Get rid of Social Security now?

[flacaltenn]

Skull got caught in a lie, like you were caught in a situation, for which you paid.

When we let corporate sharks "help" hundreds of millions of Americans "handle" their investments, what the ****, fuker, do you think is going to happen.

We the People, through our representatives, make such choices, libertarian fuk, for us, so that all of us have some form of income in our old age.

You flat heads are so fucked up.

Don't know what planet you live on MF'er.. But I trust my financial advisors and MY JUDGEMENT a shitload more than any BUSLOAD of corrupt politicians that own you...

You have a really shitty view of how capable folks are to survive without you don'tcha?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who cares what you think. You are going to pay your fair share, according to We the People, and your shitload of nonsense means absolutely nothing, other than you get to rant here. That changes nothing in the real world. Tis what tis.

Skull got caught in a lie, like you were caught in a situation, for which you paid.

When we let corporate sharks "help" hundreds of millions of Americans "handle" their investments, what the ****, fuker, do you think is going to happen.

We the People, through our representatives, make such choices, libertarian fuk, for us, so that all of us have some form of income in our old age.

You flat heads are so fucked up.

Don't know what planet you live on MF'er.. But I trust my financial advisors and MY JUDGEMENT a shitload more than any BUSLOAD of corrupt politicians that own you...

You have a really shitty view of how capable folks are to survive without you don'tcha?

 

[MikeK]

Allowing the government to confiscate 15% of your lifetime income will not prevent another great depression.

Perhaps not by itself, alone. But it certainly did play an enormous part in preventing us from sliding into another depression after Bush's gross mishandling of the Economy.

What causes a despression is stagnation. Stagnation occurs when no money is circulating. In my example, were it not for Social Security I would for the past ten or more years had to live very frugally -- as would millions of others in the same situation. What we Social Security recipients add up to are billions of dollars circulating in the Economy -- lubricating the gears and adding fuel.

If instead of paying into FICA I would have invested in some high dividend stock along with you, when the market took its dive in '08 you and I both would have lost our shirts if not our underwear, too -- along with millions of others who think like you. Because the trick to the stock market, which you seem oblivious to, is the level of benefit is proportional to the level of risk. Unless one has insider information (such as some of our congresspersons enjoy) the stock market is no less a gamble than are the blackjack tables in Las Vegas.

You appear to be under the impression that the market collapse didn't hurt anyone. As previously mentioned I happen to know quite a few retired seniors who were severely hurt by the stock market in recent years and were it not for Social Security they would be living off their relatives, or worse.

The Great Depression is what inspired the creation of Social Security. And if Social Security had been in place in 1929 there would not have been a Great Depression. A recession, such as we're experiencing now, yes. A depression, no. Because there would be money in circulation.

It will however ensure that you have millions less than you could have had.

When many lose money in the stock market, that money goes somewhere. It goes into the offshore accounts of people like Mitt Romney -- who thrive on the vaporous confidence of people like you.

Of the many millions of ordinary Americans who invest in the stock market, how many do you think actually make millions? And what makes you think you will be among those who do?

If you are an entrepreneur, unless you are a one-man band or operate a lawn service, if you are making money you will have employees. And unless they are off the books you will be paying into Social Security in their names, but as long as the Economy is healthy you will make a lot of money. And one reason why the Economy is healthy is Social Security. Because it means more people have more money to spend. Social Security = circulation.

So don't listen to Limbaugh and Hannity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Get caught in a lie and you want to boo hoo, Skull.

Fancy holy Moses, grow up, son.

The connotation was clear in your language "enriching themselves at the expense of...."

Which btw has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with people controlling their own money rather than letting the ******* government steal it from them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull got caught in a lie, like you were caught in a situation, for which you paid.

When we let corporate sharks "help" hundreds of millions of Americans "handle" their investments, what the ****, fuker, do you think is going to happen.

We the People, through our representatives, make such choices, libertarian fuk, for us, so that all of us have some form of income in our old age.

You flat heads are so fucked up.

Who says you have to let a "shark" handle your money? And is a ******* politician any better?

You can handle your own money, buy your own stocks, and not pay anyone to do it for you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Allowing the government to confiscate 15% of your lifetime income will not prevent another great depression.

Perhaps not by itself, alone. But it certainly did play an enormous part in preventing us from sliding into another depression after Bush's gross mishandling of the Economy.

What causes a despression is stagnation. Stagnation occurs when no money is circulating. In my example, were it not for Social Security I would for the past ten or more years had to live very frugally -- as would millions of others in the same situation. What we Social Security recipients add up to are billions of dollars circulating in the Economy -- lubricating the gears and adding fuel.

Man you must be getting senile in your old age. My entire argument is that if you kept and controlled that 15% of your lifetime income that you would be living at a much higher standard than SS allows you to live. Add to that 15% the percentage you saved above and beyond what the government confiscated from you and your life would be entirely different.

If instead of paying into FICA I would have invested in some high dividend stock along with you, when the market took its dive in '08 you and I both would have lost our shirts if not our underwear, too -- along with millions of others who think like you. Because the trick to the stock market, which you seem oblivious to, is the level of benefit is proportional to the level of risk. Unless one has insider information (such as some of our congresspersons enjoy) the stock market is no less a gamble than are the blackjack tables in Las Vegas.

Anyone that invests in one stock is an idiot. And if I was planning to retire within 5 years you can bet you last tooth that I would not have the bulk of my money in high risk stocks.

It's common ******* sense for Christ's sake.

You appear to be under the impression that the market collapse didn't hurt anyone. As previously mentioned I happen to know quite a few retired seniors who were severely hurt by the stock market in recent years and were it not for Social Security they would be living off their relatives, or worse.

Over a 45 year period one adjustment in the stock market doesn't really hurt.

Go ahead and pick any 45 year period you want in history and tell me that people who consistently invested lost money. In fact the longer you are in the market the more your overall rate of return approaches 10%.

And if you bothered to read any of my illustrations you'd see that I used much lower rates of return.

And again simple investing common sense tells us that the closer you are to retirement the less you should have in equities. If you're retiring in a year and you haven't divested yourself of the majority of your equity holdings then you deserve to be broke,

The Great Depression is what inspired the creation of Social Security. And if Social Security had been in place in 1929 there would not have been a Great Depression. A recession, such as we're experiencing now, yes. A depression, no. Because there would be money in circulation.

Prove that statement.

It will however ensure that you have millions less than you could have had.

When many lose money in the stock market, that money goes somewhere. It goes into the offshore accounts of people like Mitt Romney -- who thrive on the vaporous confidence of people like you.

Of the many millions of ordinary Americans who invest in the stock market, how many do you think actually make millions? And what makes you think you will be among those who do?

The math is simple. You go here

Simple savings calculator -- Bankrate.com

And punch in your average monthly amount of your income that was confiscated for SS over your life time. The go here

CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500

And use the average return of the market during the 40 years or so of your working career and then tell me how much your SS contributions would have been worth today

If you are an entrepreneur, unless you are a one-man band or operate a lawn service, if you are making money you will have employees. And unless they are off the books you will be paying into Social Security in their names, but as long as the Economy is healthy you will make a lot of money. And one reason why the Economy is healthy is Social Security. Because it means more people have more money to spend. Social Security = circulation.

So don't listen to Limbaugh and Hannity.

And if people were able to control that money that they and their employer pay to the SS scam that money would not eventually end up in circulation?

Money is always better in the hands of the people than the paws of the government.

And no I don't listen to talking head blowhards of any political persuasion.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

? I haven't seen Romney or any prominent Republicans talking about ending Social Security.

Medicare is what they want to destroy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

? I haven't seen Romney or any prominent Republicans talking about ending Social Security.

Medicare is what they want to destroy.

Get rid of SS and people will be able to have enough saved for retirement that they won't need medicare.

 

[zeke]

I got to admit that getting financial advice from a person that thinks negative equity in a home increases your net worth is probably financial advice I would ignore.

What say you skull?

Or do you not think that anymore?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Allowing the government to confiscate 15% of your lifetime income will not prevent another great depression.

Perhaps not by itself, alone. But it certainly did play an enormous part in preventing us from sliding into another depression after Bush's gross mishandling of the Economy.

What causes a despression is stagnation. Stagnation occurs when no money is circulating. In my example, were it not for Social Security I would for the past ten or more years had to live very frugally -- as would millions of others in the same situation. What we Social Security recipients add up to are billions of dollars circulating in the Economy -- lubricating the gears and adding fuel.

Man you must be getting senile in your old age. My entire argument is that if you kept and controlled that 15% of your lifetime income that you would be living at a much higher standard than SS allows you to live. Add to that 15% the percentage you saved above and beyond what the government confiscated from you and your life would be entirely different.



Anyone that invests in one stock is an idiot. And if I was planning to retire within 5 years you can bet you last tooth that I would not have the bulk of my money in high risk stocks.

It's common ******* sense for Christ's sake.



Over a 45 year period one adjustment in the stock market doesn't really hurt.

Go ahead and pick any 45 year period you want in history and tell me that people who consistently invested lost money. In fact the longer you are in the market the more your overall rate of return approaches 10%.

And if you bothered to read any of my illustrations you'd see that I used much lower rates of return.

And again simple investing common sense tells us that the closer you are to retirement the less you should have in equities. If you're retiring in a year and you haven't divested yourself of the majority of your equity holdings then you deserve to be broke,



Prove that statement.

When many lose money in the stock market, that money goes somewhere. It goes into the offshore accounts of people like Mitt Romney -- who thrive on the vaporous confidence of people like you.

Of the many millions of ordinary Americans who invest in the stock market, how many do you think actually make millions? And what makes you think you will be among those who do?

The math is simple. You go here

Simple savings calculator -- Bankrate.com

And punch in your average monthly amount of your income that was confiscated for SS over your life time. The go here

CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500

And use the average return of the market during the 40 years or so of your working career and then tell me how much your SS contributions would have been worth today

That's a faulty calculation. You would need your yearly SS contributions to make it accurate. Otherwise you're completely discounting the obvious fact that in down economies - when stocks are priced lower - people have less money to invest in stocks - and in up economies - when stocks tend to be higher - people have more to invest. Duh.

In fact very few people actually get the return of the S&P because of this very fact. "Dollar averaged" investing is great if your income continues to go up during a depression - but if that happened for everyone it wouldn't be a 'depression' would it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I got to admit that getting financial advice from a person that thinks negative equity in a home increases your net worth is probably financial advice I would ignore.

What say you skull?

Or do you not think that anymore?

Anyone that doesn't understand that -1 is greater than -100 is no one I would let count my money

 

[Skull Pilot]

Perhaps not by itself, alone. But it certainly did play an enormous part in preventing us from sliding into another depression after Bush's gross mishandling of the Economy.

What causes a despression is stagnation. Stagnation occurs when no money is circulating. In my example, were it not for Social Security I would for the past ten or more years had to live very frugally -- as would millions of others in the same situation. What we Social Security recipients add up to are billions of dollars circulating in the Economy -- lubricating the gears and adding fuel.

Man you must be getting senile in your old age. My entire argument is that if you kept and controlled that 15% of your lifetime income that you would be living at a much higher standard than SS allows you to live. Add to that 15% the percentage you saved above and beyond what the government confiscated from you and your life would be entirely different.



Anyone that invests in one stock is an idiot. And if I was planning to retire within 5 years you can bet you last tooth that I would not have the bulk of my money in high risk stocks.

It's common ******* sense for Christ's sake.



Over a 45 year period one adjustment in the stock market doesn't really hurt.

Go ahead and pick any 45 year period you want in history and tell me that people who consistently invested lost money. In fact the longer you are in the market the more your overall rate of return approaches 10%.

And if you bothered to read any of my illustrations you'd see that I used much lower rates of return.

And again simple investing common sense tells us that the closer you are to retirement the less you should have in equities. If you're retiring in a year and you haven't divested yourself of the majority of your equity holdings then you deserve to be broke,



Prove that statement.

When many lose money in the stock market, that money goes somewhere. It goes into the offshore accounts of people like Mitt Romney -- who thrive on the vaporous confidence of people like you.

Of the many millions of ordinary Americans who invest in the stock market, how many do you think actually make millions? And what makes you think you will be among those who do?

The math is simple. You go here

Simple savings calculator -- Bankrate.com

And punch in your average monthly amount of your income that was confiscated for SS over your life time. The go here

CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500

And use the average return of the market during the 40 years or so of your working career and then tell me how much your SS contributions would have been worth today

That's a faulty calculation. You would need your yearly SS contributions to make it accurate. Otherwise you're completely discounting the obvious fact that in down economies - when stocks are priced lower - people have less money to invest in stocks - and in up economies - when stocks tend to be higher - people have more to invest. Duh.

In fact very few people actually get the return of the S&P because of this very fact. "Dollar averaged" investing is great if your income continues to go up during a depression - but if that happened for everyone it wouldn't be a 'depression' would it?

Then do it year by year and I'll still be right.

 

[zeke]

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.

? I haven't seen Romney or any prominent Republicans talking about ending Social Security.

Medicare is what they want to destroy.

Get rid of SS and people will be able to have enough saved for retirement that they won't need medicare.

You fuking kidding right? Most Americans have the financial acumen of..............you.

They buy when the market is up and sell when it is the worst possible time to sell.

And somehow you think that all of us Americans will all of a sudden be like.......Mitt?
Funny shit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Man you must be getting senile in your old age. My entire argument is that if you kept and controlled that 15% of your lifetime income that you would be living at a much higher standard than SS allows you to live. Add to that 15% the percentage you saved above and beyond what the government confiscated from you and your life would be entirely different.



Anyone that invests in one stock is an idiot. And if I was planning to retire within 5 years you can bet you last tooth that I would not have the bulk of my money in high risk stocks.

It's common ******* sense for Christ's sake.



Over a 45 year period one adjustment in the stock market doesn't really hurt.

Go ahead and pick any 45 year period you want in history and tell me that people who consistently invested lost money. In fact the longer you are in the market the more your overall rate of return approaches 10%.

And if you bothered to read any of my illustrations you'd see that I used much lower rates of return.

And again simple investing common sense tells us that the closer you are to retirement the less you should have in equities. If you're retiring in a year and you haven't divested yourself of the majority of your equity holdings then you deserve to be broke,



Prove that statement.





The math is simple. You go here

Simple savings calculator -- Bankrate.com

And punch in your average monthly amount of your income that was confiscated for SS over your life time. The go here

CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500

And use the average return of the market during the 40 years or so of your working career and then tell me how much your SS contributions would have been worth today

That's a faulty calculation. You would need your yearly SS contributions to make it accurate. Otherwise you're completely discounting the obvious fact that in down economies - when stocks are priced lower - people have less money to invest in stocks - and in up economies - when stocks tend to be higher - people have more to invest. Duh.

In fact very few people actually get the return of the S&P because of this very fact. "Dollar averaged" investing is great if your income continues to go up during a depression - but if that happened for everyone it wouldn't be a 'depression' would it?

Then do it year by year and I'll still be right.

Prove it.


Honestly I don't even know what you're comparing. Social Security isn't a bank savings account. When bank accounts are empty they are empty, yet social security will pay you as long as you live. Its closer to an annuity than a savings account.

 

[Skull Pilot]

? I haven't seen Romney or any prominent Republicans talking about ending Social Security.

Medicare is what they want to destroy.

Get rid of SS and people will be able to have enough saved for retirement that they won't need medicare.

You fuking kidding right? Most Americans have the financial acumen of..............you.

They buy when the market is up and sell when it is the worst possible time to sell.

And somehow you think that all of us Americans will all of a sudden be like.......Mitt?
Funny shit.

It's easy. You must have sheep like faith in the public education system right?

Why don't we teach kids something useful like how to understand the long term power of compound interest and dollar cost averaging?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

? I haven't seen Romney or any prominent Republicans talking about ending Social Security.

Medicare is what they want to destroy.

Get rid of SS and people will be able to have enough saved for retirement that they won't need medicare.

You fuking kidding right? Most Americans have the financial acumen of..............you.

They buy when the market is up and sell when it is the worst possible time to sell.

And somehow you think that all of us Americans will all of a sudden be like.......Mitt?
Funny shit.

We all just need to borrow money from out parents.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's a faulty calculation. You would need your yearly SS contributions to make it accurate. Otherwise you're completely discounting the obvious fact that in down economies - when stocks are priced lower - people have less money to invest in stocks - and in up economies - when stocks tend to be higher - people have more to invest. Duh.

In fact very few people actually get the return of the S&P because of this very fact. "Dollar averaged" investing is great if your income continues to go up during a depression - but if that happened for everyone it wouldn't be a 'depression' would it?

Then do it year by year and I'll still be right.

Prove it.


Honestly I don't even know what you're comparing. Social Security isn't a bank savings account. When bank accounts are empty they are empty, yet social security will pay you as long as you live. Its closer to an annuity than a savings account.

Annuities are a sucker's bet.

Money in an annuity always and I do mean always makes more for the company issuing the annuity than the company pays out

 

[zeke]

I got to admit that getting financial advice from a person that thinks negative equity in a home increases your net worth is probably financial advice I would ignore.

What say you skull?

Or do you not think that anymore?

Anyone that doesn't understand that -1 is greater than -100 is no one I would let count my money

And as I mentioned, any one that thinks owing more on a house than the market value of the house increases your net worth is, I don't know, think of a word. Stupid?

Did you apply for a loan yet using your negative net worth on your home as collateral yet?
What did the banker say? After he quit laughing?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then do it year by year and I'll still be right.

Prove it.


Honestly I don't even know what you're comparing. Social Security isn't a bank savings account. When bank accounts are empty they are empty, yet social security will pay you as long as you live. Its closer to an annuity than a savings account.

Annuities are a sucker's bet.

Money in an annuity always and I do mean always makes more for the company issuing the annuity than the company pays out

Not when the annuity holder lives past a certain age. ON AVERAGE the company makes more than it loses - but then again, if that weren't the case, they wouldn't be selling them, now would they?


BTW

For the 20 years ended December 31st, 2008, equity, fixed income and asset allocation fund investors had average annual returns of 1.87%, .77%, and 1.67% respectively. The inflation rate averaged 2.89% over the same time frame. Did any of these types of accounts make you money on your investments over that 20 year span?

The Real Average Returns of the Stock Market - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

I got to admit that getting financial advice from a person that thinks negative equity in a home increases your net worth is probably financial advice I would ignore.

What say you skull?

Or do you not think that anymore?

Anyone that doesn't understand that -1 is greater than -100 is no one I would let count my money

And as I mentioned, any one that thinks owing more on a house than the market value of the house increases your net worth is, I don't know, think of a word. Stupid?

You illustrate you absolute ignorance of simple math.

If your net worth was -100 and you paid off enough debt to bring it to -1 has your net worth increased or decreased?