Obama (aka whiner) treated like a dog?
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
apple0154
MEOW
The government will provide funds.
Here's the difference. One invests in a company. The company goes bankrupt. The person loses.
If one invests with the government they can't lose because the government can always get the money to pay it's obligations.
We know what it was like before SS. Why are we even having this discussion? As I said before SS was implemented because things didn't work out the way some folks keep insisting it will. It won't. We've been there, done that.
cawacko
Well-known member
proposed legislation from '05
Edit: Let me rephrase. This is what was being discussed in 2005. I don't know if it ever made the legislation phase or not.
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
we are having this discussion because it is not about eliminating SS it is about improving it. We haven't been there done that with what we are discussing. You're just afraid which is fine but enough with the false fear mongering.
You got a link? I don't recall any actual plan with any of the type of specifics you are talking about in this thread.
cawacko
Well-known member
check my edit
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Note to apple....
The federal government would be BANKRUPT if not for the fact that we are the reserve currency.... THESE ARE THE IDIOTS YOU WANT RUNNING OUR MONEY??????
You use Lehman as an example of a firm that went down... guess what.... they went down because the IDIOTS IN DC removed Glass Steagall. The IDIOTS in DC allowed the derivatives market to go unregulated by the SEC. The IDIOTS in DC apple... the ones YOU want running our money.
Again... if the average joe isn't comfortable deciding how much to put in to Treasuries vs. how much for the S&P... fine... have a default to 100% Treasury bonds. Done. But IF people want to make a choice and put SOME of their SS money into the market... they should be able to do so.
IF SS had been privatized when it first came up while Ford was in office, then think about where funds invested in the S&P would be right now.
FYI... the SS trust fund currently has the ability to invest in the market... the idiots in DC simply chose not to... because it would have reduced their ability to borrow from the fund.
Hilarious. The idiots in DC are responsible for Lehman's collapse because they didn't prevent Lehman from doing stupid shit. Talk about nanny-statism. Jesus Christ.
And you sound like a goddamned socialist with all that regulation of the derivatives market crap. Hell, I bet way back in the glory days of Aught-5 you would have just sooooo supportive of increased regulation of the financial services industry. Right?
I'm not going to argue with you about the wisdom of private accounts. We disagree. But I think you are incorrect regarding the ability of the government to invest the trust fund in the market. I believe the trust fund is require to purchase special treasuries only. In fact, my proposal for the private account folks that clamor on about getting "return" on SS is allowing the government to more broadly invest trust fund assets.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes. You let the money be controlled by the individual... so that again... it is either THEIRS or their HEIRS... you get out what you paid in... plus or minus investment performance.
But you do limit the choices to protect against any wild bets.
Yes, I am aware that happens to the elderly. That does not change why it was created and it does not change the fact that the above scare tactic you present has little relevance. you pretend that if people control their own accounts they will in large numbers end up homeless and without any SS.
Guess what... RIGHT NOW... as things stand....EVERYONE is going to lose SS. IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE... it is a PONZI scheme... rob peter to pay paul.
IT DOES NOT WORK.
again... I agree with the concept of forcing people to save via SS. That does not change the fact that the money should be controlled by the individual rather than the government. Even if you simply give people ONE option... Treasuries... as long as the money is not controlled by the government.... that is good with me. Though I prefer the option.
Yes... you are fear mongering... pretending that if people control their own accounts large numbers will end up homeless.... THAT IS FEAR MONGERING.
yes, that is why it was created. It was a forced savings and I support that. you can't seem to grasp that you can still have the forced savings and still have the safety net in place WITHOUT the government controlling the money.
you seem to forget that the 'reality' you speak of came during the great depression when 20% of the workforce had no jobs.
FYI... the money is currently managed by JP Morgan... one of the most crooked institutions on the Street.... and completely in bed with the idiots in DC.
I am quite obviously far more educated on this subject than you are. you use fear mongering and pretend that is intelligence. It is not. It is however, quite pathetic.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Blatantly false. If one buys stocks via Lehman, they do not lose all their money if Lehman goes under. They only lose what they had in LEHMAN's individual stock.
Blatantly false.... the only reason the US government isn't bankrupt right now is that we are the reserve currency. We currently are about $50 TRILLION underfunded in Medicare. Social Security began deficits this year. It will not last forever. Believing the government can simply print money indefinitely is moronic.... at best.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Actually I have been against the repeal of Glass Steagall since it happened. It was a huge mistake allowing the retail banks and investment banks to merge all for the sake of 'being able to better compete with foreign banks'.
As for the derivative markets... those along with the hedge fund universe, mortgage industry, index annuities etc... most certainly should be regulated. ESPECIALLY the derivatives market given there is NO tangible asset behind them. The SEC has strict rules on options trading for a reason.... and they are nowhere near as complex as the off-books derivatives are.
As for Lehman... my point was that it was the actions of the idiots in DC that allowed Lehman to take the risks they otherwise would not have been able to do. Lehman's leadership is absolutely responsible for actually leading their company to failure. The point is that his 'wise people in DC' that he wants managing our money created the environment that allowed the big investment banks to screw us.
You are wrong. Social Security trust funds can be invested in marketable securities.... To date... they have never done anything other than Treasuries and special issues. Right now, they are all in the special issues... (funny how they don't want the investments in securities that might be marked to market.... like the politicians want other investments to do... see public non-traded REITs)
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/investheld.html
Why the hell would you want the GOVERNMENT making those decisions? We can agree to disagree here as that is a personal opinion from both of us... but I just find that ridiculous given the governments inept handling of most issues.
I was wrong on the Trust Fund's requirement to purchase special treasuries, but my recollection is that the Trust Fund is prohibited from investing int he market generally and must buy treasuries only. I don't really feel like looking it up.
As for why I would want the government to make those investment decisions and not individuals, it all has to do with who bears the risk. If individuals own the accounts and make the investment decisions, the individual alone bears the risk of loss., much like a 401k. If however, the government makes the investment decisions, it bears the risk of loss, not the individual. Additionally, your proposal requires the government to decide which investments individuals are permitted to make so you criticisms of the government instead making investment decisions doesn't make much sense to me.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It is not prohibited, it simply has been the practice since inception to only buy treasury bonds and specials.
If the government runs the fund until it is insolvent, then what? Then all that money invested is still gone. The government also has the ability to reduce benefits or increase the age you can begin withdrawing from SS. If you are single and begin withdrawing money at 65 and then die at 66... the government keeps the remainder. It should pass to your heirs. that was your money being put away... why should Uncle Sam get it.
apple0154
MEOW
If one feels SS is too generous and retirees could live on less then I suppose they could sanction your idea. Less contributions will ultimately lead to lower benefits and when retirees are having to choose between food and medication it doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
apple0154
MEOW
Then the solution is to change the law to prevent borrowing from SS rather than change the law to allow private investments.
I believe you are incorrect here, but whatever.
I ain't arguing it with you, man. We disagree. And as I've said previously on an untold number of occasions the fundamental difference of opinion we have is that you think SS should work like an investment whereas I see it as insurance.
Correct...Bush, seldom if ever, complained about the bashing he received 24/7.....if he did, it would have taken up his entire 8 years....
as a matter of fact, I don't remember Bush bashing any Democrats on a personal basis, but I can't swear if never happened....if it did, it was rare.
apple0154
MEOW
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?
apple0154
MEOW
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.
apple0154
MEOW
Uncle Sam doesn't get it. Some senior living to 90 gets it.
It seems you misunderstand the purpose of SS. Rather than an investment vehicle it's more like an insurance plan.