A GOP Road Map for America's Future

[rdean]

What's that got to do with the proposed changes in the op ed?

Do the health care, Social Security, and tax proposals make sense?

If so why?

If not why?

At the end of the article is a comment called "A Road-map to Hell" that did a great job of spelling it out.

Notice, not a single comment about re-instating the regulations that, when removed by the GOP, are mainly responsible for ruining our economy?

By not owning up to the disastrous policies that damaged this country for the first 8 of the last 9 years, Republican blithely move forward on an agenda that will only "finish the job".

We just had a Wall Street collapse and they want us to throw Social Security into the
"mix". Are they insane?

And health care? If you don't have a job, what good are "tax credits" and not a word about people using the "Emergency Room" as their primary source of health care.

Republcians get mad when you call them stupid or retarded. What word will they accept, won't be offended by, but means stupid or retarded?

 

[Darkwind]

You do know how government conditions people to believe a certain thing a certain way, don't you?

Or should I just ring a bell and see if you don't salivate on cue?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Utter nonsense.

No one ever has promoted SS as the only source of retirement funding. Secondly, no one ever tried to cover-up the fundamental design of SS. It's supposed to fund benefits with current tax withholding.

And people would be better off if they owned their own accounts.

Nonsense.

Prudent retirement planning demands three sources of funding, public resources (SS,) private resources (401(k),) and pensions. SS is a important part of any well-planned retirement.

so the government line says.

If we had complete control of that additional 15% and then saved another 10 or more percent on top of that, we'd all have a much more secure retirement than id SS was in the mix.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What's that got to do with the proposed changes in the op ed?

Do the health care, Social Security, and tax proposals make sense?

If so why?

If not why?

At the end of the article is a comment called "A Road-map to Hell" that did a great job of spelling it out.

Notice, not a single comment about re-instating the regulations that, when removed by the GOP, are mainly responsible for ruining our economy?

By not owning up to the disastrous policies that damaged this country for the first 8 of the last 9 years, Republican blithely move forward on an agenda that will only "finish the job".

We just had a Wall Street collapse and they want us to throw Social Security into the
"mix". Are they insane?

And health care? If you don't have a job, what good are "tax credits" and not a word about people using the "Emergency Room" as their primary source of health care.

Republcians get mad when you call them stupid or retarded. What word will they accept, won't be offended by, but means stupid or retarded?

you do know that Billy boy Clinton actually signed the law that removed the historically distinct line between banks, insurance companies and investment firms right?

If that hadn't been done, AIG, Citi etc would never have been able to grow so large.

And really what's wrong with privately held SS accounts other than the government loses its slush fund that is.

 

[Modbert]

you do know that Billy boy Clinton actually signed the law that removed the historically distinct line between banks, insurance companies and investment firms right?

If that hadn't been done, AIG, Citi etc would never have been able to grow so large.

And really what's wrong with privately held SS accounts other than the government loses its slush fund that is.

Would be much easier to just pass a law to prevent that. Goodness knows Presidents from Reagan to Dubya would of freaked out if they couldn't raid SS's coffers. Anyone know if Obama has yet?

Edit: Don't know if anyone else before Reagan raided the coffers but Reagan was the first big one to come mind in the timeline.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you do know that Billy boy Clinton actually signed the law that removed the historically distinct line between banks, insurance companies and investment firms right?

If that hadn't been done, AIG, Citi etc would never have been able to grow so large.

And really what's wrong with privately held SS accounts other than the government loses its slush fund that is.

Would be much easier to just pass a law to prevent that. Goodness knows Presidents from Reagan to Dubya would of freaked out if they couldn't raid SS's coffers. Anyone know if Obama has yet?

Edit: Don't know if anyone else before Reagan raided the coffers but Reagan was the first big one to come mind in the timeline.

Easier but not better for the people.

What is it exactly that you object to about having millions saved for retirement that you actually own and can pass a portion of on to your progeny?

 

[Modbert]

Easier but not better for the people.

What is it exactly that you object to about having millions saved for retirement that you actually own and can pass a portion of on to your progeny?

I'd be happy to answer your question if you didn't put any spin on it and just asked it in a general non-biased way.

What exactly do you want the Government to do Skull? Get rid of taxes? Get rid of all income tax?

And again, the last major idea of "Lets take SS and invest it in the Stock Market" would of worked out real well after this last market crash.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Easier but not better for the people.

What is it exactly that you object to about having millions saved for retirement that you actually own and can pass a portion of on to your progeny?

I'd be happy to answer your question if you didn't put any spin on it and just asked it in a general non-biased way.

What exactly do you want the Government to do Skull? Get rid of taxes? Get rid of all income tax?

And again, the last major idea of "Lets take SS and invest it in the Stock Market" would of worked out real well after this last market crash.

We are talking about Social Security, not income tax.

And really, the examples i gave were over a 45 year period and the interest rates were very conservative, Even factoring in market swings people would have more retirement income than SS would provide for the same 15% of their income.

And what you fail to consider is that you would be drawing from that money over a period of many years which give you a time line of 65 years or more. So look at the history of stock returns over any 65 year period, take the average return for your 15% of income and then compare the income it would generate to the max SS benefit. You will ALWAYS beat SS

But hey if you think 15% of your lifetime earnings is only capable of producing the max SS benefit of 26K a year feel free to give your money to that great financial planner in Washington.

 

[Darkwind]

Easier but not better for the people.

What is it exactly that you object to about having millions saved for retirement that you actually own and can pass a portion of on to your progeny?

I'd be happy to answer your question if you didn't put any spin on it and just asked it in a general non-biased way.

What exactly do you want the Government to do Skull? Get rid of taxes? Get rid of all income tax?

And again, the last major idea of "Lets take SS and invest it in the Stock Market" would of worked out real well after this last market crash.

Wait a minute. Isn't the stock market up the highest its ever been up since a crash?

But tell Me. Do you just invest retirement funds for a few years and hope that you don't have a down turn in those few years or do you ride out the dips and stay invested for the long haul?

The people who are invested for retirement will be just fine. Turning a portion of Social Security over to a private retirement fund is not the danger that you and the democrats think it is. During the whole recession, I lost only 19% of My portfolio while the whole market went down by half. I have recovered just about all of what I had and the market has not yet returned to previous levels.

That happened because in the summer of 07 I moved to a conservative stance and I've remained there. When the recession hit, I increased My deduction to My 401k from 7% to 10% to final 15% in Jnuary of 2009. Every share I purchased was purchased at a huge discount.

Putting Social Security into a very conservative profile evens out the bumps and gives steady, if a somewhat low growth. Over the long run, the American people will be better off then relying on just social security.

 

[Modbert]

Wait a minute. Isn't the stock market up the highest its ever been up since a crash?

But tell Me. Do you just invest retirement funds for a few years and hope that you don't have a down turn in those few years or do you ride out the dips and stay invested for the long haul?

The people who are invested for retirement will be just fine. Turning a portion of Social Security over to a private retirement fund is not the danger that you and the democrats think it is. During the whole recession, I lost only 19% of My portfolio while the whole market went down by half. I have recovered just about all of what I had and the market has not yet returned to previous levels.

That happened because in the summer of 07 I moved to a conservative stance and I've remained there. When the recession hit, I increased My deduction to My 401k from 7% to 10% to final 15% in Jnuary of 2009. Every share I purchased was purchased at a huge discount.

Putting Social Security into a very conservative profile evens out the bumps and gives steady, if a somewhat low growth. Over the long run, the American people will be better off then relying on just social security.

I'm referring to the people who say we should have all of social security invested in the stock market. Anyone who needed that money after the crash happened wasn't able to get it because it wasn't there anymore.

You may be able to wait, but you're not retired and need the money either.

 

[Darkwind]

Wait a minute. Isn't the stock market up the highest its ever been up since a crash?

But tell Me. Do you just invest retirement funds for a few years and hope that you don't have a down turn in those few years or do you ride out the dips and stay invested for the long haul?

The people who are invested for retirement will be just fine. Turning a portion of Social Security over to a private retirement fund is not the danger that you and the democrats think it is. During the whole recession, I lost only 19% of My portfolio while the whole market went down by half. I have recovered just about all of what I had and the market has not yet returned to previous levels.

That happened because in the summer of 07 I moved to a conservative stance and I've remained there. When the recession hit, I increased My deduction to My 401k from 7% to 10% to final 15% in Jnuary of 2009. Every share I purchased was purchased at a huge discount.

Putting Social Security into a very conservative profile evens out the bumps and gives steady, if a somewhat low growth. Over the long run, the American people will be better off then relying on just social security.

I'm referring to the people who say we should have all of social security invested in the stock market. Anyone who needed that money after the crash happened wasn't able to get it because it wasn't there anymore.

You may be able to wait, but you're not retired and need the money either.

I know of no one who wants to put ALL of social security into the stock market. The last time it was discussed, it was under the GOP congress with Bush as President. They were talking of moving 2% (That is from memory, I'm not sure of the exact percentage) from social security to a conservative portfolio where the government could not touch the money and the funds could be passed along to family members.

One of the biggest problems of social security is that once you die, all the money you put into it just vanishes into the bowels of the government, never to be seen again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wait a minute. Isn't the stock market up the highest its ever been up since a crash?

But tell Me. Do you just invest retirement funds for a few years and hope that you don't have a down turn in those few years or do you ride out the dips and stay invested for the long haul?

The people who are invested for retirement will be just fine. Turning a portion of Social Security over to a private retirement fund is not the danger that you and the democrats think it is. During the whole recession, I lost only 19% of My portfolio while the whole market went down by half. I have recovered just about all of what I had and the market has not yet returned to previous levels.

That happened because in the summer of 07 I moved to a conservative stance and I've remained there. When the recession hit, I increased My deduction to My 401k from 7% to 10% to final 15% in Jnuary of 2009. Every share I purchased was purchased at a huge discount.

Putting Social Security into a very conservative profile evens out the bumps and gives steady, if a somewhat low growth. Over the long run, the American people will be better off then relying on just social security.

I'm referring to the people who say we should have all of social security invested in the stock market. Anyone who needed that money after the crash happened wasn't able to get it because it wasn't there anymore.

You may be able to wait, but you're not retired and need the money either.

as you get closer to retirement, you move into more conservative positions like bond and income funds. these are generally less volatile.

And who says it ALL has to be in the stock market? I just use rates of return. feel free to invest in bonds etc etc etc as long as the returns are in the ranges i used, you'll get similar results.

 

[Darkwind]

Wait a minute. Isn't the stock market up the highest its ever been up since a crash?

But tell Me. Do you just invest retirement funds for a few years and hope that you don't have a down turn in those few years or do you ride out the dips and stay invested for the long haul?

The people who are invested for retirement will be just fine. Turning a portion of Social Security over to a private retirement fund is not the danger that you and the democrats think it is. During the whole recession, I lost only 19% of My portfolio while the whole market went down by half. I have recovered just about all of what I had and the market has not yet returned to previous levels.

That happened because in the summer of 07 I moved to a conservative stance and I've remained there. When the recession hit, I increased My deduction to My 401k from 7% to 10% to final 15% in Jnuary of 2009. Every share I purchased was purchased at a huge discount.

Putting Social Security into a very conservative profile evens out the bumps and gives steady, if a somewhat low growth. Over the long run, the American people will be better off then relying on just social security.

I'm referring to the people who say we should have all of social security invested in the stock market. Anyone who needed that money after the crash happened wasn't able to get it because it wasn't there anymore.

You may be able to wait, but you're not retired and need the money either.

as you get closer to retirement, you move into more conservative positions like bond and income funds. these are generally less volatile.

And who says it ALL has to be in the stock market? I just use rates of return. feel free to invest in bonds etc etc etc as long as the returns are in the ranges i used, you'll get similar results.

At its worst, the stock market went down by about half and has returned to about what? 70% of what it was? Those who were collecting retirement are just eating into their savings faster now since the principle is smaller.

In reality, everyone suffered through that recession. It would be impossible to keep the retired from suffering right along with the rest of us.

But you are correct in that if you are collecting retirement, your portfolio MUST be in the safest investments available. The time for risk taking is when you are in your 20', 30's and 40's.

 

[Modbert]

Again, moving a small % would just be the beginning of making SS more private.

If you're saying a % should go into the stock market, that's fine. However, the current idea being offered up in the "roadmap" for example is to ration medicare.

Turning it into a system of vouchers fails to take in several factors such as the Insurance companies raising their premiums all the damn time. So people like the elderly are going to have to pay more out of pocket OR have less coverage.

I find it amazing after all the "Obama's going to ration our health care!" calls that this roadmap is gaining support from those same people except this rations medicare.

 

[Modbert]

In reality, everyone suffered through that recession. It would be impossible to keep the retired from suffering right along with the rest of us.

But you are correct in that if you are collecting retirement, your portfolio MUST be in the safest investments available. The time for risk taking is when you are in your 20', 30's and 40's.

Reality happens to be the kicker here. Not everyone follows that either. Though yes, the time for risk taking is one's 20's and 30's and even 40's now since we live much longer.

 

[Darkwind]

Again, moving a small % would just be the beginning of making SS more private.

If you're saying a % should go into the stock market, that's fine. However, the current idea being offered up in the "roadmap" for example is to ration medicare.

Turning it into a system of vouchers fails to take in several factors such as the Insurance companies raising their premiums all the damn time. So people like the elderly are going to have to pay more out of pocket OR have less coverage.

I find it amazing after all the "Obama's going to ration our health care!" calls that this roadmap is gaining support from those same people except this rations medicare.

It would be a good beginning. Anything that gets politicians hands out of people's retirement is nothing but a good thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Largely a bunch of politically impossible pipe dreams that are handy for getting electing in some places.

 

[Modbert]

It would be a good beginning. Anything that gets politicians hands out of people's retirement is nothing but a good thing.

Again, you could just as easily if not easier to make a law to prevent Presidents and or Congress from raiding SS's coffers. I'd support such a law.

And you find rationing medicare to be a good beginning?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, moving a small % would just be the beginning of making SS more private.

If you're saying a % should go into the stock market, that's fine. However, the current idea being offered up in the "roadmap" for example is to ration medicare.

Turning it into a system of vouchers fails to take in several factors such as the Insurance companies raising their premiums all the damn time. So people like the elderly are going to have to pay more out of pocket OR have less coverage.

I find it amazing after all the "Obama's going to ration our health care!" calls that this roadmap is gaining support from those same people except this rations medicare.

It would be a good beginning. Anything that gets politicians hands out of people's retirement is nothing but a good thing.

Far more Americans have lost retirement funds and healthcare coverage in the private sector than have ever lost their Social Security or Medicare. The private sector is a financial predator that should never be trusted to protect Americans.

 

[Darkwind]

It would be a good beginning. Anything that gets politicians hands out of people's retirement is nothing but a good thing.

Again, you could just as easily if not easier to make a law to prevent Presidents and or Congress from raiding SS's coffers. I'd support such a law.

And you find rationing medicare to be a good beginning?

I find moving a percentage of Social Security to a private portfolio controlled by the citizen to be a good beginning.

I would support any law that keeps government from touching anyone's money.