Scheme to Loot Social Security Must be stopped,before Dems Think it's Smart Politics

[Skull Pilot]

The freedom to succeed goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Funny thing is that a guaranteed long term bond or CD outperforms the SS system... I'd rather take my chances on my own investing than have the government continue to rape my paycheck and abuse the funds to spend on bullshit

Not adjusted for risk it doesn't. Social Security will never default. No private investment can say that.

If you're afraid of risk, fund an annuity. You'll still beat the government

 

[Joe Steel]

Like 401(k)s!

They'll never lose money.

A 401 K is only as good as the investments one chooses.

Exactly...and that's the problem. The average Ameican isn't competent to manage his retirement funds. He's more likely to lose than win.

Compare that to the maximum SS benefit of $25,392 per year or a measly $2,116 per month and tell me we wouldn't all be better off if we controlled our SS contributions.

OK.

We wouldn't all be better off.

Some investors would lose everything to poor decisions, business cycles and fraud. That may be OK in the abstract but it's intolerable in the real world. Those "losers" will have no source of retirement funds. The rest of us would have to let them the starve to death on the streets or support them. Either would be poor public policy.

 

[DiamondDave]

The freedom to succeed goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Funny thing is that a guaranteed long term bond or CD outperforms the SS system... I'd rather take my chances on my own investing than have the government continue to rape my paycheck and abuse the funds to spend on bullshit

Not adjusted for risk it doesn't. Social Security will never default. No private investment can say that.

ABSOLUTE HORSE SHIT

I can get a FDIC insured CD or a bond that will match and beat it easily adjusted for risk....

As for SS not 'ever' defaulting.... also HORSE SHIT.... perhaps you should do some reading on where SS is headed

You are a bigger moron than what I first thought when you joined this board

 

[Skull Pilot]

Like 401(k)s!

They'll never lose money.

A 401 K is only as good as the investments one chooses.

Exactly...and that's the problem. The average Ameican isn't competent to manage his retirement funds. He's more likely to lose than win.

Compare that to the maximum SS benefit of $25,392 per year or a measly $2,116 per month and tell me we wouldn't all be better off if we controlled our SS contributions.

OK.

We wouldn't all be better off.

Some investors would lose everything to poor decisions, business cycles and fraud. That may be OK in the abstract but it's intolerable in the real world. Those "losers" will have no source of retirement funds. The rest of us would have to let them the starve to death on the streets or support them. Either would be poor public policy.

it is highly unlikely that people would lose it all over 45 years of dollar cost averaging in a conservative, balanced portfolio

You don't understand investing very well if you believe that.

Shit if they put the money in CDs earning 3% over 45 years, they'd still do better than Social security.

And stop with the hyperbole.

 

[Joe Steel]

The freedom to succeed goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Funny thing is that a guaranteed long term bond or CD outperforms the SS system... I'd rather take my chances on my own investing than have the government continue to rape my paycheck and abuse the funds to spend on bullshit

Not adjusted for risk it doesn't. Social Security will never default. No private investment can say that.

If you're afraid of risk, fund an annuity. You'll still beat the government

Not adjusted for risk. SS funds are invested in US Treasuries. They're the definition of "risk free." No annuity can say that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh please, one fourth of all public employees don't even pay into Social Security and growing. In fact 500K left on the federal side hired before 1983 who don't pay in either. These government workers are mostly Democrats. In one breath they support Social Security, and in the next, they don't pay into the system. Do you know most of the management at Social Security, a Democrat kingdom, do not pay into the system? Most hired before 1983. These are the folks who make recommendations to your Congress on SS reform. Nice gig huh? With your money.

Government workers, both state and federal who don't pay into SS pay 7.5% of their income into their respective pension plans instead of SS. At retirement, in most cases the employing agency will use the employee contributions to partially fund an annuity that will result in the retiree's income. So those government workers do not collect SS unless they paid into it from another job.

That aside, we would all be better off if we controlled that 15% of our lifetime earnings rather than letting the government have it.

Sounds suspiciously like the Bush retirement plan.

It looks like they put it into practice...but only for a select few.


I love the way our government works......they take advantage of all of the great deals and force us into their shit programs.

 

[Joe Steel]

The freedom to succeed goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Funny thing is that a guaranteed long term bond or CD outperforms the SS system... I'd rather take my chances on my own investing than have the government continue to rape my paycheck and abuse the funds to spend on bullshit

Not adjusted for risk it doesn't. Social Security will never default. No private investment can say that.

ABSOLUTE HORSE SHIT

I can get a FDIC insured CD or a bond that will match and beat it easily adjusted for risk....

As for SS not 'ever' defaulting.... also HORSE SHIT.... perhaps you should do some reading on where SS is headed

You are a bigger moron than what I first thought when you joined this board

Try again, dumbass.

No one in Congress who allows SS to default ever will be reelected. It never will.

Secondly, the only risk-free securities available are US Treasuries. The pay less than SS; at least in the denominations the average person can afford. FDIC insured CDs might be an option but I don't think so. Right now CDs aren't paying much, 1 - 2% mostly. That's less than SS, too.

 

[Joe Steel]

OK.

We wouldn't all be better off.

Some investors would lose everything to poor decisions, business cycles and fraud. That may be OK in the abstract but it's intolerable in the real world. Those "losers" will have no source of retirement funds. The rest of us would have to let them the starve to death on the streets or support them. Either would be poor public policy.

it is highly unlikely that people would lose it all over 45 years of dollar cost averaging in a conservative, balanced portfolio

You don't understand investing very well if you believe that.

Well enough to know I'm right and you're wrong. Investors are lose everything all the time, especially when the work for a livinging in areas other than finance. Just look at what happened to Bernie Madoff's clients. They gave him their money and now they have nothing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

OK.

We wouldn't all be better off.

Some investors would lose everything to poor decisions, business cycles and fraud. That may be OK in the abstract but it's intolerable in the real world. Those "losers" will have no source of retirement funds. The rest of us would have to let them the starve to death on the streets or support them. Either would be poor public policy.

it is highly unlikely that people would lose it all over 45 years of dollar cost averaging in a conservative, balanced portfolio

You don't understand investing very well if you believe that.

Well enough to know I'm right and you're wrong. Investors are lose everything all the time, especially when the work for a livinging in areas other than finance. Just look at what happened to Bernie Madoff's clients. They gave him their money and now they have nothing.

Irrelevant.

People are responsible for learning how to handle their own money. You don't have to have a financial adviser to understand the basics of investing and if I might add, do quite well. All it takes is a little time and effort to educate yourself.

But we can't ask that people actually do that can we?

I should not have to pay for someone's laziness or stupidity in their financial choices.

Maybe instead of all these stupid social programs that the government mandates in schools, we should be teaching kids how to handle their money.

tell me what would have been more useful a course on multiculturalism or a course on finance?

 

[Joe Steel]

Well enough to know I'm right and you're wrong. Investors are lose everything all the time, especially when the work for a livinging in areas other than finance. Just look at what happened to Bernie Madoff's clients. They gave him their money and now they have nothing.

Irrelevant.

People are responsible for learning how to handle their own money. You don't have to have a financial adviser to understand the basics of investing and if I might add, do quite well. All it takes is a little time and effort to educate yourself.

But we can't ask that people actually do that can we?

No.

Public policy has to serve everyone, including those who never will be able to manage their own money. Casting them adrift on sea full of sharks would be immoral.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well enough to know I'm right and you're wrong. Investors are lose everything all the time, especially when the work for a livinging in areas other than finance. Just look at what happened to Bernie Madoff's clients. They gave him their money and now they have nothing.

Irrelevant.

People are responsible for learning how to handle their own money. You don't have to have a financial adviser to understand the basics of investing and if I might add, do quite well. All it takes is a little time and effort to educate yourself.

But we can't ask that people actually do that can we?

No.

Public policy has to serve everyone, including those who never will be able to manage their own money. Casting them adrift on sea full of sharks would be immoral.

more hyperbole

There can be safety nets.

And sorry but the only people who "can never be able to manage their own money" as you say are the mentally retarded and there are already systems in place for them

 

[Joe Steel]

No.

Public policy has to serve everyone, including those who never will be able to manage their own money. Casting them adrift on sea full of sharks would be immoral.

more hyperbole

There can be safety nets.

And sorry but the only people who "can never be able to manage their own money" as you say are the mentally retarded and there are already systems in place for them

Who do you think hires financial advisors?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No.

Public policy has to serve everyone, including those who never will be able to manage their own money. Casting them adrift on sea full of sharks would be immoral.

more hyperbole

There can be safety nets.

And sorry but the only people who "can never be able to manage their own money" as you say are the mentally retarded and there are already systems in place for them

Who do you think hires financial advisors?

people like you.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not adjusted for risk it doesn't. Social Security will never default. No private investment can say that.

If you're afraid of risk, fund an annuity. You'll still beat the government

Not adjusted for risk. SS funds are invested in US Treasuries. They're the definition of "risk free." No annuity can say that.

Yet it does not pay the same interest of those securities...

Yeah.. THAT's a WISE investment

 

[Joe Steel]

more hyperbole

There can be safety nets.

And sorry but the only people who "can never be able to manage their own money" as you say are the mentally retarded and there are already systems in place for them

Who do you think hires financial advisors?

people like you.

That's seems like an admission I'm correct.

If it were true, it would prove the point.

 

[Joe Steel]

If you're afraid of risk, fund an annuity. You'll still beat the government

Not adjusted for risk. SS funds are invested in US Treasuries. They're the definition of "risk free." No annuity can say that.

Yet it does not pay the same interest of those securities...

Yeah.. THAT's a WISE investment

High return investments pay high returns because they are relatively risky. You do realize that, don't you?

 

[DiamondDave]

Not adjusted for risk. SS funds are invested in US Treasuries. They're the definition of "risk free." No annuity can say that.

Yet it does not pay the same interest of those securities...

Yeah.. THAT's a WISE investment

High return investments pay high returns because they are relatively risky. You do realize that, don't you?

We're not even talking about high investment returns outperforming SS... return per tax dollar in SS are laughable... SS is horrid in what it returns on investment... plus say you croak at 59 without drawing from SS... if you don't meet strict eligibility requirements your family gets nothing, where a personal account they would

Plus, as we have mentioned before, this is forced savings... and if I would choose risk, I should have that freedom... if I choose 100% safe, I should have that freedom.... if I would choose balanced investments in the market, bonds, annuities, securities, etc, I should have that freedom

 

[editec]

The social security bankroll is nothing more than government T bills.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Who do you think hires financial advisors?

people like you.

That's seems like an admission I'm correct.

If it were true, it would prove the point.

no it's an admission that you're mentally retarded.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not adjusted for risk. SS funds are invested in US Treasuries. They're the definition of "risk free." No annuity can say that.

Yet it does not pay the same interest of those securities...

Yeah.. THAT's a WISE investment

High return investments pay high returns because they are relatively risky. You do realize that, don't you?

the 5, 7, and 8% returns I used as an example are conservative returns not high.

If I used 10, 12 or 14% in my example, you would have a point but as usual you don't