Get rid of Social Security now?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hey little sheep there was no law requiring people to save 15% of their income was there?

So is it your contention that there should be a mandatory savings law?

Why not there already is now but the money doesn't actually get saved does it?

So its your plan to divert social security revenues into the past returns of the stock market and pay current beneficiaries - with what exactly?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've read Maslow and know the hierarchy of needs. But I want more than a roof and food on the table.

And why is it that you people want to dictate what others need to live.

That is a question that can only be answered by each individual.

And only those who have resigned themselves to living less of a life than they could call those who aspire to more as greedy.

And btw I'm not talking about taking anyone's money all I am doing is trying to illustrate what one could do with the money they earn if the ******* government would leave it in our hands.

In this you are assuming every wage earner will dutifully and unfailingly deposit a weekly sum (which of course will be double the amount of a FICA deduction because of the employer's supplement) into an investment portfolio which they will skillfully monitor and maneuver -- or pay a percentage to some manager whom they are assured is diligent and honest and has their interests in mind. And, most importantly, their investment and its projected growth will be guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Government against any failure or perfidy of the Market.

Does that adequately describe what you're proposing?

It would not be double because the employer would still contribute.

And the money can be taken as a direct deposit from a paycheck.

People wouldn't have to invest with an investment firm if they didn't want to, they could put it in a savings account for all I care.

And it is not difficult to manage a portfolio even if you are trying to make it out to be.

A balanced portfolio with a buy and hold strategy takes only a few hours worth of time a quarter to adjust.

One does not have to pay an adviser. Hell if you want to invest like Warren Buffett all you have to do is copy his portfolio which you can find on line.

You are confusing long term investing with day trading.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So is it your contention that there should be a mandatory savings law?

Why not there already is now but the money doesn't actually get saved does it?

So its your plan to divert social security revenues into the past returns of the stock market and pay current beneficiaries - with what exactly?

obviously there will have to be a phase in to a fully privatized system so don't ask stupid questions.

Oh wait you can't help but ask stupid questions can you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I've read Maslow and know the hierarchy of needs. But I want more than a roof and food on the table.

And why is it that you people want to dictate what others need to live.

That is a question that can only be answered by each individual.

And only those who have resigned themselves to living less of a life than they could call those who aspire to more as greedy.

And btw I'm not talking about taking anyone's money all I am doing is trying to illustrate what one could do with the money they earn if the ******* government would leave it in our hands.

In this you are assuming every wage earner will dutifully and unfailingly deposit a weekly sum (which of course will be double the amount of a FICA deduction because of the employer's supplement) into an investment portfolio which they will skillfully monitor and maneuver -- or pay a percentage to some manager whom they are assured is diligent and honest and has their interests in mind. And, most importantly, their investment and its projected growth will be guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Government against any failure or perfidy of the Market.

Does that adequately describe what you're proposing?

It would not be double because the employer would still contribute.

And the money can be taken as a direct deposit from a paycheck.

People wouldn't have to invest with an investment firm if they didn't want to, they could put it in a savings account for all I care.

And it is not difficult to manage a portfolio even if you are trying to make it out to be.

A balance portfolio with a buy and hold strategy takes only a few hours worth of time a quarter to adjust.

One does not have to pay an adviser hell if you want to invest like Warren Buffett all you have to do is copy his portfolio which you can find on line.

You are confusing long term investing with day trading.

And what happens when the stock market crashes and old people don't have enough money to put food into their mouths you flippn' moron?

 

[Skull Pilot]

In this you are assuming every wage earner will dutifully and unfailingly deposit a weekly sum (which of course will be double the amount of a FICA deduction because of the employer's supplement) into an investment portfolio which they will skillfully monitor and maneuver -- or pay a percentage to some manager whom they are assured is diligent and honest and has their interests in mind. And, most importantly, their investment and its projected growth will be guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Government against any failure or perfidy of the Market.

Does that adequately describe what you're proposing?

It would not be double because the employer would still contribute.

And the money can be taken as a direct deposit from a paycheck.

People wouldn't have to invest with an investment firm if they didn't want to, they could put it in a savings account for all I care.

And it is not difficult to manage a portfolio even if you are trying to make it out to be.

A balance portfolio with a buy and hold strategy takes only a few hours worth of time a quarter to adjust.

One does not have to pay an adviser hell if you want to invest like Warren Buffett all you have to do is copy his portfolio which you can find on line.

You are confusing long term investing with day trading.

And what happens when the stock market crashes and old people don't have enough money to put food into their mouths you flippn' moron?

Have you read anything I've written you ******* idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

You are probably too stupid to handle your own money

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It would not be double because the employer would still contribute.

And the money can be taken as a direct deposit from a paycheck.

People wouldn't have to invest with an investment firm if they didn't want to, they could put it in a savings account for all I care.

And it is not difficult to manage a portfolio even if you are trying to make it out to be.

A balance portfolio with a buy and hold strategy takes only a few hours worth of time a quarter to adjust.

One does not have to pay an adviser hell if you want to invest like Warren Buffett all you have to do is copy his portfolio which you can find on line.

You are confusing long term investing with day trading.

And what happens when the stock market crashes and old people don't have enough money to put food into their mouths you flippn' moron?

Have you read anything I've written you ******* idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

So stupid..
The SS system as it is will become unsustainable. The system needs to be scrapped and REPLACED!!!
Your side with it's OH MY GOD" approach is assuring SS of it's demise.
You would rather get peanuts and watch the thing burn to the ground as long as you get yours. Never mind the future retirees who will get nothing after you selfish bastards deplete every dime out of SS..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The system needs to be scrapped and REPLACED!!!

You are incorrect.

 

[thereisnospoon]

the right signs the pledge of a man who said right out loud he wants our government dead.

They dont care about the American people

You must live in a different country. I cannot recall nor can anyone, including you, prove or even fake that anyone uttered those words or words to that effect.
And since when is the desire to reduce the size of government equate to "not caring about the American people"?
So how much money in public assistance DO you get per month?

 

[thereisnospoon]

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist

Read more at Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Grover Norquist? Really?
Do you not understand the concept of sarcasm?
You are one dumb ******* hose bag.

 

[thereisnospoon]

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist

Read more at Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

You have Norquist.....Now I will take Barney Frank and nail him to your mantle piece..
[ame=http://youtu.be/k0ZcVsVTPrQ]Barney Frank v Harvard Student - YouTube[/ame]
Here's where Frank suggests government spend even more AND increase deficits. This quote came right after the Democrats regained the majority in 2008.
[ame=http://youtu.be/u1Mazjm_A5k]Barney Frank: Plenty of rich people that we can tax - YouTube[/ame]

So you see, you trot out the "who cares" or who the hell is that?" guy...
I splat the now former Chair of the House Banking Committee..
Mess with the bull, you get the horns.
Rocket scientist.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The system needs to be scrapped and REPLACED!!!

You are incorrect.

So it is perfect the way it is?
If not, your solution is?
You don't get to come on here and deliver a drive by post.
You will explain yourself.

 

[MikeK]

Wow so you can speak for all people now huh? And the fact that you think Marx explored "every possible circumstance" tells that you ain't too bright.
And where did I ever say that people should wait to save? I am using terms such as lifetime income and you hear income after age 50?

And if it's genius to take peoples money and give them a pittance then what would you call allowing people to save that portion of their lifetime income
in a privately held account that will allow them a better standard of living?

I knew I was going to die one day way before I turned 30.
Maybe you went through life blissfully ignorant of the natural process of aging because you never do the math.

Presuming you are psychologically normal and you know you will be dying within an hour, unless you've been tormented by a long period of unbearable pain, you would become extremely anxious, possibly panicked. But right now, although you think you know you will die someday, why are you not anxious or panicked about it?

You said you've read Maslow and Fromm, so you should be able to present and explain an answer.

The same psychodynamic operates in awareness of our growing old. We know it will happen but so long as we are able to impose an obscuring barrier of time between now and then it is not yet a real concept. It is something we only think we know. Knowing something of this profoundly egocentric nature requires that it be close enough to see and to intellectually touch.

But apart from this philosophical examination I think you know as well as I do that the vast majority of American workers would not (or could not) take the time to construct a stock portfolio, and to correctly monitor it, and to diligently deposit a percentage of their weekly paycheck into it -- especially when distracted by the option of spending that money on a better car, a new dress, a computer, or some other temptation.

Such is human nature. If it were not so most Americans would not be up to their asses in debt.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And what happens when the stock market crashes and old people don't have enough money to put food into their mouths you flippn' moron?

Have you read anything I've written you ******* idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

In no 45 year period has anyone lost everything in the stock market.

And if you're afraid of the stock market then don't invest your money. You can put it in a coffee can and bury it the back yard.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wow so you can speak for all people now huh? And the fact that you think Marx explored "every possible circumstance" tells that you ain't too bright.
And where did I ever say that people should wait to save? I am using terms such as lifetime income and you hear income after age 50?

And if it's genius to take peoples money and give them a pittance then what would you call allowing people to save that portion of their lifetime income
in a privately held account that will allow them a better standard of living?

I knew I was going to die one day way before I turned 30.
Maybe you went through life blissfully ignorant of the natural process of aging because you never do the math.

Presuming you are psychologically normal and you know you will be dying within an hour, unless you've been tormented by a long period of unbearable pain, you would become extremely anxious, possibly panicked. But right now, although you think you know you will die someday, why are you not anxious or panicked about it?

You said you've read Maslow and Fromm, so you should be able to present and explain an answer.

Why should I be anxious about dying? It's a natural thing that has happened and will happen to every person that has ever existed and will ever exist.

If I Live my life to the best of my ability I have nothing to be anxious about.

Is it your assertion that everyone dies in a state of panic?

The same psychodynamic operates in awareness of our growing old. We know it will happen but so long as we are able to impose an obscuring barrier of time between now and then it is not yet a real concept. It is something we only think we know. Knowing something of this profoundly egocentric nature requires that it be close enough to see and to intellectually touch.

But apart from this philosophical examination I think you know as well as I do that the vast majority of American workers would not (or could not) take the time to construct a stock portfolio, and to correctly monitor it, and to diligently deposit a percentage of their weekly paycheck into it -- especially when distracted by the option of spending that money on a better car, a new dress, a computer, or some other temptation.

Such is human nature. If it were not so most Americans would not be up to their asses in debt.

As I said they would not have to deposit anything. it could be done automatically. I know Direct deposit is one of those new fangled things you may have never heard of but most people already know what it is.

And if people don't want to take responsibility for their own futures that's their problem not mine. I should not have to sacrifice my financial future because you and people like you are too lazy to spend a couple hours thinking about your future.

And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this but the money would be treated similar to SS where it would not be available until a certain age so people couldn't just buy shit with it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Have you read anything I've written you ******* idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

In no 45 year period has anyone lost everything in the stock market.

45 years? I thought you said I was supposed to move it to bonds as I neared retirement. I'm supposed to keep my money in the stock market 45 years? 18+45 = 63 - and then move it to bonds. When exactly are people supposed to retire by your reckoning?


What happens when I invest in the stock market for 45 years, as you say, and it turns out instead of getting the PAST returns that you continue to rely on for your analysis, I get the ACTUAL FUTURE returns, and those future returns turn out not to be enough to live on?

And if you're afraid of the stock market then don't invest your money. You can put it in a coffee can and bury it the back yard.

OK.


I still want you to answer my question regardless. When the stock market fails and millions lose the ability to have sufficient funds to eat on after they are too old to work, what then?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this but the money would be treated similar to SS where it would not be available until a certain age so people couldn't just buy shit with it.

So you think the average American is have enough financial savvy to pick stocks but not enough financial savvy to know not to cash out their retirement before retirement.


yeah - that makes a lot of sense.

Though I guess since "buy and hold" and pretending you can predict the future behavior of a stock market based on selective past performance data is what you would consider a sophisticated investment strategy, I shouldn't be surprised at the apparent contradiction.

 

[MikeK]

Have you read anything I've written you ******* idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

In no 45 year period has anyone lost everything in the stock market.

And if you're afraid of the stock market then don't invest your money. You can put it in a coffee can and bury it the back yard.

Or you can buy U.S. Savings Bonds, which won't pay the same dividends as many stocks but are absolutely risk free and you don't need to even think about them. Just have the value deducted from your paycheck, they come in the mail, and before you know it you have a nice stack of them.

 

[zeke]

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

In no 45 year period has anyone lost everything in the stock market.

45 years? I thought you said I was supposed to move it to bonds as I neared retirement. I'm supposed to keep my money in the stock market 45 years? 18+45 = 63 - and then move it to bonds. When exactly are people supposed to retire by your reckoning?


What happens when I invest in the stock market for 45 years, as you say, and it turns out instead of getting the PAST returns that you continue to rely on for your analysis, I get the ACTUAL FUTURE returns, and those future returns turn out not to be enough to live on?

And if you're afraid of the stock market then don't invest your money. You can put it in a coffee can and bury it the back yard.

OK.


I still want you to answer my question regardless. When the stock market fails and millions lose the ability to have sufficient funds to eat on after they are too old to work, what then?

Haven't you heard of for profit poor houses? A thin gruel and a thinner blanket is all you deserve if you lose your ass in the market.

Like right now. You are ready to retire, you stayed in the stock market and regained most of what you lost. Then you took the rich persons advice and bought into bond funds. For the safety.

Skull, do you know what will happen to bond fund investors just buying into the market, when interest rates rise. And they will rise, They have no where else to go but up. So what will the value of a bond fund be if I buy today and rates go up tommorrow?

You mean an investor could lose his ass by purchasing your idea of a "safe investment"?

Say it ain't so net worth man.

 

[MikeK]

It would not be double because the employer would still contribute.

If we're talking about a voluntary investment program, why would one's employer match each contribution? Maybe a rare and exceptionally benevolent employer might (I think there might be one or two in the U.S. who are so inclined) but the only reason employers match the FICA contribution is Government says they must.