, DJIA stood at 3270. Again, it closed today at 10415. That's a bit more than 3X ROI, or about 6.5% annual ROI compounded.

Going back farther, to 1984: DJIA was at 1206. Coming to today, we see over 8X ROI. And that includes ALL of the drop offs, panics, and recessions.

What you nannypants continue to fail to see is stock market losses are short term, while investment of SS funds is long term. Long term there has always been a good payoff. The only ones who lose in crashes are the ones who panic and sell off during (or worse, after) the decline. Smart people who sit tight invariably gain it all back and then continue to increase. Worst case scenario for an individual is having to put off their planned retirement a few years, which considering Unc Sam's plans to increase the SS retirement age again, is also no long term loss compared to current SS structure.

In short, your fear mongering about the instability of stock market investing is dead assed wrong. (as usual)

Many people nearing 65 or those with medical problems can not put off retirement. Are they to work another five years? What will happen to them? What is your solution?

Instead of thinking about how one can acquire more money for retirement let's think about those who will only have SS. Will the government reduce compulsory contributions by 7% and still maintain benefits?

 

[cawacko]

Many people nearing 65 or those with medical problems can not put off retirement. Are they to work another five years? What will happen to them? What is your solution?

Instead of thinking about how one can acquire more money for retirement let's think about those who will only have SS. Will the government reduce compulsory contributions by 7% and still maintain benefits?

this is almost becoming comical. By having a personal account you are not losing 7%. You still pay the same amount in you just have control over that 7% (if it is even that high).

 

[apple0154]

Do you practice this level of sheer unadulterated ignorance, or does it take careful practice?

What do you think the deficit is? It's government spending more than they get from all sources. What do you think the national debt is, which currently stands at over 13 Trillion dollars? It's the accumulation of almost 100 years of deficit spending. The annual interest on the national debt could run a decent sized country.

In short, no they do NOT do what the couple does. The government spends money whether they have it or not, which is little different than simply printing more as needed. But why run printing presses when they can just tell the fed reserve to up the numbers in their computers? End result is the same: government spending non-existent money and then wondering why the economy is so unstable.

Yes, the government is spending more money than they get but where are they spending it? That's where the focus should be. Or do you suggest people take 7% of their SS contributions for private investment and just keep on paying taxes as usual?

Talking about ignorance what do you think is going to happen if the country goes bankrupt? If you want to make a worst case scenario maybe you should do a Google on countries that default on their loans. The extra you think you'll be receiving from private investments won't make any difference if the currency is devalued or inflation hits like what happens to other countries that have defaulted.

 

[apple0154]

a personal account is not cutting your SS. damn, not that hard to understand.

where is Topspin with his turbo-libs don't understand economics? And to add to that a CANADIAN turbo-lib. Even worse!

If the government receives 7% less from citizens who are investing on their own why wouldn't benefits be cut to the people collecting now?

You're not making any sense. The government can not allow citizens to reduce their contributions to the government SS fund and still pay the same benefits.

 

[apple0154]

this is almost becoming comical. By having a personal account you are not losing 7%. You still pay the same amount in you just have control over that 7% (if it is even that high).

It certainly is comical. If you have control of the money then how can the government use that money to pay out benefits? Explain that to me.

 

[Timshel]

The government doesn't have to print money. There is money available.

Let's try an analogy. A working couple buys a house and opens a joint account for home maintenance. Each of them also have an account for recreation/pleasure and a savings account. Each month they contribute to their respective accounts along with the house account.

One day the roof leaks. Cost to repair: $10,000. Total in house account: $7,000. What do they do? Look at each other and come to the conclusion they don't have the money to fix the roof? Or do they take money from their respective recreation and/or savings accounts? Would you say they don't have the money to replace the roof?

The government has the money or will obtain it, through taxes, just as they obtain money for other things. They can do exactly what the couple will do, take some money from other accounts. The war account, the NASA account, Parks and Recreation account, etc.

The same principal applies to Medicare.

It's all about priorities. What's moronic is to infer the richest country in the world can not support it's seniors.

That's right. No need to worry. The government will show fiscal restraint tomorrow.

 

[apple0154]

That's right. No need to worry. The government will show fiscal restraint tomorrow.

If the country is going bankrupt the extra dollars obtained from privately investing 7% of the SS contributions are not going to make a whole lot of difference.

The most likely scenario is if private investment of SS contributions are permitted fiscal restraint will be half way brought to bear and SS will slowly be dismantled.

The point is private investment is not the answer. Does anyone think having a few extra dollars will matter if the country defaults on payments?

Unless one is talking about the worst case scenario the only result will be poor seniors and people asking what happened to SS.

 

[Timshel]

If the country is going bankrupt the extra dollars obtained from privately investing 7% of the SS contributions are not going to make a whole lot of difference.

Who is advocating bankruptcy?

The most likely scenario is if private investment of SS contributions are permitted fiscal restraint will be half way brought to bear and SS will slowly be dismantled.

The point is private investment is not the answer. Does anyone think having a few extra dollars will matter if the country defaults on payments?

Unless one is talking about the worst case scenario the only result will be poor seniors and people asking what happened to SS.

You are not making much sense. No plan I have heard of calls for defaulting on any payments.

 

[Good Luck]

Apple has been reduced to moronic babbling.

7% this, 7% that. No concept at all what has been proposed or what it means. Taking things away from the government is wrong in Apples world. Government is mommy, and Apple needs to be tucked in at night with a nigh nigh story that always end happily ever after.

If people invest under laws that means they leave those investments in place, they will have more money for their own retirement. That means the SS system will be burdened less. SS can actually decrease benefits without harming the beneficiary because they also have income derived from the investments. That mean less payment from SS, which in turn means the system can run longer without resorting to the typical "lets fix it all by taxing people more" liberal answer to fiscal problems. But it does NOT mean less for the retiree because they are also deriving income from the invested portion of their SS contributions.

As for the rest of FICA taxes, they should also be invested. Right now they are "invested" in t-bills, which means the government gets to play hide-the-deficit bookkeeping while spending FICA taxes and filling the SS trust fund with IOUs. Not only that, but IF we ever pay off those IOUs, the interest T-bills garner is paid by the U.S. tax payer - another fiscal burden we do not need. Invested in the private markets means no general tax money is used to bolster the fund, it will generate a far better ROI, it is the high-end definition of long term investment so short term panics and downturns will not affect its ability to pay in the long run. Set it up like a corporate pension fund, only with hard line, steel-reinforced-brick-wall protections against invading the fund for any reason outside of SS payments. A trillion dollar fund making an average 7-8% annual ROI compounded will rapidly reach the point of being what SS was supposed to be from the beginning: a self-sustaining retirement assurance fund. We could lower contributions allowing people to keep more of their paycheck while simultaneously guaranteeing them better long term benefits when they reach retirement age.

 

[Good Luck]

It certainly is comical. If you have control of the money then how can the government use that money to pay out benefits? Explain that to me.

Because the government does not HAVE to pay that portion out. The laws, as proposed, would require the person to invest the money in some type of conservative private retirement account - a government mandated IRA. When retirement time comes, SS pays out its portion, and the SS/IRA portion pays out its portion. Burden on the SS fund is lowered by more than 7%, while the IRA-type portion would end up paying out MORE than 7%. Government wins because burden on SS would be diminished by more than they would lose in revenues, and the retiree wins because they would gain more from the invested portion than they would lose from lowered SS payments.

 

[apple0154]

Who is advocating bankruptcy?

You are not making much sense. No plan I have heard of calls for defaulting on any payments.

I was addressing a poster's concerns about depending on the government when the deficit is so high. My point is investing in the government, paying into SS, is definitely more secure than investing in any company.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I was addressing a poster's concerns about depending on the government when the deficit is so high. My point is investing in the government, paying into SS, is definitely more secure than investing in any company.

what you continue to fail to grasp is that we are NOT talking about changing the fact that people pay into SS. Most of the money would still be invested in treasuries.

The government having access to the money, being able to change the rules of the program whenever they fuck up, raising the retirement age, lowering benefits, raising taxes.... that is NOT more secure than individuals having control of the money.