New polls on who we are

[Damocles]

I'm no dummy brother and neither are you. To suggest that there are factors that you cannot see when planning for your retirement is absolutely relevant when discussiing planning for your retirement .. THUS, a reliable safety-net is critical for the health and well-being of American citizens.

No one is denying that making good plans foir retirement is essential because no one wants to have to rely on SS for their dole source of income in retiurement .. but we aren't talking about the best laid plans, we're talking about people, and there are a great many of them .. especially today, who have made all the best laid plans, then find themselves hurting for income to survive, which ususally happens because of unforseen health issues.

If you're so intenet on "saving a small portion to invest" .. what's stopping you? Surely you can manage to save a smallportion from what you already spend to invest ,, and leave the portion you contribute to SS alone just iun case your best laid plans don't work out .. of which you have NO GUARANTEE.

That would seeem to me to be the real best laid plans.

The strawman here is the false notion that the only "small portion" you have is what you contribute to SS.

And again, the reliable safety net would still be there, you are building that same straw man. I never suggested taking away the reliable safety net.

The weakest portion of your argument is insisting that I suggested "getting rid of the reliable safety net". Nobody here has suggested that at all.

The remainder of my safety net would still be there, while the extremely small portion that I was allowed to invest may not.

What I said is that some people would not otherwise save at all, in this way they can take a small portion that would otherwise go to that insurance and invest it in a way that it can be passed on to future generations as well as enhance their retirement. Another poor assumption on your part is the risk level of the allowed investment.

If you feel uncomfortable "risking" it in specific conservative investments so that you can pass on some of your lifetime of payments to your children there would be no need to invest anything at all. Those who do will have something that they otherwise would not (some could not if it wasn't forced) to pass on or use to enhance their retirement beyond the subsistence level that the government insures.

 

[blackascoal]

Here again is another one for you to look at Desh... the old 'well if we had privatized SS then where would we be now after the market fell so hard'

PRIVATIZATION DOES NOT MEAN THE MONEY HAS TO GO INTO THE STOCK MARKET.

It means the money is no longer under the control of the idiots in DC.

No SS means greater suffering, misery, and death to American seniors .. but you don't really care about them .. and therein lies the difference.

If you're going to invest for your retirement .. what the fuck is stopping you?

Is what you contribute to SS all the money you have?

I've made plans for my retirement .. if I ever choose to retire .. AND I don't need what I contribute to SS to make those plans.

 

[blackascoal]

And again, the reliable safety net would still be there, you are building that same straw man. I never suggested taking away the reliable safety net.

The weakest portion of your argument is insisting that I suggested "getting rid of the reliable safety net". Nobody here has suggested that at all.

The remainder of my safety net would still be there, while the extremely small portion that I was allowed to invest may not.

I see it quite differently.

The fallacy of your argument is that you need that "small portion" to invest. That wouild be sad and demonstrates that you aren't as prepared as you may think you are.

SS needs what Americans contribute to provide that needed safety-net .. and this is particularly true now that baby-boomers are reaching retirement age. Reducing SS contributions reduces the chance that it will be there for future generations.

Your thought of reducing SS at all is the problem I see.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No SS means greater suffering, misery, and death to American seniors .. but you don't really care about them .. and therein lies the difference.

If you're going to invest for your retirement .. what the fuck is stopping you?

Is what you contribute to SS all the money you have?

I've made plans for my retirement .. if I ever choose to retire .. AND I don't need what I contribute to SS to make those plans.

Tell me BAC.... WHO said there should be NO SS??? Tell us oh wise one... WHO the fuck said that? Because from what I have read... NO ONE has done that. I most certainly have not done any such thing. I stated that we should take SS and privatize the system... I did not say we should eliminate the system.

Are you capable of comprehending that? Or are you going to continue with the same MORONIC line of bullshit propagated by the left that anyone who mentions privatization is trying to 'end social security' or 'steal money from retirees' or whatever other line of bullshit the left is spitting out these days?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I see it quite differently.

The fallacy of your argument is that you need that "small portion" to invest. That wouild be sad and demonstrates that you aren't as prepared as you may think you are.

SS needs what Americans contribute to provide that needed safety-net .. and this is particularly true now that baby-boomers are reaching retirement age. Reducing SS contributions reduces the chance that it will be there for future generations.

Your thought of reducing SS at all is the problem I see.

And again you spout off your line of BS.... He did not say that we should reduce what is being taken out of paychecks for SS. He simply stated that we should be allowed to take a portion of that and invest it should we choose to do so. The money would still be a part of the SS system.

 

[KingCondanomation]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/halpin-teixeria-progressive-study/



• By a margin of almost nine to one, Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” (79 percent agree, 12 percent neutral, 9 percent disagree).

• More than three in four Americans (76 percent) also agree with the president’s argument that “America’s economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”

• Nearly three in four Americans believe that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers,” (73 percent agree, 15 percent neutral, 12 percent disagree).

• Nearly two in three Americans (65 percent) agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

Of course when the tax bill comes in or when people realize they have to pay more for these things in the cost of goods and services and that there is no such thing as a free lunch, these poll numbers quickly shrink back to being well under 50%.

Oregon (which is a center left state) had only partial universal healthcare, when the massive increase taxes came and a high unemployment rate, they repealed the extra government healthcare.

 

[blackascoal]

Tell me BAC.... WHO said there should be NO SS??? Tell us oh wise one... WHO the fuck said that? Because from what I have read... NO ONE has done that. I most certainly have not done any such thing. I stated that we should take SS and privatize the system... I did not say we should eliminate the system.

Are you capable of comprehending that? Or are you going to continue with the same MORONIC line of bullshit propagated by the left that anyone who mentions privatization is trying to 'end social security' or 'steal money from retirees' or whatever other line of bullshit the left is spitting out these days?

The boldened part .. therein lies the stupid.

 

[blackascoal]

And again you spout off your line of BS.... He did not say that we should reduce what is being taken out of paychecks for SS. He simply stated that we should be allowed to take a portion of that and invest it should we choose to do so. The money would still be a part of the SS system.

Let me make this real clear for you .. I am against ANY privatization of SS .. ANY PART OF IT.

Thankfully, we weren't dumb enough to privatize SS when it was first suggested.

Guess you didn't get the memo.

 

[Topspin]

Democrats are retarded when it comes to investing, they almost don't do it.
I'll take a privitized return on stocks since inception vs near zero now. LOFL

 

[Damocles]

I see it quite differently.

The fallacy of your argument is that you need that "small portion" to invest. That wouild be sad and demonstrates that you aren't as prepared as you may think you are.

SS needs what Americans contribute to provide that needed safety-net .. and this is particularly true now that baby-boomers are reaching retirement age. Reducing SS contributions reduces the chance that it will be there for future generations.

Your thought of reducing SS at all is the problem I see.

The remainder of my safety net would still be there, while the extremely small portion that I was allowed to invest may not.

What I said is that some people would not otherwise save at all, in this way they can take a small portion that would otherwise go to that insurance and invest it in a way that it can be passed on to future generations as well as enhance their retirement. Another poor assumption on your part is the risk level of the allowed investment.

If you feel uncomfortable "risking" it in specific conservative investments so that you can pass on some of your lifetime of payments to your children there would be no need to invest anything at all. Those who do will have something that they otherwise would not (some could not if it wasn't forced) to pass on or use to enhance their retirement beyond the subsistence level that the government insures.

 

[Topspin]

the whole system is based on IOU's now, no educated in finance person can argue that 10% returns over the long haul on the 7% of your check invested over time is not better.

Turbo-lib talking points is all they got, which ain't much.

 

[Cancel3]

According to what I have seen, SS will be gone by the time I retire.

I am not so concerned about privatization or not. I am much more concerned about the IOUs that have replaced my money in the SS account.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The boldened part .. therein lies the stupid.

The stupid part is your inability to defend your position. Privatization means the idiots in DC dont control YOUR SS money. That is all it means. You are simply brainwashed to the point that you refuse to accept that basic fact.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Let me make this real clear for you .. I am against ANY privatization of SS .. ANY PART OF IT.

Thankfully, we weren't dumb enough to privatize SS when it was first suggested.

Guess you didn't get the memo.

Guess you AGAIN are going to pretend that Privatization = money goes into the stock market.

Bottom line, with regards to this subject you are a brainwashed moron.

 

[Bonestorm]

Guess you AGAIN are going to pretend that Privatization = money goes into the stock market.

Bottom line, with regards to this subject you are a brainwashed moron.

Where else would the money go under your personal definition of Privatization. Or does your version of Privatization just mean that you pay less SS taxes?

 

[Topspin]

Where else would the money go under your personal definition of Privatization. Or does your version of Privatization just mean that you pay less SS taxes?

Bingo, saying not to do it because the market is crashed right now is RETARDED.

 

[Canceled2]

It does however limit and cause issues of its own. There is nothing like a government entity deciding on what the "best care" is for you. In Britain they had people having to go nearly blind in both eyes before they'd pay for an eye surgery...

Seriously, it's demented to believe that when government pays for something it won't end up being rationed. Having the government pay for something does nothing to reduce the costs.

Medical liability insurance has driven up the cost of health care. If we nationalize health care who is going to insure doctors and hospitals?

I believe that our government is the last entity that should be managing health care. This said, one savings is likely to be the costs of tort litigation. If you think the wait to get your eye looked at will be long, think about all of these tort junkie attorney's trying to sue the feds. The whole scenario of our government trying to manage national health care in a nation with over 300 million persons is ridiculous. I know this will get a lot of screams, but seriously, tort reform coupled with deregulation so that insurer’s can compete is really the answer to lower costs.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Where else would the money go under your personal definition of Privatization. Or does your version of Privatization just mean that you pay less SS taxes?

Privatization means the money is under YOUR control. Personally I would restrict where people could put the money... give them two options. Treasury bonds or the S&P 500.

and NO.... I am in NO way suggesting that anyone pay LESS SS taxes. Where the hell do you idiots keep getting that from? Is that some new moveon.moron tactic for discussing privatization?

 

[Bonestorm]

Privatization means the money is under YOUR control. Personally I would restrict where people could put the money... give them two options. Treasury bonds or the S&P 500.

and NO.... I am in NO way suggesting that anyone pay LESS SS taxes. Where the hell do you idiots keep getting that from? Is that some new moveon.moron tactic for discussing privatization?

So the options are treasury bonds, which is where the trust fund money is now, or the market. But you said that Privatization doesn't mean the market. I'm confused.

And I was simply asking a question. You said it didn't mean putting the money into the market so I thought maybe you were in favor of letting people do whatever the hell they want with the money. You have since clarified (albeit confusingly).

 

[Immanuel]

The boldened part .. therein lies the stupid.

Why is it stupid to guarantee that the person who is taxed for retirement is entitled to his/her retirement account rather than the government? Why is it stupid that should the person die three weeks before reaching retirement age, that his/her retirement contributions would go to his/her heirs rather than the government while they grudgingly give the spouse a measley $235.00 stipend and a "thank you for your spouses contribution upon his/her death" card?

No one at all is saying stop the contributions. What is being said, is to stop those contributions from getting into the grubby little hands of grubby politicians who spend it on the government's budget and promise to pay retirees a pittance after retirement... should funds last that long. A simple annuity purchase upon can do that and the retiree would still have a sizeable retirement plan left over without the risk of governmental confiscation.

Immie