Social Security Privatize?

[archangel]

Your position sounds like one of someone who does not invest themselves, due to not knowing anything about how investing works.

It is not a bad thing, just not a strong position to make an arguement.

Do you currently make any investments, or 401K contributions? If not, you should be very afraid that there will be no safety net for you...unless you are over 55, and it will have no effect on you, at all.

Those over 55 will not be affected by any changes that are undertaken.

Excuse me former Marine...I invested in my country by serving...I never expected to get rich..it is not that important to me...freedom is...duh!
I get along fine in retirement...I do not overspend or borrow...I enjoy what little I have as long as others can eat and have a place to sleep...geez..a new concept here... You are an embarrassment to the corps...why did you serve anyway? To get rich...humm...forgive me for being honest and compassionant... :usa:

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Excuse me former Marine...I invested in my country by serving...I never expected to get rich..it is not that important to me...freedom is...duh!
I get along fine in retirement...I do not overspend or borrow...I enjoy what little I have as long as others can eat and have a place to sleep...geez..a new concept here... You are an embarrassment to the corps...why did you serve anyway? To get rich...humm...forgive me for being honest and compassionant... :usa:

I will let other Marines judge whether I am an embarrassment, and you can judge others, thank you very much!

Much respect to a veteran....if you are indeed retired, what is your complaint with trying to fix the system who will retire in the future?

I, too have invested in my country, and continue to do so, by actively participating. I tip my hat to you for your concern. I just don't think you have all the facts. You seem to think that a few instances of Wall Street abuse is an indictment of the entire system.

Do you want the historical records for broad based indexes, or are you going to revert to personal insults in an effort to divert attention away from the topic we are discussing.

Is there anything wrong with wanting to retire with more than enough in the bank to do all the things I want to do, and leave some to my son and family?

I would want nothing more for any person who is willing to work hard to bank as much as they want or can, and spend their golden years basking in the rewards of their young energy, not be confined to a pension that is limiting, and they have no ownership in.

What about all the hardworking folks who have paid in, and passed away shortly after retirement...should they government get to keep the money they earned, or should it be allowed to pass to their heirs?

 

[archangel]

Because they spend it on Government Programs. Where have you been all your life? Only on college campuses? The Government does not hold the money you put into SS in some account somewhere they spend the fricking money on everything except SS robbing from your future. Since they do not have the money to put into the stock market they simply cannot.

GW takes a very small portion and allows you to put it into accounts that are actually yours gauranteeing a small amount of the money will be there for your retirement, rather than robbing Peter to pay Paul you will actually have access to some of your money making this into an actual retirement account rather than a simple welfare program.

:spank3: Uh if you read my original post...I am aware of the abuse in redirecting SSA funds..and by the way I only finished two years of college...went on to serve in the military and a career in law enforcement..and what did you do to serve..except investing in your personal cause..humm...I like to help those less able-thats why I served...money is okay but won't get ya to heaven thats my goal,and what is yours? :spank3:

 

[Merlin1047]

Okay guys ya all blasted me...now answer my question..I responded but it disappeared(pun)If you and GW's proposal is so great and guaranteed...then why hasn't the government invested the SSA retirement money in Wall Street?humm...maybe they know something we don't..if so I should be receiving some $6200.00 per month rather than the $872.00 average...get real pipe dreams are fun...but not realistic...if ya all want to give up your safety zone...so be it...but let the rest of us enjoy what little we have...lol..
:chillpill

See - that's part of the problem. None of you old fossils can tolerate change or new ideas.

:funnyface

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think offering options for investing my hard earned cash is the best way to do it. I know I have a moral obligation to continue to support the social security system for those that are over 55, but those that are younger need to take responsibility for themselves, and use their own money (the FICA money taken out of your check) and decide how to invest it for themselves. If you chose to leave it in a government run program, then that is fine, but if you chose other options, then you have a greater chance of success.

Here is an example of how it will succeed:

Social Security Example:
Joe is your average American. He makes $7 per hour and works a 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year.

$7/hr x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = $14,560/yr.

Currently, all workers are paying 15% of their income into Social Security. President Bush is proposing that people be allowed to take 2% of that and invest it to help build their retirement. In our example, 2% is to $24.27 per month.

$14,560/yr. x .02 = $291.02/yr. ($24.27 a month)

Take that $24.27 a month and invest it into a decent growth stock mutual fund at an average of 12% interest per year, and you would have $947,815 at retirement.

From age 20-70 = 50 yrs. = $947,815

At retirement, you could take 8% of the interest per year and live on it. You could leave the other 4% to account for inflation and still be better off than when you were working.

Retirement Income at 8% = $6318 a month

Now if you make more than $7 per hour, you are able to invest more.

$30,000/yr salary = $2 million at retirement - $12,600/month
$45,000/yr salary = $3 million at retirement - $18,900/month
$60,000/yr salary = $4 million at retirement - $25,370/month
$75,000/yr salary = $5 million at retirement - $31,000/month

In this example, it is easy to see that you could enjoy a higher standard of living after retirement if you were allowed to control a small portion of your money that goes to Social Security from each paycheck

ow much is Social Security going to pay? figure on less than $2000 per month for your average wage earning American.

Those are pretty optimistic rates of return according to some. You might be interested in the recent challenge posed by Paul Krugman and the reply written by Donald Luskin:

Take the Krugman 6.5% Challenge
It’s dirty work (not really), but someone has to do it.

Paul Krugman and Dean Baker have a challenge for those of us who advocate Social Security reform with personal accounts.

Krugman, of course, is America’s most dangerous liberal pundit — but maybe you’ve never heard of Baker. He’s co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a leftist think-tank funded by George Soros. Krugman and Baker were recently cited as “excellent sources” on Social Security reform by the Communist Party USA.

Here’s the challenge, from Krugman’s New York Times column Tuesday:

Mr. Baker has devised a test he calls “no economist left behind”: he challenges economists to make a projection of economic growth, dividends and capital gains that will yield a 6.5 percent rate of return over 75 years. Not one economist who supports privatization has been willing to take the test.

But the offer still stands. Ladies and gentlemen, would you care to explain your position?

continued at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200502021117.asp

 

[no1tovote4]

:spank3: Uh if you read my original post...I am aware of the abuse in redirecting SSA funds..and by the way I only finished two years of college...went on to serve in the military and a career in law enforcement..and what did you do to serve..except investing in your personal cause..humm...I like to help those less able-thats why I served...money is okay but won't get ya to heaven thats my goal,and what is yours? :spank3:

4 years in the Navy as a Russian Translator, since you ask so nicely and with such respect...

I have no issue helping those less able, and if you had read my earlier posts that would be clear.

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy and personal attacks do little to convince me that you are really up to the challenge of debate.

My goal is not money as you so clearly assume in your post, but Enlightenment.

 

[spillmind]

hey georgie, why'd you blow the surplus if the system is going bankrupt?

i know the answer i'm going to get, if any, is that there really was NO surplus, right? it was all some fantasy that the wacko left dreamed up because they HATE our president!!!!

 

[no1tovote4]

hey georgie, why'd you blow the surplus if the system is going bankrupt?

i know the answer i'm going to get, if any, is that there really was NO surplus, right? it was all some fantasy that the wacko left dreamed up because they HATE our president!!!!

Ahhh Spilly, again with Ad Nauseam argument.

I always like this whole "surplus" argument. It was amazing, when the "surplus" was first being touted the Democrats wrote articles like this one:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/fake_surplus.html

Now they think it really existed and wasn't fake, however the wool was pulled over your eyes by the R's in Congress, Clinton, and the DNC. Simply there never was a surplus, it was "projected" to be such but heck I can make up numbers too.

 

[5stringJeff]

hey georgie, why'd you blow the surplus if the system is going bankrupt?

i know the answer i'm going to get, if any, is that there really was NO surplus, right? it was all some fantasy that the wacko left dreamed up because they HATE our president!!!!

Spilly, the system was going bankrupt already. Don't you remember Bill Clinton saying so in 1998?

 

[no1tovote4]

Uh if you read my original post...I am aware of the abuse in redirecting SSA funds..

If you knew the funds weren't there to invest in the stock market why ask such a question? My point was to remind you that they are being spent, as you had earlier mentioned but seemed to have forgotten.

 

[spillmind]

Ahhh Spilly, again with Ad Nauseam argument.

I always like this whole "surplus" argument. It was amazing, when the "surplus" was first being touted the Democrats wrote articles like this one:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/fake_surplus.html

Now they think it really existed and wasn't fake, however the wool was pulled over your eyes by the R's in Congress, Clinton, and the DNC. Simply there never was a surplus, it was "projected" to be such but heck I can make up numbers too.

LOL! true to form! thanks for the laughs!

 

[no1tovote4]

LOL! true to form! thanks for the laughs!

Oh, yes. I did forget to thank you for the laughs as well.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Those are pretty optimistic rates of return according to some. You might be interested in the recent challenge posed by Paul Krugman and the reply written by Donald Luskin:

So....an agressive 12% is high...10% is realistic, as witnessed by the returns of the S&P index. Those with less tolerance to risk, would have the option to put thier money in bonds or annuities....

It is abuot choice, and I think you'd agree that choice is preferable to a complete sham.

 

[archangel]

:fu2: Since I posted my opinion on SSA I went fro 39 and 1 to 35 and none...hummm! I guess I am in the wrong forum...Being a Registered conservative Independent...I guess ya have to be Repub or you are not informed as to what is good for ya...lol geez I have been a demo and repub in the past....both parties are so busy fighting themselves they fail to see the forest thru the trees....how sad...well guys go ahead and attack me...I still believe in God and his power...vs money and deceit...have fun...cause if ya run me off...oh well your loss is my gain...

 

[no1tovote4]

:fu2: Since I posted my opinion on SSA I went fro 39 and 1 to 35 and none...hummm! I guess I am in the wrong forum...Being a Registered conservative Independent...I guess ya have to be Repub or you are not informed as to what is good for ya...lol geez I have been a demo and repub in the past....both parties are so busy fighting themselves they fail to see the forest thru the trees....how sad...well guys go ahead and attack me...I still believe in God and his power...vs money and deceit...have fun...cause if ya run me off...oh well your loss is my gain...

Geez, what a thin skin! I mean really.

It could have been the more personal attacks and insults you were proferring rather than debate...

Sometimes it is how you are acting rather than the fact that we disagree. There are other people that have your opinion that are not insulting us in lieu of argument.

I personally am a Conservative Libertarian and often disagree with people on the site.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I'm not a big fan of God....not really concerned with he/she/it, with regard to this thread, unless he/she/it has a solution to fixing Social Security.

This is not a religious debate, in my opinion, but I do respect the fact that some have faith, and respect my rights to do as I choose (as long as I don't break any laws).

Back to the reformation (pun intended!)

 

[archangel]

Geez, what a thin skin! I mean really.

It could have been the more personal attacks and insults you were proferring rather than debate...

Sometimes it is how you are acting rather than the fact that we disagree. There are other people that have your opinion that are not insulting us in lieu of argument.

I personally am a Conservative Libertarian and often disagree with people on the site.[/QUOT

Good Lord dude did I not praise ya in the past....humm..you are the one who insults...maybe you rely on your Naval Training as a Interpreter too much! Debate-do you really know the meaning of the word or the party platform...hummm...?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So....an agressive 12% is high...10% is realistic, as witnessed by the returns of the S&P index. Those with less tolerance to risk, would have the option to put thier money in bonds or annuities....

It is abuot choice, and I think you'd agree that choice is preferable to a complete sham.

Absolutely. Even at the lower rates it is still a good deal, much better than government returns. I think it is very telling that Krugman is held in esteem by the Communist Party.

And once again, liberals are against CHOICE.

 

[no1tovote4]

Good Lord dude did I not praise ya in the past....humm..you are the one who insults...maybe you rely on your Naval Training as a Interpreter too much! Debate-do you really know the meaning of the word or the party platform...hummm...?

And haven't I also praised you in the past?

One exchange in which we disagree and you are ready to run?

Of course I do know what debate is but I also know what a fallacious argument is.

Since I wanted an exchange if ideas I answered your post, admittedly with sardonic comments, but that was in match to the sardonic comment in your post, and which I hoped would remind you of an earlier post where you said that SS money is spent in other areas. Your answer was to insult my integrity rather than answer my post.

Now which Party Platform are you asking about?

 

[archangel]

I'm not a big fan of God....not really concerned with he/she/it, with regard to this thread, unless he/she/it has a solution to fixing Social Security.

This is not a religious debate, in my opinion, but I do respect the fact that some have faith, and respect my rights to do as I choose (as long as I don't break any laws).

Back to the reformation (pun intended!)

:teeth: Uh huh..I am more convinced that you never served in combat..I never heard a guy in a foxhole say.."Save me or help me money!....geez it was always "Help me God for I need ya" hummm...have fun with your short lived stock accounts...yuk!