Beating Social Security

[rightwinger]

Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong

One of his many, many accomplishments

 

[Jarlaxle]

Jarl,

Fakey-to-English translation: "Oh, shit, he realized I'm full of shit, so I will fling feces in an attempt to distract."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarl, you are adorable!

You guys simply don't understand.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Fakey-to-English translation: "Oh, shit, he's onto me! I will not post meaningless words in another attempt to distract."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarl continues to amuse.

Rage on, because your raging is meaningless.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Galveston left at the start of the largest bull market in world history. There is no guarantee that we are heading into a massive bull market. The larger problem is that Galveston left without having to take any of the legacy costs of the system.

The larger problem is that we only hear about Galveston. You don't talk as much about Small Falls, RI.

Bankruptcy saves tiny Rhode Island city, but leaves scars

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Moving Social Security to personal accounts is a bad idea, but not because of market risk. Market risk is a laughably absurd idea. The lowest 45 years rolling return of the S&P is about 3% real with Enron, MCI, and the housing bubble.

Both sides of that debate substitute hyperbole for actual reasoned-thought. Market risk and fees from Wall Street are little more than blah, blah, blah. The problem is that Social Security is insurance. Insurance manages risk. Investments profit from taking risk. These aren't substitutes.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong

One of his many, many accomplishments

Ironic isn't it that FDR vigorously opposed what SS has become. This is a wonderful piece that might give you some actual history.

Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Galveston left at the start of the largest bull market in world history. There is no guarantee that we are heading into a massive bull market. The larger problem is that Galveston left without having to take any of the legacy costs of the system.

The larger problem is that we only hear about Galveston. You don't talk as much about Small Falls, RI.

Bankruptcy saves tiny Rhode Island city, but leaves scars

Guarantee??????


The courts have already stated that the government has no requirement to pay Social Security to anyone at anytime.

" Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”




Courts have stated that if it decides not to....the government doesn't have to pay you your Social Security benefits.....AT ALL!

“Retirement programs are not legal obligations.”

The seemingly obvious response might be “Now they tell us”, but that would be a bit overdone. Indeed, though American-style liberals and other water carriers for the welfare state would rather we not know this, we have no legal right to the dollars we hand over to the federal government in the form of Social Security payments.We never have had any legal right, and Horney should be credited for telling the truth.

...the minute your employer withholds your Social Security taxes,the money is no longer yours. Deal with it....the government has no legal obligation to us, argue that absent Social Security’s steady hand Americans might fritter away their retirement dollars.

Social Security is not a retirement plan, rather it’s a hopeful Ponzi schemefrom which we can hope to receive regular payments for having paid into the system during our working years.."
The Ugly Truth About Social Security Is Revealed

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong

One of his many, many accomplishments

Ironic isn't it that FDR vigorously opposed what SS has become. This is a wonderful piece that might give you some actual history.

Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?

Excellent link!!!

It actually exposes the refusal of Liberals/Democrats to think.

The poster to whom you aimed this post is actually not a right winger...but the very opposite.

He will never accept any criticism or disagreement with his god, FDR....so your article will leave him hoist by his own petard.

He'll simply lie and claim not to read it (but he will.)

 

[RicO'Shea]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

 

[rightwinger]

Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong

One of his many, many accomplishments

Ironic isn't it that FDR vigorously opposed what SS has become. This is a wonderful piece that might give you some actual history.

Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?

FDR would be thrilled with elderly Americans being taken care of

He would also support Obamacare

 

[Skull Pilot]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

So you know nothing about investing then.

Wall Street doesn't play with your money

YOU buy stock and bonds that YOU own and can do with what you please. You can hold on to them , sell them, or not buy them at all

It's the government that uses your SS money for all kinds of other shit than for your retirement

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Galveston left at the start of the largest bull market in world history. There is no guarantee that we are heading into a massive bull market. The larger problem is that Galveston left without having to take any of the legacy costs of the system.

The larger problem is that we only hear about Galveston. You don't talk as much about Small Falls, RI.

Bankruptcy saves tiny Rhode Island city, but leaves scars

Guarantee??????


The courts have already stated that the government has no requirement to pay Social Security to anyone at anytime.

" Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”




Courts have stated that if it decides not to....the government doesn't have to pay you your Social Security benefits.....AT ALL!

“Retirement programs are not legal obligations.”

The seemingly obvious response might be “Now they tell us”, but that would be a bit overdone. Indeed, though American-style liberals and other water carriers for the welfare state would rather we not know this, we have no legal right to the dollars we hand over to the federal government in the form of Social Security payments.We never have had any legal right, and Horney should be credited for telling the truth.

...the minute your employer withholds your Social Security taxes,the money is no longer yours. Deal with it....the government has no legal obligation to us, argue that absent Social Security’s steady hand Americans might fritter away their retirement dollars.

Social Security is not a retirement plan, rather it’s a hopeful Ponzi schemefrom which we can hope to receive regular payments for having paid into the system during our working years.."
The Ugly Truth About Social Security Is Revealed

There is no guarantee in anything, see Small Falls, RI.

My point is that Galveston is not a terribly meaningful example because of its timing because there is no guarantee that we are entering a massive bull market.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong

One of his many, many accomplishments

Ironic isn't it that FDR vigorously opposed what SS has become. This is a wonderful piece that might give you some actual history.

Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?

FDR would be thrilled with elderly Americans being taken care of

He would also support Obamacare

Since you didn't read the article, I will pull out a paragraph for you :

Discovering that the original draft wasn’t a contributory pension, Roosevelt ordered it rewritten and complained to Frances Perkins, his labor secretary: “This is the same old dole under another name. It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress . . . to meet.”

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

You are not being completely honest here. You are free to invest your money as you see fit. In all honesty, you don't want Wall Street investing anyone's money.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Galveston left at the start of the largest bull market in world history. There is no guarantee that we are heading into a massive bull market. The larger problem is that Galveston left without having to take any of the legacy costs of the system.

The larger problem is that we only hear about Galveston. You don't talk as much about Small Falls, RI.

Bankruptcy saves tiny Rhode Island city, but leaves scars

Guarantee??????


The courts have already stated that the government has no requirement to pay Social Security to anyone at anytime.

" Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”




Courts have stated that if it decides not to....the government doesn't have to pay you your Social Security benefits.....AT ALL!

“Retirement programs are not legal obligations.”

The seemingly obvious response might be “Now they tell us”, but that would be a bit overdone. Indeed, though American-style liberals and other water carriers for the welfare state would rather we not know this, we have no legal right to the dollars we hand over to the federal government in the form of Social Security payments.We never have had any legal right, and Horney should be credited for telling the truth.

...the minute your employer withholds your Social Security taxes,the money is no longer yours. Deal with it....the government has no legal obligation to us, argue that absent Social Security’s steady hand Americans might fritter away their retirement dollars.

Social Security is not a retirement plan, rather it’s a hopeful Ponzi schemefrom which we can hope to receive regular payments for having paid into the system during our working years.."
The Ugly Truth About Social Security Is Revealed

There is no guarantee in anything, see Small Falls, RI.

My point is that Galveston is not a terribly meaningful example because of its timing because there is no guarantee that we are entering a massive bull market.

Meaningful for two reasons.
1. The coverage is possible without the federal dicatorship
2. The Constitution provides no authority for Social Security.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.