New polls on who we are

[Cancel 2016.2]

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).

1) The SS funds are not currently in Treasury bonds.... they are in IOUs and Tbills

2) Yes, you are confused, because like BAC you are a brainwashed moron. Trained to knee-jerk reactions anytime someone says privatization.

3) PRIVATIZATION... MEANS YOU DECIDE WHERE YOUR MONEY GOES.... NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

4) PRIVATIZATION MEANS THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BORROW AGAINST THE SS FUNDS ANY MORE.

5) PRIVATIZATION MEANS WE QUIT THE ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL PONZI SCHEME.

6) PRIVATIZATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE STOP MAKING PAYMENTS TO RETIREES.

 

[Topspin]

dung do you really think treasuries are better than the market long term 1, and 2 are you sure the money is in treasuries.

 

[blackascoal]

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

It's stupid on several levels.

First, what you're suggesting is taking money out of the "grubby hands" of politicians and putting that money into the grubby hands of private industry whose only purpose is to make money. That is the only reason for their existence. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

SS functions as a safety-net, not a money-making enterprise. We cannot afford to gamble the safety-net seniors MUST have on private industry.

How much would SS have lost during this chaos that is immediately in front of us if it had been invested in private industry today? .. and to suggest nothing would have been lost would be the language of a moron.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) The SS funds are not currently in Treasury bonds.... they are in IOUs and Tbills

2) Yes, you are confused, because like BAC you are a brainwashed moron. Trained to knee-jerk reactions anytime someone says privatization.

3) PRIVATIZATION... MEANS YOU DECIDE WHERE YOUR MONEY GOES.... NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

4) PRIVATIZATION MEANS THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BORROW AGAINST THE SS FUNDS ANY MORE.

5) PRIVATIZATION MEANS WE QUIT THE ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL PONZI SCHEME.

6) PRIVATIZATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE STOP MAKING PAYMENTS TO RETIREES.

1) The Trust Fund holds Treasury bonds. The "IOU" thing is just spin.

2) No, I'm confused because you said privatization doesn't mean investing in the stock market but turned around and said that private accounts should be invested in the stock market and Treasury bonds, which is just the current state of affairs plus stock market investment.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of it.

 

[Bonestorm]

dung do you really think treasuries are better than the market long term 1, and 2 are you sure the money is in treasuries.

1) I don't look at Social Security as an investment program wherein ensuring a high return is the principle goal. It's an insurance program wherein defined benefits and low risk are the primary concern.

2) Yes, I am sure the money is in Treasuries.

 

[blackascoal]

1) I don't look at Social Security as an investment program wherein ensuring a high return is the principle goal. It's an insurance program wherein defined benefits and low risk are the primary concern.

END OF STORY

That's it in a nutshell.

It was never intended to be a source of investment in an non-existent "free market."

 

[Immanuel]

It's stupid on several levels.

First, what you're suggesting is taking money out of the "grubby hands" of politicians and putting that money into the grubby hands of private industry whose only purpose is to make money. That is the only reason for their existence. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

SS functions as a safety-net, not a money-making enterprise. We cannot afford to gamble the safety-net seniors MUST have on private industry.

How much would SS have lost during this chaos that is immediately in front of us if it had been invested in private industry today? .. and to suggest nothing would have been lost would be the language of a moron.

I am beginning to wonder if you have any knowledge at all about investing money, but believe me, my friend, I know you well enough to know that you are capable of understanding this.

We are not talking about investing all your money today when you plan on retiring tomorrow. Anyone who had started contributing into a retirement fund, 6.2% of their gross salary 50 years ago and did so religiously with every paycheck from that time on and who has worked most of that time at average wages would be sitting on a very hefty nest egg today. Also, they would not simply retire today and take every dime out of their retirement. They would spread it out in monthly payments for the rest of their lives. And to guarantee a life time of payments even if they were able to outlive their nest egg an annuity contract purchased sometime before retirement or at retirement would guarantee at least what the government offers them. The annuity contract could be a governmental requirement as well as the monthly distribution at retirement basically that is what happens now anyway.

Now, in reply to your first point, I sure as hell would prefer putting my money in the hands of money managers at Merrill Lynch rather than Teddy Kennedy's hands. But, in revamping the system, the government should develop a system where they would approve the funds (paid for by the funds themselves similar to how the FDIC works) and closely monitor the funds into which these investments could be made. If the fund doesn't meet the requirements of the government, it does not get or maintain approval for these retirement funds.

When Social Security was set up, it was a good thing, but it could have been set up better. Now is the time to begin to make it better. This can not be done over night as I said in an earlier post, but it can be done.

Immie

PS That 6.2% is the amount you pay today into FICA. The employer also pays 6.2% of your salary. The employers portion could very easily be used to set up a disability fund and a early death benefit fund.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's stupid on several levels.

First, what you're suggesting is taking money out of the "grubby hands" of politicians and putting that money into the grubby hands of private industry whose only purpose is to make money. That is the only reason for their existence. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

SS functions as a safety-net, not a money-making enterprise. We cannot afford to gamble the safety-net seniors MUST have on private industry.

How much would SS have lost during this chaos that is immediately in front of us if it had been invested in private industry today? .. and to suggest nothing would have been lost would be the language of a moron.

Wow... you just dont stop with your idiocy on this topic do you?

Again... privatization means the money is in the hands of the INDIVIDUAL, not the government and not 'private industry'. The INDIVIDUAL gets to make the choice.

AGAIN... privatization does NOT mean the money had to be invested in the stock market. A point and FACT that your brainwashed mind is quite obviously not able to comprehend. Educate yourself brother.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) The Trust Fund holds Treasury bonds. The "IOU" thing is just spin.

2) No, I'm confused because you said privatization doesn't mean investing in the stock market but turned around and said that private accounts should be invested in the stock market and Treasury bonds, which is just the current state of affairs plus stock market investment.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of it.

1) NO, it does not hold Tbonds... again, the investments are in TBills - that is to say, that which they have not borrowed against is in tbills. If you dont know the difference educated yourself.

2) Pay attention. You are smart enough to understand. Privatization simply means that the individual should decide where their money goes. Got it? That means the money does not HAVE to go into the market. But it CAN go in should the individual choose to do so. The individual could also choose to put the money in T bonds. So I did not say the money SHOULD be invested in both.... that again is your brainwashing kicking in. And AGAIN, the SS money is NOT invested in Tbonds.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) I don't look at Social Security as an investment program wherein ensuring a high return is the principle goal. It's an insurance program wherein defined benefits and low risk are the primary concern.

2) Yes, I am sure the money is in Treasuries.

And THIS is why the current system fails. You HAVE to have the money making enough to keep pace with inflation (which it hasn't) and you HAVE to have it make enough to keep pace with fluctuations in demographics (which it doesn't)

 

[Bonestorm]

1) NO, it does not hold Tbonds... again, the investments are in TBills - that is to say, that which they have not borrowed against is in tbills. If you dont know the difference educated yourself.

2) Pay attention. You are smart enough to understand. Privatization simply means that the individual should decide where their money goes. Got it? That means the money does not HAVE to go into the market. But it CAN go in should the individual choose to do so. The individual could also choose to put the money in T bonds. So I did not say the money SHOULD be invested in both.... that again is your brainwashing kicking in. And AGAIN, the SS money is NOT invested in Tbonds.

1) The trust fund invests in special issue Treasury bonds.

2) I understand fully well. You want individuals to bear more risk. I disagree.

 

[Bonestorm]

And THIS is why the current system fails. You HAVE to have the money making enough to keep pace with inflation (which it hasn't) and you HAVE to have it make enough to keep pace with fluctuations in demographics (which it doesn't)

The above is just plain wrong.

 

[cawacko]

The above is just plain wrong.

I'm curious how you feel this is wrong.

 

[Topspin]

It's stupid on several levels.

First, what you're suggesting is taking money out of the "grubby hands" of politicians and putting that money into the grubby hands of private industry whose only purpose is to make money. That is the only reason for their existence. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

SS functions as a safety-net, not a money-making enterprise. We cannot afford to gamble the safety-net seniors MUST have on private industry.

How much would SS have lost during this chaos that is immediately in front of us if it had been invested in private industry today? .. and to suggest nothing would have been lost would be the language of a moron.

Prob why you don't invest much, there's this thing called long term averages. If SS were privatized when you were born and invested in a diversity of stocks it would be better off by trillions.

 

[cawacko]

I understand fully well. You want individuals to bear more risk. I disagree.

Stating the obvious,this is one of the best examples of differing political philosophy's. One view is about empowering the individual. The other view is that so-called 'empowerment' is nothing more than additional unnessesary (sp) risk.

 

[Bonestorm]

Stating the obvious,this is one of the best examples of differing political philosophy's. One view is about empowering the individual. The other view is that so-called 'empowerment' is nothing more than additional unnessesary (sp) risk.

It's not really a grand statement on political philosophy when looking at it in the context of a discussion about Social Security. Basically, SF wants to take both the "social" and the "security" out of the program. I disagree.

 

[Topspin]

your pretty uneducated in finance Superfreak has a degree in economics and is a broker.
SS investments now get what return vs 10% long term in the market.
It's not required for democrats to be ignorant on finance, they can and should read.

 

[Bonestorm]

your pretty uneducated in finance Superfreak has a degree in economics and is a broker.
SS investments now get what return vs 10% long term in the market.
It's not required for democrats to be ignorant on finance, they can and should read.

Apparently you are unable to grasp the difference between an insurance program and an investment program. As an investment program Social Security does not perform very well, but as an insurance program it performs very well.

Further, investing int he market to get market returns on SS assets does not require exposing individuals to risk.

As a broker SF obviously prefers private accounts because he personally stands to benefit. Excuse me if I think he may not have the best interests of the country and the Social Security system in mind.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) The trust fund invests in special issue Treasury bonds.

2) I understand fully well. You want individuals to bear more risk. I disagree.

More risk? LMAO... whatever moron. There is more risk in the current system than what the individual would face on their own. Right now the odds of my receiving the current benefits are next to zero. Because morons like you think the investment is safe with the government.

If you want greater security than allowing people to choose between the market and treasuries, then take the money and send it into an annuity. They would thus have guaranteed benefits for life AND they would be able to pass along unused portions to their bene's.

 

[Bonestorm]

More risk? LMAO... whatever moron. There is more risk in the current system than what the individual would face on their own. Right now the odds of my receiving the current benefits are next to zero. Because morons like you think the investment is safe with the government.

If you want greater security than allowing people to choose between the market and treasuries, then take the money and send it into an annuity. They would thus have guaranteed benefits for life AND they would be able to pass along unused portions to their bene's.

1) Saying that doesn't make it so.

2) Annuities are a fucking rip off. As a broker you must love them.