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

[CrusaderFrank]

If they invested on the day before the drop. Otherwise you're talking out of your ass

Invested the day before and sold everything when the market dropped. It's so, so, so, so stupid only a Liberal would even think of that

 

[Skull Pilot]

A couple up down cycles are no big deal in the long run

If you're in or close to retirement you shouldn't have the bulk of our money in equities anyway so you'd have been just fine

 

[healthmyths]

There would be no 'social security' if all citizens had were private accounts – whether there was a stock market drop or not.

The raison d'etre of Social Security is to safeguard retirement funds from the capricious volatility of private markets.

Hence the clueless idiocy of conservative advocacy of 'privatizing' Social Security.

HEY stock market IDIOT!!!
FACTS deal with FACTS you dummy!

A) LOOK at this CHART! DUMMY!!!
DOES THE CHART GO UP MORE OFTEN THEN DOWN???
YES!

Dow Jones 100 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends
NOW 2nd point dummy!
NOT ONE SMART RETIRED PERSON would be having ALL THEIR MONEY IN the STOCK MARKET AT retirement age!
FACTS!!!
First reduce, then increase equity allocation over time

One of the biggest risks in using investments to fund retirement is what’s called “sequence of returns” risk. If you retire and your investments take a big hit during the first few years you’re making withdrawals, the money will run out years earlier than if you have decent returns earlier and suffer through a market downturn later.

To combat the problem, two researchers recently crunched the numbers and concluded that, in many cases, investors should dial back their stockholdings to between 20% and 50% at the start of retirement and then ramp them back up by one percentage point a year to between 40% and 80% throughout retirement. For example, a portfolio that starts at 30% in stocks and finishes at 60% performs better on average than one that starts and finishes with 60% stocks.
How much stock should you own in retirement?

But idiots like you don't take that advice and you are probably one of those idiots!!!

FACTS...
YOU invest in equities when you are young. You move accumulations to more secure investments the older you get and
when you are retired you have very very little in equities!!!
That is the reality not your stupid ass comments based on idiocy!

 

[Toro]

If we'd invested SS in the stock market 50 years ago, not only would SS be solvent for the next century, everyone could have had a tax cut.

 

[nat4900]

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?

 

[healthmyths]

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?

But YOU don't gamble over 40 years! You invest in equities from your 20s to 40s and obviously accumulations.
There have been MORE UPS that Downs obviously I guess you idiots don't think about that or else THERE would never be a DJI!
Then from your 40s to 60s... moving more from high risk securities to lower risk investments and finally at retirement most of
it in highly secure investments. I mean you being a government lover why not have treasury bills?
See that is why if WE the vast majority of people had been GIVEN the CHOICE see you keep referring to "privatizing" it was always
going to be a CHOICE... i.e. I would have the POWER to choose... Do I want to tell SS where to put my money when I'm in my 20s i.e. high risk great appreciation, then in my 40s tell SS to put in lower risk and then retire all in to secured.. OR if I didn't want to choose that the traditional SS. EITHER WAY I would have the choice. NOT as it is now.
If I'd had the choice when I first started SS deductions in the 60s, today I'd had a million dollars in SS. Of which maybe half would be used in retirement, 1/4 medical bills and the rest a nest egg for my SON and his family to build on!

BUT selfish ignorant people like you without the benefit of the FACTS think privatizing was all investing in the market and that was the stupid ass meme put out by ignorant selfish people!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Threads like this show just how utterly uninformed & stupid many people are. Makes it easy to see how they are so easily fooled by bullshit liberal talking points.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Thank god govt saved us again......and they'll do it again when they tell you, you need to wait until you're dead to collect

 

[2aguy]

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.”

Social Security is done.....they can't make the payments now. They are taking the contributions of workers today to make the payments of current retirees......it is a panzi scheme, now. If people kept their own money they could invest it their own way.......they would actually have something, while the kids born today have nothing coming to them, and they will still have to pay into the system.

 

[GHook93]

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 author tries to connect dots that aren't there. He makes what if assertions that aren't based on facts.

Chile's Private Social Security System a Big Success

Here is a fact. Chile reformed their social security plan, because they were at the point we are heading. It has been a huge success. Chileans are getting 7-10x what they would have received via the old system. 7 Latin American countries have adopted this model along with some Eastern European countries.

It is a no brainer, it solves the social security fund crisis, helps solve a huge problem in the national debt crisis and provides retirees more money at retirement, not to mention all the stagnate money paid to social security actually goes to use and grows!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LordBrownTrout]

SS is a ponzi scheme. Give your money to govt and they allow you a small pittance every month. It's your money and other than your spouse, you can't even pass it on to relatives. One of the biggest scams that our govt ever created.

 

[2aguy]

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.

 

[Flash]

We don't have to speculate how much better off Americans would do without Social Security because we have a damn good model.

A model that says when the friggin Federal government doesn't force you to give them your money that you can do much better.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.

But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

 

[2aguy]

We don't have to speculate how much better off Americans would do without Social Security because we have a damn good model.

A model that says when the friggin Federal government doesn't force you to give them your money that you can do much better.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.

But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

But if you do that....how will corrupt politicians be able to use that money to buy power and control over other people?

 

[imawhosure]

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.

2aguy is 100% correct. The OPs point of how people would have lost money is laudable, but opposed to what they have now is LAUGHABLE! There is no money, just IOUs. The only way for government to pay these people, is to STEAL it from generations yet unborn.

The lefties want you to believe that the government is going to take care of you. No they aren't! They are just going to send you a check which may, or may NOT worth anything, and steal it from people who can't vote. In essence, they already SPENT your trust fund that you have funded all of YOUR life, (both parties I might add) and now they are going to TAX people who haven't been born yet to pay for what they OWE you.

Now then, if you are OK with this after looking at your children and grandchildren, then by all means, vote DEMOCRATIC. I think we can probably kick the can down the road far enough if you are over 50 to have it collapse on the people you supposedly love the most in the world, instead of on you. But, if you want to save the little people who you love, you had better decide to throw both the far left, and the establishment Republicans out of office, ASAP!

We can save our great nation by using things you already know as a person, and one of them is NOT by pushing off massive amounts of debt, while creating more debt. Only Washington thinks like this, and the reason they do is because they only want to keep their cushy job, and care less about those little people we are trying to raise. They are using our kids/grandkids money not yet made, to BUY elections today!

If you are a LEFTY or ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN, at least use your constituents own money and not our future generations money to win. If nothing else, I think we can agree for them to use money of people who can not yet vote, is highly UNETHICAL!

 

[Redfish]

Couple of things

1. the market has almost recovered from the drop
2. investing is a long term proposition, you would only have lost if you bought the day before the drop
3. the market has grown over time at around 10% per annum
4. SS if broke, the fix is simple. Collect SS taxes on all income, not just the first 110K
5. Dems mixed SS with the general fund.

 

[Andylusion]

If they invested on the day before the drop. Otherwise you're talking out of your ass

Invested the day before and sold everything when the market dropped. It's so, so, so, so stupid only a Liberal would even think of that

Actually it's worse than that. He said "lost everything" in the stock market. If you sold when the market bottomed out, that would still have only been a what.... 30% loss?

To lose everything, he would have had to buy stock in companies that went bankrupt.... all of them.

That's a special kind of stupid there.

Leftist: "Yes I picked the one mutual fund in the world, that invested exclusively in companies on the verge of bankruptcy..... and now I lost everything, and it's your fault for allowing me to do that"

 

[BluesLegend]

Couple of things

1. the market has almost recovered from the drop
2. investing is a long term proposition, you would only have lost if you bought the day before the drop
3. the market has grown over time at around 10% per annum
4. SS if broke, the fix is simple. Collect SS taxes on all income, not just the first 110K
5. Dems mixed SS with the general fund.

Regarding #4 why should I have to pay more into SS than others who will receive the same damn benefit? There should be a cut off as there is now. Once you have paid enough to receive the maximum benefit you shouldn't have to keep paying in more on the rest of your income.

That said the last place I would put money is in the SS trust fund with assholes in congress have raided until its dry. This dumb ass OP says well its a good thing you didn't have your SS money in the stock market you may have lost 6%. What vs losing 100% in SS? Congress has spent every last dime I have contributed to SS. How are they going to pay me back hold a bake sale the money is long gone. Even the additional money Reagan had us pay into the system all these years to cover the baby boom generation they spent that too, fuckers.

 

[Redfish]

Couple of things

1. the market has almost recovered from the drop
2. investing is a long term proposition, you would only have lost if you bought the day before the drop
3. the market has grown over time at around 10% per annum
4. SS if broke, the fix is simple. Collect SS taxes on all income, not just the first 110K
5. Dems mixed SS with the general fund.

Regarding #4 why should I have to pay more into SS than others who will receive the same damn benefit? There should be a cut off as there is now. Once you have paid enough to receive the maximum benefit you shouldn't have to keep paying in more on the rest of your income.

That said the last place I would put money is in the SS trust fund with assholes in congress have raided until its dry. This dumb ass OP says well its a good thing you didn't have your SS money in the stock market you may have lost 6%. What vs losing 100% in SS? Congress has spent every last dime I have contributed to SS. How are they going to pay me back hold a bake sale the money is long gone. Even the additional money Reagan had us pay into the system all these years to cover the baby boom generation they spent that too, fuckers.

I understand your position, but the reality is that SS is no longer a personal retirement savings plan. It is a tax whereby those working pay the benefits to those who are retired. Once we accept that reality it becomes clear that as a tax it should be collected on all income.

 

[BluesLegend]

Couple of things

1. the market has almost recovered from the drop
2. investing is a long term proposition, you would only have lost if you bought the day before the drop
3. the market has grown over time at around 10% per annum
4. SS if broke, the fix is simple. Collect SS taxes on all income, not just the first 110K
5. Dems mixed SS with the general fund.

Regarding #4 why should I have to pay more into SS than others who will receive the same damn benefit? There should be a cut off as there is now. Once you have paid enough to receive the maximum benefit you shouldn't have to keep paying in more on the rest of your income.

That said the last place I would put money is in the SS trust fund with assholes in congress have raided until its dry. This dumb ass OP says well its a good thing you didn't have your SS money in the stock market you may have lost 6%. What vs losing 100% in SS? Congress has spent every last dime I have contributed to SS. How are they going to pay me back hold a bake sale the money is long gone. Even the additional money Reagan had us pay into the system all these years to cover the baby boom generation they spent that too, fuckers.

I understand your position, but the reality is that SS is no longer a personal retirement savings plan. It is a tax whereby those working pay the benefits to those who are retired. Once we accept that reality it becomes clear that as a tax it should be collected on all income.

Yeah fuck that, I'm not paying more when they keeping talking about shafting me on the benefits I have already paid for. They should just rename SS the lard ass deadbeat loser tax then.