If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

Busted.

Your words just sunk your sorry ass.

You asked, I showed....and now you start twisting to avoid it.


Before you rejoice in your [half]wit.....THINK !!!! All I stated is for you jerkoffs to leave social security alone......now if THAT means to you and the other cadre of morons that SS could NOT be improved, then you should sue the junior high school that allowed you to graduate.

Oh look at him squirm.
 
Privatization could also mean personalization.

Which would go from a defined benefit to a defined contribution.

You should keep a base amount with the government (and it should be treated like a bank deposit) and have options beyond the minimum. When you pass away, your balance would pass down to your heirs.

There are plenty of ways to improve it.

The far left (not liberals...we look for better ways) fills it's collective diaper everytime anyone suggests a change to social security.

To place any money with the Federal Government, is to burn it.

That isn't correct.

Sorry...it just does not fly.

You can tell from my posts that I don't care for the way government handles things. They let people soak the system and we pay for it.

But it could be improved.

It certainly needs more independent oversight.
 
You know, right wingers......its late in my time zone and even a cat gets tired of playing with dead mice......But, keep investing the in the stock market......we NEED idiots to blow their money so that Lear jets' sales stay high for Wall Street bankers.

Speaking of dead things......you might want to give it a rest tonight.

I do keep investing in the stock market.

I've spent all my original capital as I've taken it out of my accounts. Right now, I am planning to retire on the money I MADE in the market and if I lose it all.....it's not one dime of original income I used to start my investing.

Please keep out of the stock market. It's fools like you that wind up broke on the front page of the paper in bread lines because you don't know what you are doing.

You give investing a bad name.
 
Putting bankers in charge is not the answer.

Well, THAT is my point also.....Would you rather placing in charge of retirement funds to casino owners?

LOL! So, your asking should one gamble with their money by risking it through equity investment, or burn it by giving it to a criminal syndicate, with a perfect track record of destitution. The only thing that precludes the US Government from instantly collapsing is the means of it to 'borrow' money that the Federal Reserve simply creates from thin-air.

Such would be akin to your simply entering whatever amount you desired into your checkbook register and claiming that your entry was literal revenue.

(Just so you know... if you try using the means of the US Federal Government to remain financially viable, you'll go to prison, almost instantly.)
 
Privatization could also mean personalization.

Which would go from a defined benefit to a defined contribution.

You should keep a base amount with the government (and it should be treated like a bank deposit) and have options beyond the minimum. When you pass away, your balance would pass down to your heirs.

There are plenty of ways to improve it.

The far left (not liberals...we look for better ways) fills it's collective diaper everytime anyone suggests a change to social security.

To place any money with the Federal Government, is to burn it.

That isn't correct.

Sorry...it just does not fly.

You can tell from my posts that I don't care for the way government handles things. They let people soak the system and we pay for it.

But it could be improved.

It certainly needs more independent oversight.

Of course it could be improved.

The problem is not "government". "The Problem", is Left-think and its intrinsic corruption and what it does to render government inviable.

Meaning that as long as Leftist control the US Federal Government, it will NOT change. Thus, as it stands, to place money with the US Federal Government is to burn that money. It will not create anything, it will not sustain anything, it will only further undermine the viability of that which is tethered to, the US Federal Government.
 
Privatization could also mean personalization.

Which would go from a defined benefit to a defined contribution.

You should keep a base amount with the government (and it should be treated like a bank deposit) and have options beyond the minimum. When you pass away, your balance would pass down to your heirs.

There are plenty of ways to improve it.

The far left (not liberals...we look for better ways) fills it's collective diaper everytime anyone suggests a change to social security.

To place any money with the Federal Government, is to burn it.

That isn't correct.

Sorry...it just does not fly.

You can tell from my posts that I don't care for the way government handles things. They let people soak the system and we pay for it.

But it could be improved.

It certainly needs more independent oversight.

Of course it could be improved.

The problem is not "government". "The Problem", is Left-think and its intrinsic corruption and what it does to render government inviable.

Meaning that as long as Leftist control the US Federal Government, it will NOT change. Thus, as it stands, to place money with the US Federal Government is to burn that money. It will not create anything, it will not sustain anything, it will only further undermine the viability of that which is tethered to, the US Federal Government.

In context, I would agree.

When the right is in charge it is no better.

I'll just go with more independent oversight.

I'll also go with hauling granny off to jail if she scams the system.
 
Privatization could also mean personalization.

Which would go from a defined benefit to a defined contribution.

You should keep a base amount with the government (and it should be treated like a bank deposit) and have options beyond the minimum. When you pass away, your balance would pass down to your heirs.

There are plenty of ways to improve it.

The far left (not liberals...we look for better ways) fills it's collective diaper everytime anyone suggests a change to social security.

To place any money with the Federal Government, is to burn it.

That isn't correct.

Sorry...it just does not fly.

You can tell from my posts that I don't care for the way government handles things. They let people soak the system and we pay for it.

But it could be improved.

It certainly needs more independent oversight.

Of course it could be improved.

The problem is not "government". "The Problem", is Left-think and its intrinsic corruption and what it does to render government inviable.

Meaning that as long as Leftist control the US Federal Government, it will NOT change. Thus, as it stands, to place money with the US Federal Government is to burn that money. It will not create anything, it will not sustain anything, it will only further undermine the viability of that which is tethered to, the US Federal Government.

In context, I would agree.

When the right is in charge it is no better.

I'll just go with more independent oversight.

I'll also go with hauling granny off to jail if she scams the system.

When the Right is in charge? Can you site an example of that? I'm 55 and its never happened in my lifetime.

Please, do not count a President as 'being in charge' and do not count Progressive Republicans as "The Right".

If "The Right" were ever placed in charge... the Ideological Left would demand such to be representative of a dictatorship. And from their perspective they'd be correct. As there is no means for economic viability in the wake of sound financial stewardship and to have the steward be influenced in the slightest by the antithesis of sound financial stewardship, OKA: The Ideological Left.

Where "The Right" were to come to power, the first order of business would be to round up the living examples of Retired Legislators, Jurists and Chief Executives, along with their cabinet members... charge them with treason and try them on the evidence sustaining the charge... .

In terms of Constitutional Treason, The War would be defined as the struggle for national economic viability. The Enemy would be defined as those who fought against such or who rendered aid and comfort to those who fought against such and the evidence of loyalty to the principles of such would be found in the profits that those individuals realized as a result of their experience in Government... add to that the count of private citizens who influenced such and who through that influence, also profited.

I suspect that the economic influence of the building of sufficient prisons to house them should be enough for a few ticks of GDP growth.

When you factor in the confiscation of that summed wealth, in the wake of the trials... the spike would send the curve off the chart.
 
FTR... the gnat has been sent to perm-ignore.

It's an imbecile and life is simply too short to tolerate such. The damage done to one's character by entertaining one's self at their expense, is something that should always be avoided.
 
Well, no shit.
If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster
The stock market continued a period of volatility on Monday. Media reports sounded the alarm as the DOW opened 1,000 points down and other indexes took huge hits, only to climb back up a bit later in the day. While that performance, which had some people calling it black Monday, may have knocked a good deal of money out of people’s 401(k) retirement accounts, Social Security benefits remain by and large untouched by such fluctuations.

Some Republicans, however, are interested in changing that.

In June, presidential candidate Jeb Bush said that he thinks the next president will have to try to privatize Social Security. Others have gotten behind the idea as well: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) drafted a plan in 2013 that included partial privatization, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is in favor of using private accounts. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has included privatization in his budget blueprints.

The market drop, and ones before, expose the dangers of such a plan, which usually entails diverting some or all of the money workers contribute to Social Security through their paychecks into private investment accounts. That would put individuals in charge of making smart enough investment choices in the market to make big enough returns to support themselves in retirement.

But the reality is that’s not within reach for most individual people. During a market rout like Monday’s, many people will panic and sell. “We know a lot of people do what economists say is irrational, they sell at a low point,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center on Economic and Policy Research. Research shows that the best thing to do during a downturn is to hold out if possible. But that’s not how most people will react. “People see something like this and go, ‘I better get out,'” Baker said. “When they see the market start to go up, they say, ‘I better buy in,’ and then they’ve lost a lot.”

This is one of the big problems with privatizing Social Security: individual investors don’t tend to be that savvy in chasing higher returns. “A lot of people make wrong decisions,” Baker said. This is even true when it comes to retirement planning: Many people leave money on the table with their 401(k)s by not taking advantage of employer matches or cash out when they switch jobs and incur taxes. The point of Social Security contributions is to make saving for retirement mandatory, he pointed out. But “if you do that and then just tell people to do whatever you want [with the money], then a lot of people will make mistakes and end up with not very much in retirement.”

On a larger level, putting people’s Social Security contributions into private accounts makes them far more exposed to the irrationality of the market. “What’s beautiful about Social Security is that in the long the return workers get on contributions is linked to productivity growth and wage growth,” said Monique Morrissey, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “Whereas markets are notoriously volatile and often behave in ways that are not based on the fundamental strength and weakness of the economy.”

The question is actually simple....Should one GAMBLE with one's "nest egg" in retirement years, knowing that if the gamble does NOT pay off, one is royally screwed?

On the other hand, regarding elected right wingers who are clamoring for SS's privatization, the questions should be....are they THAT dumb, or are they thoroughly bribed by Wall Street bankers?


Social Security is broke.....everyone who gave money to the government for social security has lost all of it......it does not exist...we are paying current retirees with the social secutiry taxes of current workers..which means they will have nothing their either...and will have to depend on current workers when they retire...it is a panzi scheme made legal by corrupt politicians.

So the stock market would have been safer in that they could recoup their losses.....you can't recoup money that is just taken from you and spent on other people.
Bullshit
 
It's ironic that you call the others you argue with IDIOTS when you demonstrate you are clearly in that class.

There are almost an infinite number of options to improving social security.

Leaving it along would be a big mistake.


Can you kindly point out to all WHERE and WHEN I stated that I'm AGAINST "options to improving SS" ?????

Thnaks

An "improvement" is movement in the direction of getting rid of it.
 
It's ironic that you call the others you argue with IDIOTS when you demonstrate you are clearly in that class.

There are almost an infinite number of options to improving social security.

Leaving it along would be a big mistake.


Can you kindly point out to all WHERE and WHEN I stated that I'm AGAINST "options to improving SS" ?????

Thnaks

An "improvement" is movement in the direction of getting rid of it.
Keep dreaming.
 
It's ironic that you call the others you argue with IDIOTS when you demonstrate you are clearly in that class.

There are almost an infinite number of options to improving social security.

Leaving it along would be a big mistake.


Can you kindly point out to all WHERE and WHEN I stated that I'm AGAINST "options to improving SS" ?????

Thnaks

An "improvement" is movement in the direction of getting rid of it.
Keep dreaming.

That isn't "dreaming." That is simply noting a fact.
 
It's ironic that you call the others you argue with IDIOTS when you demonstrate you are clearly in that class.

There are almost an infinite number of options to improving social security.

Leaving it along would be a big mistake.


Can you kindly point out to all WHERE and WHEN I stated that I'm AGAINST "options to improving SS" ?????

Thnaks

An "improvement" is movement in the direction of getting rid of it.
Keep dreaming.

That isn't "dreaming." That is simply noting a fact.
Yes, your facts are irrelevant given your posting history. Keep drooling.
 
It's ironic that you call the others you argue with IDIOTS when you demonstrate you are clearly in that class.

There are almost an infinite number of options to improving social security.

Leaving it along would be a big mistake.


Can you kindly point out to all WHERE and WHEN I stated that I'm AGAINST "options to improving SS" ?????

Thnaks

An "improvement" is movement in the direction of getting rid of it.
Keep dreaming.

That isn't "dreaming." That is simply noting a fact.
Yes, your facts are irrelevant given your posting history. Keep drooling.

If they are "irrelevant," then why do you feel the need to refute them?
 
It's ironic that you call the others you argue with IDIOTS when you demonstrate you are clearly in that class.

There are almost an infinite number of options to improving social security.

Leaving it along would be a big mistake.


Can you kindly point out to all WHERE and WHEN I stated that I'm AGAINST "options to improving SS" ?????

Thnaks

An "improvement" is movement in the direction of getting rid of it.

I used to be of that opinion too.

However, I've come to learn that if this country is going to "allow" people to retire before they are unable to work...then we have to force them to save for retirement.

Social Security, in it's current form, sucks.
 
Can you kindly point out to all WHERE and WHEN I stated that I'm AGAINST "options to improving SS" ?????

Thnaks

An "improvement" is movement in the direction of getting rid of it.
Keep dreaming.

That isn't "dreaming." That is simply noting a fact.
Yes, your facts are irrelevant given your posting history. Keep drooling.

If they are "irrelevant," then why do you feel the need to refute them?
I haven't been, can't bother with idiots.
 
An "improvement" is movement in the direction of getting rid of it.
Keep dreaming.

That isn't "dreaming." That is simply noting a fact.
Yes, your facts are irrelevant given your posting history. Keep drooling.

If they are "irrelevant," then why do you feel the need to refute them?
I haven't been, can't bother with idiots.
You just did, moron.
 
Forget the HS drop-out rates......Forget the high cost of attending colleges and universities.......Forget the needed-training for the high-tech jobs that have to go overseas because we just don't have Americans that can do them.............WHAT RIGHT WINGERS NOW DEMAND, is for every US citizen to learn Wall Street savvy financing techniques for their retirement.

Yes, folks, regardless if you're from the LA barrios....or the ghettos of Shreveport, the "geniuses" of the right wing cadre that populate this forum now WANT everyone to be schooled in how the "magic" of making lots of money in the WS Casino can be easily attained. LOL
 

Forum List

Back
Top