There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[SteadyMercury]

NOT one person who accumulated that much money and was smart would have had it ALL in the stock market at AGE 68!

Even worse = that much in stock market + most of in stock of single company.

 

[Toro]

SS has no "rate of return" because the money is not invested. It's spent the minute the government gets its hands on it. SS is the largest Ponzi scheme ever devised.

SS does have a rate of return. You can see it on the web site.

That the money is spent is irrelevant. The government borrows from you then spends the proceeds, then pays you back when you receive SS.

If you spend money on a credit card, that is also immediately spent, and there is one heck of an interest rate on that.

 

[Dana7360]

I think privatization would be great as long as the government picks up not only any losses but gurantees the gain there would have been under social security, and maybe a few extra bucks for the time involved.

Then why waste the money to make someone else a profit and get richer?

We're already doing that with social security. All privatization will do is cause people to get less from their money because the thieves on wall street have to make a profit and it comes from the money you invest. They take a percentage right off the top for "managing" it.

I also want to know why the taxpayers should pay for someone else's bad choices in the stock market. I have to pay for their social security that they waste on wall street then I have to pay them again because the thieves on wall street took it.

So we taxpayers would be paying twice. And some slime ball on wall street has walked away with that money that we the taxpayers would be liable for using your suggestion.

People already can invest in the stock market. They can have either a 401k or an IRA or they can just invest in stocks themselves.

That's the problem with privatization, a profit has to be made so we end up paying more and getting less.

 

[Dot Com]

I wouldn't trust the thieves on Wall St to walk my dog ESPECIALLY after reading 3-5 books on their outright theivery

 

[SteadyMercury]

Curious = how do all you "bah wall street is thieves" types save for retirement? Are you all in gold? Cash under the mattress? Small business owners?

 

[Dot Com]

This is who the Repubs want to hand over your retirement savings to Goldman Sachs and the Art of Ripping Your Clients Faces Off GS

 

[bripat9643]

SS has no "rate of return"

Correct, SS promises no rate of return.

Therefore doesn't have a key characteristic of a ponzi scheme... a promised rate of return.

The SS apologists on this board keep claiming it has a ROI of 1%-2%. Are you calling them liars? If it has no ROI, then it has no tangible assets.

 

[bripat9643]

[


Do you think I wrote ALL of the above?? Are you that f...king stupid???
Geez... right in front of your eyes and you still don't believe it!
What is the problem with people like you? Are you congenitally stupid?
AGAIN AND AGAIN... THESE aren't MY words!
Is factcheck.org making shit up?
Is The White House Office of Management and Budget making shit up??
How stupid are you really? Blaming ME?

Let me repeat. Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes have to be spent on SS and Medicare. They can't be spent on anything else, unless you consider the investment of the surplus in securities as something else. That is LOANED money.

That's simply a lie. If it were true, then were is all the surplus cash the FICA tax has been generating? The fact is it was spent the minute the government received it on whatever the politicians wanted to spend it on. As I have explained ad nauseum, the securities in the so-calleed "Trust Fund" are worthless. They can't be converted to cash without imposing additional taxes on the American people. Any claims to the contrary are the sign of brain damage.

You need to shut up because you don't know what you're talking about. If the Trust Fund was worthless then SS would not have been able to draw on interest received on those securities to supplement incoming payroll taxes for the last 3 years.

You're more clueless on this than anything, and you're a fucking retard in everything else to start with.

It hasn't drawn on any interest from the Trust Fund. All the benefits it pays out are funded by current tax revenues or more borrowing. Obama himself acknowledge this fact when he said SS would have to stop issuing checks if the Republicans didn't agree to raise the debt ceiling.

You're double barrelled fool.

 

[bripat9643]

I find it interesting that the biggest bitcher's of Social Security are the one's collecting it......

I find it interesting that FACTS don't mean anything to people like you!
You make some type of comment without ANY basis...just throw crap on the forum!
Everything I wrote comes from the EXPERTS and researchers.. NOT my words!

As more informed and better qualified people then me have suggested:
a) raise retirement to age 68 for anyone UNDER age 55 and SS will be fine. That simple!
b) Allow ANY one under age 55 to chose
1) Self directed investment into savings accounts, treasuries,yes even the stock market!
2) or use the traditional method...
But give people a choice!
This ONE freedom of choice i.e. self directed into savings,etc. would generate so much more growth in the USA economy it would be unbelievable!
Obviously no one on this forum has ever heard of the Venture Capital Insurance Corp.. VCIC...
and the absolute guarantees that can be provided to the small investor!

You have choices. You get all sorts of tax exempt tax deferred options to put retirement savings into.

We don't have a choice about how 13% of our gross income is "invested."

 

[healthmyths]

The tax system already gives you ample tax benefits to invest in your own retirement .

Then 2008 occurs. My portfolio has only 25% allocated to the market.

Healthcare premiums jumped 180% just a short 4 years after Reagan allowed healthcare insurance companies to invest in highly speculative stock.

YOU ARE SO f...king DUMB!!!
Ever hear of EMTALA???
"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented."
Emergency Medical Treatment Labor Act EMTALA - Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services

SO you dumb f..ks blaming insurance companies WHEN hospitals do this to recoup the above
EMTALA patient that aren't insured!!!

"How do hospitals deal with the cost of the uninsured? Like any business, we pass it on to the paying customers. We must charge each patient more to recover the unreimbursed cost of care provided to the uninsured and “government payers.” ”
From PAGE 1 of this document: http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/wp-content/uploads/NCMJ/mar-apr-05/Yarbrough.pdf

DO YOU comprehend the above hospital CEO statement?? Or does it go WAY over your head??
HE said the pad and pass charges that the uninsured run up in the claims they submit to the PAYERS..i.e. insurance companies/ Medicare!
PROVE ME wrong on this you dummy!! I have access to 6,000 hospital records as to what they charged Medicare...for example:

In 2012.. "The Florida hospital" in Tampa SENT to Medicare 1,120 claims for Computed Tomography without Contrast services..
Each claim filed with Medicare was for $3,639. (Do you understand? THIS IS WHAT THEY BILLED!)
The cost to do the CAT scan to the hospital - $59 (THIS IS WHAT IT COST THEM!!!)
A markup of $3,580.00 over the cost to do the service of: 6,067.8% MARK UP over costs!

SO again DUMMY!!!! Why do you think then if insurance companies have to pay the claims and PAYERS are being passed on the costs of the "UNINSURED" by the hospitals... DUMMY!!!
What would any business do ? RAISE the premiums as you so stupidly claim were used to make profits!
DUMMY!!! AVERAGE Insurance company NET profit BEFORE taxes and AFTER paying out 80% of premiums in CLAIMS is less then or 6% of gross revenue as profit --- BEFORE THEY PAID FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!

BUT of course total numbskulls such as you have NO grasp of how health insurance works!
Less grasp of how health expenses are calculated.
AND even LESS what it costs to operate a business much less an insurance company!
JUST plain ignorant comments....
OH and YES the EMTALA bill was Passed by a GOP Congress thinking they were doing something
beneficial when all they did was create a gigantic massive snowball of health care expenses!!!

 

[bripat9643]

NOT one person who accumulated that much money and was smart would have had it ALL in the stock market at AGE 68!

Even worse = that much in stock market + most of in stock of single company.

The main objection to privatizing Social Security seems to be the fact that some people are morons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NOT one person who accumulated that much money and was smart would have had it ALL in the stock market at AGE 68!

Even worse = that much in stock market + most of in stock of single company.

The main objection to privatizing Social Security seems to be the fact that some people are morons.

Says a moron. bripat, you have shown yourself incapable of preparing for your own future.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The SS apologists on this board keep claiming it has a ROI of 1%-2%. Are you calling them liars? If it has no ROI, then it has no tangible assets.

Nope, I'm pointing out is offers no rate of return to people who participate. Nowhere does it claim you'll make xyz on what you put it, it just estimates a monthly benefit based on 30 years of salary and age of retirement.

 

[Dana7360]

This is why I'm a multimillionaire

Of course you aren't, and I bet not one person on these forums believes you are. Screaming it over and over like you do, might as well just stencil "I have self-esteem issues" on your forehead.

Are you going to attack me and call me a liar when I tell you my career for over 35 years was to photograph musicians on and off stage?

Will you call me a liar if I tell you that I describe myself as the Annie Liebowitz of the west without the fame? Or bad money management.

Will you call me a liar when I tell you that I've photographed almost all the greatest musicians in rock and roll?

Will you call me a liar when I tell you have have a gold record award? I earned it in 2003 and it was awarded in the summer of 2004.

Will you call me a liar when I tell you my work is published in just about all the major music publications and almost as many non music publications, TV, Cable and movies?

Because if you do, you're making a very big mistake.

I happen to believe that it's in poor taste to discuss personal money situations with complete strangers so I won't discuss my financial situation with people on a message board.

You have no idea who is behind a screen name on line.

That poster was asked how much their retirement was worth. They told you. If you didn't want the answer why did you ask in the first place?

 

[bripat9643]

NOT one person who accumulated that much money and was smart would have had it ALL in the stock market at AGE 68!

Even worse = that much in stock market + most of in stock of single company.

The main objection to privatizing Social Security seems to be the fact that some people are morons.

Says a moron. bripat, you have shown yourself incapable of preparing for your own future.

How have I done that, commie?

 

[bripat9643]

The SS apologists on this board keep claiming it has a ROI of 1%-2%. Are you calling them liars? If it has no ROI, then it has no tangible assets.

Nope, I'm pointing out is offers no rate of return to people who participate. Nowhere does it claim you'll make xyz on what you put it, it just estimates a monthly benefit based on 30 years of salary and age of retirement.

Bernie Madoff never promised any particular rate of return on paper to his customers either.

 

[boedicca]

SS has no "rate of return" because the money is not invested. It's spent the minute the government gets its hands on it. SS is the largest Ponzi scheme ever devised.

SS does have a rate of return. You can see it on the web site.

That the money is spent is irrelevant. The government borrows from you then spends the proceeds, then pays you back when you receive SS.

If you spend money on a credit card, that is also immediately spent, and there is one heck of an interest rate on that.

Except for the little fact that the Government is not obligated to pay one back for what it has "borrowed"...it can change the rules after the fact whenever it desires.

For younger payers, the return is turning negative due to inflation and the low interest rate on government debt.

 

[Mustang]

There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!


The thread contention that 'There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in the stock market!!!" reminds me of the title of the last song on side A of Steely Dan's 1972 album "Can't Buy a Thrill."

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS has no "rate of return" because the money is not invested. It's spent the minute the government gets its hands on it. SS is the largest Ponzi scheme ever devised.

SS does have a rate of return. You can see it on the web site.

That the money is spent is irrelevant. The government borrows from you then spends the proceeds, then pays you back when you receive SS.

If you spend money on a credit card, that is also immediately spent, and there is one heck of an interest rate on that.

Except for the little fact that the Government is not obligated to pay one back for what it has "borrowed"...it can change the rules after the fact whenever it desires.

For younger payers, the return is turning negative due to inflation and the low interest rate on government debt.

One, inflation is less than 2%.

Two, Congress can adjust for inflation.

 

[Vandalshandle]

IDIOT for a brother! NOT one person who accumulated that much money and was smart would have had it ALL in the stock market at AGE 68!
That was totally stupid on his part!
And he was an even BIGGER fool to have all that money by his "advisor" in the market!
Should have at age 68 had 20% in the market THE REST in SECURED investments!
DUMB F...k!

Ok, in your world, you would privatize SS, and then, when someone finds themselves at 75 with little or no income because of poor investment decisions, your answer to their being hungry and homeless is to say, "DUMB FUCK!". So, privatization is a great idea if you are a savvy investor, but you know, as well as I, that over two thirds of the people make no retirement plans at all, or poor plans, and therefor, should be left to starve, or sleep under a bridge.
Wow, Myth! You are just a bundle of good ideas and solutions!

FORWARD TO THE 1930's!!!!!!!