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

SSI insures most people can have a retirement. Sorry, but reality says that private accounts are just too risky and most people aren't smart enough to save for themselves.

SSI takes care of that.
1000 per month is not a retirement dumbass but you're partially right about one thing. People like YOU aren't smart enough.
 
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.

I have MADE money every year in the market (might have broken even once, but you just aren't important enough for me to check)...not everyone is as stupid as you are. Enjoy your guaranteed poverty, though.
 
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

No matter how maqny times you regurgitate that, it is still a LIE!
 
SSI insures most people can have a retirement. Sorry, but reality says that private accounts are just too risky and most people aren't smart enough to save for themselves.

SSI takes care of that.



BULLSHIT

COMPANIES LIKE FIDELITY, VANGUARD, T ROWE PRICE , ETC AND THEIR MUTUAL FUNDS HELP PEOPLE LIKE US INVEST SECURELY IN THE STOCK MARKET.

NOW GO TO YAHOO FINANCE AND CHECK MUTUAL FUND TRBCX WHERE I HAVE 100% OF MY RETIREMENT FUNDS INVESTED AND TELL ME HOW MUCH IT WAS AFFECTED BY RECENT EVENTS.



.
 
100%? Dude...all of it?

These are the blue chip mutual fund's holdings . If those companies go down then we are in big trouble and might as well hang it up.


TRBCX Top 10 Holdings (29.53% of Total Assets)

Company
Symbol % Assets YTD Return %

Amazon.com, Inc. AMZN 5.08 N/A
McKesson Corporation Common Sto MCK 2.99 N/A
The Priceline Group Inc. PCLN 2.92 N/A
Facebook, Inc. FB 2.89 N/A
Danaher Corporation Common Stoc DHR 2.78 N/A
Visa Inc. V 2.65 N/A
Biogen Idec Inc. BIIB 2.65 N/A
Mastercard Incorporated Common MA 2.61 N/A
Allergan PLC AGN.IR 2.50 N/A
Gilead Sciences, Inc. GILD 2.46 N/


.
 
SSI insures most people can have a retirement. Sorry, but reality says that private accounts are just too risky and most people aren't smart enough to save for themselves.

SSI takes care of that.
So you saying SS as you know takes the payments and buys US treasuries.
Under the privatization plan, without any investment smarts a person could buy US treasuries also.
What is the difference?
Under the current SS plan the person will get xx amount each month.
Under the privatization plan the person has access to over $200,000 of their own money.
Doesn't take any smarts to do that.
Please I'm not as pompous as you to think that MOST people (in this case over 100 million people are currently invested in the market alone) aren't smart enough.
That is so cliched. So ignorant.
 
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

Still making stuff up to argue against.

There is nothing magic about making money in stocks.

But, then you don't need the stock market to privatize or personalize Social Security.

It needs more oversight and a principle that says....you get out what you put in.
 
There are funds called wealth preservation funds. They don't have great returns, but they are solid. A significant component of their strategy is just that....don't take much risk.

We need not take Social Security out of the hands of the government. That's the typical left wing dump (in their drawers) retort when you suggest doing some thing "better".
 
As an advocate of SS privatization I keep asking privatization opponents what is the difference between these two methods:
A) current practice SS takes deductions, pays out to beneficiaries and with what's left over buys US treasuries.
B) NOTE: with privatization the person can CHOOSE... to
1) keep the same system as is now...they choose...or
2) have SS take their deductions, pays entire amount to where deductions are directed to by the person in this case US treasuries.

What is the difference? The payers' funds still go to investing into US treasuries...just the payer directs instead of SS.

That is what opponents of privatization don't seem to comprehend, i.e. the person A) has a choice to keep current or B) choose to invest in US treasuries.
 
As an advocate of SS privatization I keep asking privatization opponents what is the difference between these two methods:
A) current practice SS takes deductions, pays out to beneficiaries and with what's left over buys US treasuries.
B) NOTE: with privatization the person can CHOOSE... to
1) keep the same system as is now...they choose...or
2) have SS take their deductions, pays entire amount to where deductions are directed to by the person in this case US treasuries.

What is the difference? The payers' funds still go to investing into US treasuries...just the payer directs instead of SS.

That is what opponents of privatization don't seem to comprehend, i.e. the person A) has a choice to keep current or B) choose to invest in US treasuries.

Most of what I hear that sounds reasonable is that there is a minimum that you pay in. You can pay more if you like. That minimum is dedicated to low risk low return activity that would be managed by a government entity with independent oversight (and basically treated like a bank......the congress could not just willy-nilly borrow). If you put more in, you would have a variety of options.

The argument is obviously that the government then competes with Wall Street.

I say...so what ?

Most of us would only pay the minimum (and BTW: When you hit a certain total in your account....you don't have to pay any more unless it's value drops) and would do our own investing.

If people trust the government with their money, they can pay more in. Chances are these are not people who would otherwise save additional funds.

This would pretty much guarantee good mortgage rates.
 
As an advocate of SS privatization I keep asking privatization opponents what is the difference between these two methods:
A) current practice SS takes deductions, pays out to beneficiaries and with what's left over buys US treasuries.
B) NOTE: with privatization the person can CHOOSE... to
1) keep the same system as is now...they choose...or
2) have SS take their deductions, pays entire amount to where deductions are directed to by the person in this case US treasuries.

What is the difference? The payers' funds still go to investing into US treasuries...just the payer directs instead of SS.

That is what opponents of privatization don't seem to comprehend, i.e. the person A) has a choice to keep current or B) choose to invest in US treasuries.

Most of what I hear that sounds reasonable is that there is a minimum that you pay in. You can pay more if you like. That minimum is dedicated to low risk low return activity that would be managed by a government entity with independent oversight (and basically treated like a bank......the congress could not just willy-nilly borrow). If you put more in, you would have a variety of options.

The argument is obviously that the government then competes with Wall Street.

I say...so what ?

Most of us would only pay the minimum (and BTW: When you hit a certain total in your account....you don't have to pay any more unless it's value drops) and would do our own investing.

If people trust the government with their money, they can pay more in. Chances are these are not people who would otherwise save additional funds.

This would pretty much guarantee good mortgage rates.

I was using the most secure?? investment i.e. US treasuries comparing why send to SS and have them buy US treasuries when
I could do the same thing. That was not competing with "Wall Street" but was showing that the guarantee of US treasuries would be obviously just
as secure as SS was doing i.e. buying treasuries.
 
As an advocate of SS privatization I keep asking privatization opponents what is the difference between these two methods:
A) current practice SS takes deductions, pays out to beneficiaries and with what's left over buys US treasuries.
B) NOTE: with privatization the person can CHOOSE... to
1) keep the same system as is now...they choose...or
2) have SS take their deductions, pays entire amount to where deductions are directed to by the person in this case US treasuries.

What is the difference? The payers' funds still go to investing into US treasuries...just the payer directs instead of SS.

That is what opponents of privatization don't seem to comprehend, i.e. the person A) has a choice to keep current or B) choose to invest in US treasuries.

Most of what I hear that sounds reasonable is that there is a minimum that you pay in. You can pay more if you like. That minimum is dedicated to low risk low return activity that would be managed by a government entity with independent oversight (and basically treated like a bank......the congress could not just willy-nilly borrow). If you put more in, you would have a variety of options.

The argument is obviously that the government then competes with Wall Street.

I say...so what ?

Most of us would only pay the minimum (and BTW: When you hit a certain total in your account....you don't have to pay any more unless it's value drops) and would do our own investing.

If people trust the government with their money, they can pay more in. Chances are these are not people who would otherwise save additional funds.

This would pretty much guarantee good mortgage rates.

I was using the most secure?? investment i.e. US treasuries comparing why send to SS and have them buy US treasuries when
I could do the same thing. That was not competing with "Wall Street" but was showing that the guarantee of US treasuries would be obviously just
as secure as SS was doing i.e. buying treasuries.

Agreed.

I was thinking more in terms of contributions above the minimum where investments would not be so constrained.
 
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.”
Not true. I made all my retirement money in the stock market. I'm not relying on SS to get me by when I'm old.
 
If they invested on the day before the drop. Otherwise you're talking out of your ass
Do you actually think you are smarter than the independent economists in this article? No you are not.

Half the people in this country are smarter than that economist, if he said what you claim he did.

My 5th grade nephew, is smarter than that economist, if he said something that stupid.

And you.... you are not even on the scale.
 
That's a lie. Sorry, you lied.... again.

A low income person, making just $15,000 a year, will put into Social Security, over $174 a month into Social Security. For that money, they will earn at retirement $800 a month.

Impoverishment for the rest of their life.

If you take that same amount, $174 a month, and place it into an average growth stock mutual fund, or set of mutual funds, they will have $400,000 to $600,000. Enough for a comfortable basic living. By far better than $800 a month.

Now which plan, the left-wing social security plan, or the right-wing capitalist plan, is better for the impoverished?

By far, ours is.
Oh dear lord, see, this is the funny thing, social security is a safe guard, you want people to put shit into mutual funds which are unstable, and make ridiculous assumptions. You want seniors and people not very educated in the workings of investment and the complexities to attempt to do the stupid bullshit you're proposing. How many seniors on social security vote republican, and how many vote democrat? Social security is complemented by programs like food stamps, medicaid, medicare, etc.. Of course, you probably want to trash those to. Luckily, your views are so out of touch with reality they're meaningless to actual political discussion.

Again, you are the one making assumptions. You already ruined the lives of the elderly. They are doomed to impoverishment until they die. You screwed the hell out of them, and they are finished. There is no solution for them. They just live and die, in social impoverishment that you gave them.

It's the next generation I'm trying to help.

And unlike your brainless screwball claims, my mutual funds have done fantastic. Huge returns on my investment. You can't stand that? Fine. Stay poor. But don't be surprised if I convince as many as possible to join me in making money for retirement.
If you actually owned any mutual funds you would know what a disaster they were when Republican deregulation brought down the economy in 2008-9. I bet you can't even explain what they are.

I do own a mutual fund. Two in fact.

No, actually when the stock market crashed in 2007, that's right when I started buying.

View attachment 48794

Almost 1/4th of my total investment is all growth from my investments. For some reason it cut off the dates. That's 2010, to 2015.

Fantastic improvement.

View attachment 48795

This is the American Growth Fund, one of the two funds I own. As you can see, It's done fantastic.

See, when the stock market crashes, that's when I buy into them. I opened this account in 2007. There was a massive drop in 2007. So literally for the entire year or more, I put more money in, and more money in, and the value of my portfolio was exactly nearly the same each month. In June, I dumped several thousand in, and in July, the amount would be lower, or the same as it was in June, because the market was diving, while I buying.

But I knew that I was buying stock in major companies. I knew that while the portfolio value was falling, in reality I was adding more and more stocks in companies, to my portfolio, and when the market recovered, those stocks would go up dramatically.... and they did.

Notice also that my mutual fund, beat the market average routinely.

That's where people who live based on fear, lose in the market. When the market went down, my first response was to buy into the market. When the market crashes, that's like having a sale at your favorite store. Stocks are on sale. You don't sell off your stocks when prices go down, anymore then if porterhouse steak was on sale 50%, meant you sold off all the steak in your freezer. That's when BUY... not sell.
So, in other words, only people who know the market will have a chance to retire.. Brilliant.

That's like saying "Only those who think, and make wise choices, will have good results"....
Yeah... that's pretty much how life works, and how it should work.

You think I knew anymore than the average Joe blow 10 years ago? All I did was look up mutual funds, and read "10-Year Returns". Low numbers are low returns.... high numbers are high returns. You think this takes a Ph.D? I'm a college drop out.

If I can figure this out, anyone can. It's a choice. If you choose to be stupid, then you choose to suffer. 90% of where you are, and the situation you are in, is do to the choices you make in life.

Time to grow up little American. Time to be a big boy, and take responsibility for your own life.
 
Oh dear lord, see, this is the funny thing, social security is a safe guard, you want people to put shit into mutual funds which are unstable, and make ridiculous assumptions. You want seniors and people not very educated in the workings of investment and the complexities to attempt to do the stupid bullshit you're proposing. How many seniors on social security vote republican, and how many vote democrat? Social security is complemented by programs like food stamps, medicaid, medicare, etc.. Of course, you probably want to trash those to. Luckily, your views are so out of touch with reality they're meaningless to actual political discussion.

Again, you are the one making assumptions. You already ruined the lives of the elderly. They are doomed to impoverishment until they die. You screwed the hell out of them, and they are finished. There is no solution for them. They just live and die, in social impoverishment that you gave them.

It's the next generation I'm trying to help.

And unlike your brainless screwball claims, my mutual funds have done fantastic. Huge returns on my investment. You can't stand that? Fine. Stay poor. But don't be surprised if I convince as many as possible to join me in making money for retirement.
If you actually owned any mutual funds you would know what a disaster they were when Republican deregulation brought down the economy in 2008-9. I bet you can't even explain what they are.

I do own a mutual fund. Two in fact.

No, actually when the stock market crashed in 2007, that's right when I started buying.

View attachment 48794

Almost 1/4th of my total investment is all growth from my investments. For some reason it cut off the dates. That's 2010, to 2015.

Fantastic improvement.

View attachment 48795

This is the American Growth Fund, one of the two funds I own. As you can see, It's done fantastic.

See, when the stock market crashes, that's when I buy into them. I opened this account in 2007. There was a massive drop in 2007. So literally for the entire year or more, I put more money in, and more money in, and the value of my portfolio was exactly nearly the same each month. In June, I dumped several thousand in, and in July, the amount would be lower, or the same as it was in June, because the market was diving, while I buying.

But I knew that I was buying stock in major companies. I knew that while the portfolio value was falling, in reality I was adding more and more stocks in companies, to my portfolio, and when the market recovered, those stocks would go up dramatically.... and they did.

Notice also that my mutual fund, beat the market average routinely.

That's where people who live based on fear, lose in the market. When the market went down, my first response was to buy into the market. When the market crashes, that's like having a sale at your favorite store. Stocks are on sale. You don't sell off your stocks when prices go down, anymore then if porterhouse steak was on sale 50%, meant you sold off all the steak in your freezer. That's when BUY... not sell.
So, in other words, only people who know the market will have a chance to retire.. Brilliant.

That's like saying "Only those who think, and make wise choices, will have good results"....
Yeah... that's pretty much how life works, and how it should work.

You think I knew anymore than the average Joe blow 10 years ago? All I did was look up mutual funds, and read "10-Year Returns". Low numbers are low returns.... high numbers are high returns. You think this takes a Ph.D? I'm a college drop out.

If I can figure this out, anyone can. It's a choice. If you choose to be stupid, then you choose to suffer. 90% of where you are, and the situation you are in, is do to the choices you make in life.

Time to grow up little American. Time to be a big boy, and take responsibility for your own life.
I'm trying to understand this, and I'm just not understanding this bullshit. No, that's not what it's saying, average working people aren't going to study and worry about working the market, hell, then you have to worry about finding the right person to manage it.. What about the poor? Life shouldn't work that way, and it doesn't, people don't always make the right choices, they shouldn't be punished, and retirement shouldn't be a gambling game. When referencing those counties btw, the poor are worse off this way. If I choose to be stupid? I'm in college and know about the horse shit that occurs, it's a game I won't play. 90%? Oh, I was born in a upper middle class family in a wealthy area, that helped a lot, can't say the same for the poor in urban areas who have little opportunity and are constantly demonized by people like yourself. Actually, you want everyone on SS to either fuck off or try there luck. Luckily, youre opinions mean literally jack shit, since the American people aren't stupid. We should not have retirement be a gambling game with losers.
 
Wait until the government runs out of money....

Ahhh, but the stock market NEVER runs out of money, correct?....(idiot)

By definition, a market does not 'run out of money'.
A market is where people buy and sell stuff.

Money is not created, nor consumed by the "market".

Government can most certainly run out of money. Greece, Argentina, numerous others have done so. Some multiple times.

Further, the value of things on the market are controlled by the fundamentals of economics... namely supply and demand.

If the demand for stocks declined.... the value of those stocks would decline. Thus it is impossible for the market to run out of buyers, because the price would fall to a level of buyers.

The idea that all stocks would reach a value of zero, when they were stocks in profit producing companies, would be about as believable a possibility as a fairy princess riding a pink unicorn right down High Street down town.
 
Yes, and how many people will fail to succeed in surviving these crashes without damage? How many will have enough or find someone trusted?

In the right wing "future", picture a 90 year old woman in a nursing home, trying to access the DOW to see if she'll get kicked out of the home when there's some dips.........Or try to tell the bastards that run the nursing home, "....wait, I was assured that the market always bounced back..."

Also picture the emergence of a bunch of shysters who will "manage" nursing home-bound people's market portfolio.

In the left-wing "future" elderly will protest in the streets and clash with police because Social Security is broke, and the country is bankrupt. Elderly will be forcibly removed from banks where they used to draw their deposited Social Security checks, and huddle around closed government hospitals and pharmacies desperate for treatment and medication. They will line up for trays of free soup on the street, in the cold. They will burn wood, causing smog throughout the cities, because they can't afford gas heating anymore. And ultimately having swallowed the lies of the left, and ended up impoverished, kill themselves....


View attachment 48820

Elderly fighting with police.

View attachment 48821

About to be removed by police, crying in front of the national bank...

View attachment 48822

Closed government hospital....

View attachment 48823

Closed government pharmacy....

View attachment 48824

Being fed trays of soup out on the street....

View attachment 48825

Clouds of smoke above Athens from people burning wood for heat.

View attachment 48826

Thousands form a shrine to an elderly pensioner who committed suicide. The suicide sparked day so riots and clashes with police.

Unlike the mythical right-wing "future", this left-wing future is here now.... in Greece.

What you see illustrated above is the future of America, if we follow your left-wing ideology like Greece did.

The sad thing about those photos is that the fools in them probably just voted in a socialist government.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened.

They believed the lies of the leftwing government, protested every time they tried to reform the system, and when the reforms came in 2014, voted in the left wing government, which bucked the reforms..... and ruined the whole country.

These sad sad people.... are getting what they voted for. It's terrible to see people harm themselves... but what can you do.
 

Forum List

Back
Top