Do you Social Security fearmongers realize you can't get something for nothing?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OohPooPahDoo, Sep 19, 2011.

  1. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

    I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

    If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

    If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

    If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


    The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

    So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  2. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    I think the problem here is you confuse investment and theft. Did you used to do Madoff's books?
     
  3. Lumpy 1
    Offline

    Lumpy 1 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,142
    Thanks Received:
    8,544
    Trophy Points:
    1,370
    Ratings:
    +14,868
    Democrats and their Social Security fear mongering.. it's sucks huh..

    It started of with a 2% rate now it's up to 12.4%...

    Is there any doubt that using the funds for anything other than it's intended use is ponzi-esk...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,990
    Thanks Received:
    7,978
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,735
    How about letting the people keep their money and invest it how they see fit? Seems to me the only people who think they can get something for nothing is you lefty types. Something about cause and effect has passed you by. Remarkable really, when you think about it, how do you feed yourselves?
     
  5. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320

    Do you have an actual answer to my question?
     
  6. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq3wL8ZXjBU]1981 Fram Oil Filter Commercial - YouTube[/ame]
     
  7. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,239
    Thanks Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,853
    Why are you against the individual accumulating $400,000 or more???
    Why are you and the below AGAINST the average worker HAVING THE CHOICE???
    There are MORE democrat/liberal/progressives that are violently against the average USA worker accumulating a retirement nest egg of $400,000 or more!

    An average worker grossing $30,000 a year at age 23 after college entering the workforce with the salary increasing by 20% every 10 years for 42 years would have along with employer had $331,715 deducted.

    If the worker HAD the freedom to direct the accumulation into a simple savings account that paid over 42 years 2% interest would accumulate $628,077!
    Why is there ANYONE against the worker accumulating this?

    And if the worker using tried and true financial planning where at young age more growth oriented assets moving to balance at middle age and almost all secured assets nearing retirement the average accumulation at 6% for 42 years would be: $1,985,897!

    So why did ALL democrats/liberals/progressives all scare seniors thinking their social security was when Bush proposed privatization going to be at the hands of Wall street!
    Gambling with their social security!
    LIED through their teeth and seniors NEVER heard Bush's plan and now Ryan's plan
    would HAVE NO CHANGES for over 55 years old!
    No they showed Ryan pushing grandma over a cliff!

    Isn't it just amazing the power of compound interest that could make the average worker at $30,000 a year accumulate almost $2 million!
    Never again depending on anyone but at 5% interest earnings have $100K/year for ever!
    Never having to depend on Medicare! Or the Government!
    WHY folks are liberals/progressives against the ordinary person accumulating millions?
    Ignorance is the ONLY reason I can think is why they are against it!
     
  8. naturegirl
    Offline

    naturegirl Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,416
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    NW Georgia
    Ratings:
    +862
    Before anyone gets too excited, there are no tax cuts or credits to SS withholding. The reduction in SS withholding will be transferred from other places. The only way 0bozo can ensure all working Americans get the deduction is to reduce the mandated SS deduction as many people that work may have little or no federal withholding tax deducted from their checks.
     
  9. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    How does that relieve the U.S. economy of the burden? Did you understand my question at all?


    You do realize that if everyone had been investing FICA taxes in the stock market over the last 42 years - the price of stock would have been different over that period? Namely - higher. Except now, with more retirees, it would be lower. Like it says in the title - you can't get something for nothing.


    Not to mention the burden of making those stock investments valuable in retirement still falls on the U.S. economy. Please tell me you understand basic economics.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  10. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,817
    Thanks Received:
    4,499
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,100
    I'm not getting something for nothing with SS I am getting nothing for something.

    The disability part of SS is the worst around. I have a private policy that is infinitely better and costs less. If I could save the 15% of my money that the government steals from me to run its off the books slush fund, I'd be retired already and collecting 10 times more a month than the max SS benefit.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page