Thank You Seven Years of Bush VooDoo Eek Anomics

[rayboyusmc]

[NEW YORK - The economic downturn is hitting roughly one in 10 middle-aged and older Americans especially hard, compelling them to borrow money for everyday living expenses and to seek help from family, friends or charities, according to a survey released Tuesday by the AARP.

I know it's Clinton's fault, but I am still in denial.

In the telephone survey of 1,002 adults 45 and older, nearly four in 10 said they had helped a child pay bills or expenses. Among retirees, one-third said they'd helped their children pay bills. Eight percent said they'd helped a parent pay bills or expenses. The survey's margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

One-third of survey participants said they stopped putting money into their 401(k) or retirement account and 14 percent said they had cut back on their medications.
/QUOTE]

Wasn't there a surplus back in the pre Bush years. Oh, that's right like the Dick said, deficits don't matter. That is true if you are already rich and don't need to worry about your choice of medicine or food, you Dick.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_survey

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh look another retard post by the board liberal hack. Remind us again how we should all "just get along".

 

[Dogger]

Ohh look another retard post by the board liberal hack. Remind us again how we should all "just get along".

If you had a real argument to offer, wouldn't it be better to go with that instead of this tired routine you have?

You are less than interesting. You are a bore.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Ohh look another retard post by the board liberal hack. Remind us again how we should all "just get along".

What an inane response, Retired. Getting along does not mean we all agree on everything. Bush squandered the surplus and Cheney said that deficit spending doesn't matter. Can you spell fuckingrecession?

If you were some rich bastard, I could see you kissing up Bush's ass, but what has he done for you? If he had won, you would not even have the SS to fall back on. The SS you paid for all those years.

The very fact that you immediately degenerate down into name calling would seem to indicate it is a case of the conservative retard calling the liberal a hack.

Lighten up. Take some more meds. Get them cheaper from Canada. Get some Niagra for you sex life.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact is that if we got rid of SS and everyone of us was to put 7.5 % of what we earn plus a 7.5% employer match (which are the same as we are all paying to the gov't slush fund called social security) from age 18 to age 65 into a retirement account we would all be better off than we would be on SS. here are some simple numbers

lets say that from age 24 to age 65 a person earning the median income of 2004 of just shy or 45 K (we'll call it 45K) and lets assume he gets no increases 15% of his annual income is $6750 his 7.5% contribution is 3375 divide by 12 for a monthly contribution of 281.15 so the total monthly contribution to his retirement account is 562.3 we'll round up to 563

over 41 years that monthly contribution at a mere 10% the resulting retirement fund will be over 3,500,000 bukaroos.

get 13% over that time and you will have over 9.2 million bucks.

for those of you who think 13% is not possible here is just one mutual fund that has averaged over 15% since 1978

http://www.americanfunds.com/funds/details.htm?fundNumber=5#historical-date-select

these numbers don't take into account any increase in income over a 40 year period and using a 10% return is well below what is available so tell me that SS is better than this without sounding like an idiot especially since you don't have to be fucking rich to do it.

 

[Dogger]

The fact is that if we got rid of SS and everyone of us was to put 7.5 % of what we earn plus a 7.5% employer match (which are the same as we are all paying to the gov't slush fund called social security) from age 18 to age 65 into a retirement account we would all be better off than we would be on SS. here are some simple numbers. . . .

Where are your numbers for the value of the SS disability insurance component? That's a signigicant part of your coverage, yet you only focus on the retirement figures. It's hard to believe you've thought this through completely when you haven't thought this through completely.

SS disability insurance allows people like RGS to have a better life. He probably couldn't afford his computer without it. Despite this clear and significant downside, SS disability insurance also helps worthy people.

Also, what do you do when people make bad investments and get wiped out?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Social Security works. That may be why some on the right hate it.

If they try and take it away before I retire, then I will just have to sue the bastards.

The people like Bush who want to turn it into a private bonanza for their rich buddies don't need it, so why should they care.

 

[midcan5]

The fact is that if we got rid of SS and everyone of us was to put 7.5 % of what we earn plus a 7.5% employer match (which are the same as we are all paying to the gov't slush fund called social security) from age 18 to age 65 into a retirement account we would all be better off than we would be on SS. here are some simple numbers

That's total BS, anyone who plays the market, sort of like playing the horses, knows that diversification is key. And conservative investments after 50-55 depending on your income and tolerance etc.

And social security is social insurance, one of the few great things Americans do for each other, many of whom are in great need.

One man's retirement math: Social Security wins

At the heart of President Bush's plan to sell Social Security private accounts is a simple notion: You're always better off investing your retirement money than letting the government do it.

By doing it yourself, you can stow some money in the stock market, and over the long run will get a better return on that investment than today's Social Security system offers.

Just ask Stanley Logue of San Diego.

For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration?

You guessed it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where are your numbers for the value of the SS disability insurance component? That's a signigicant part of your coverage, yet you only focus on the retirement figures. It's hard to believe you've thought this through completely when you haven't thought this through completely.

SS disability insurance allows people like RGS to have a better life. He probably couldn't afford his computer without it. Despite this clear and significant downside, SS disability insurance also helps worthy people.

Also, what do you do when people make bad investments and get wiped out?

one can buy his own disability insurance if the gov't let one keep more of his money. and a little research and diligence will protect your assets there are plenty of resources around to do that or you could learn youraself and stop trusting the gov't to take care of you

 

[Dogger]

one can buy his own disability insurance if the gov't let one keep more of his money. and a little research and diligence will protect your assets there are plenty of resources around to do that or you could learn youraself and stop trusting the gov't to take care of you

Then you need to adjust your numbers to reflect the premiums for that insurance. Since it's currently part of the FICA payments, you have less to invest in you overly optimistic scenario.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's total BS, anyone who plays the market, sort of like playing the horses, knows that diversification is key. And conservative investments after 50-55 depending on your income and tolerance etc.

And social security is social insurance, one of the few great things Americans do for each other, many of whom are in great need.

One man's retirement math: Social Security wins

At the heart of President Bush's plan to sell Social Security private accounts is a simple notion: You're always better off investing your retirement money than letting the government do it.

By doing it yourself, you can stow some money in the stock market, and over the long run will get a better return on that investment than today's Social Security system offers.

Just ask Stanley Logue of San Diego.

For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration?

You guessed it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

one guy would do better so we should ALL have to do worse than we could. typical liberal crap.

I only used one fund in my post to hopefully inspire others to see what else is out there if you'd like, i can take some time and build you a mock portfolio that would have out performed the market over the last 40 years or here's a thought do it yourself because i am too busy to do it for you. and the fact that i used a contribution that did not increase over 40 years offsets the more conservative choices one would pick closer to retirement where less of a return is earned because contributions would increase over time .

if one was to be responsible and save just 5% more than the required 7.5% one would do much much better in fact most advisors will tell you that 20% of your gross in the absolute minimum you should be saving for retirement

read some stuff by warren buffet and tell me that he just got lucky "playing the horses" long term investing is LESS risky than putting your money in a CD, I'll let you figure out why if you can.

 

[Paulie]

When you guys argue for SS, and say "what about bad investments", you assume that the government and ONLY the government knows what's best for us.

I'd rather have my money in my pocket, with the freedom to invest it where I choose, instead of being FORCED to give it to the government, so they can play with it for 60 years and then disperse it to me how they choose.

I wouldn't personally be so against SS like I am if they would at least keep their grubby hands the fuck OFF the fund. I get taxed for a planned retirement of the nation, and the money going into the retirement fund is a fun-money extravaganza for the gov. until I finally retire.

The bottom line is, government does not know what's best for us. Sadly, there are idiots out there who do NOT know what's best for themselves, but that is not, and SHOULD not, be my problem.

The bottom line is our social structure has broken down to a point where I'm not sure it'll ever be fixed. People are idiots, and the government thrives on that.

70, 80 years ago, most people knew EXACTLY how to take care of themselves. Now, we're so accustomed to the gov. stepping in and "saving" our asses and running our lives from start to finish, that too many people haven't got the slightest CLUE how to take of their OWN lives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then you need to adjust your numbers to reflect the premiums for that insurance. Since it's currently part of the FICA payments, you have less to invest in you overly optimistic scenario.

overly optimistic?? the numbers i use are historical fact not pie in the sky. have you ever even bothered to learn about investing or are you like most american sheep and just hope the government will save you??

and if you want to do all the research on insurance and figure it out feel free. i am not going to do it for you so maybe you can learn a little something and be able to take care of yourself. you know the old "teach a man to fish thing"

 

[Zoomie1980]

one can buy his own disability insurance if the gov't let one keep more of his money. and a little research and diligence will protect your assets there are plenty of resources around to do that or you could learn youraself and stop trusting the gov't to take care of you

Government can do almost NOTHING well, including investing retirement portfolio's. Remember, government wants to CONTROL you. They want to dictate what charitable cause you donate to, what types of cars you drive, what you do with virtually ALL aspects of your life. It's the liberal wet dream. And it's biggest proponents are of course the very self-proclaim "intellectual elite" who would do the dictating because, after all, they are smart and you are too STUPID to take care of yourself...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Government can do almost NOTHING well, including investing retirement portfolio's. Remember, government wants to CONTROL you. They want to dictate what charitable cause you donate to, what types of cars you drive, what you do with virtually ALL aspects of your life. It's the liberal wet dream. And it's biggest proponents are of course the very self-proclaim "intellectual elite" who would do the dictating because, after all, they are smart and you are too STUPID to take care of yourself...

And they would exempt themselves from the restrictions. As usual.

 

[Alpha1]

And they would exempt themselves from the restrictions. As usual.

And what is truely amazing...the Dim liberals don't even raise an eyebrow about it....SS is for the masses, but the gov. workers want a good old fashion retirement package...
While the elite eat the meat the Dim libs say, "Oh look what a nice big bone they've given us"....
Its the wonderful working mans party taking care of us....

 

[Dogger]

*** yada, yada, yada, yada, ***

and if you want to do all the research on insurance and figure it out feel free. i am not going to do it for you so maybe you can learn a little something and be able to take care of yourself. you know the old "teach a man to fish thing"

The "teach a man to fish thing" means he'll eat nothing but fish.

You are the one who provided return estimates based upon investing the entire 15% of annual income that goes to FICA. But if you reduce that amount by the cost of the disability insurance that you and other right-wingers never seem to remember, the contributions and subsequent return are much less.

You are the one who provided misleading figures, and I explained that. Your entire projection has been invalidated because you ignored an obvious and significant factor.

It is not my responsiblity to correct your shoddy work. Do you expect your teachers to redo your homework when you fuck it up? It is your obligation to either withdraw your bogus projections, do it right, or STFU.

 

[jreeves]

The "teach a man to fish thing" means he'll eat nothing but fish.

You are the one who provided return estimates based upon investing the entire 15% of annual income that goes to FICA. But if you reduce that amount by the cost of the disability insurance that you and other right-wingers never seem to remember, the contributions and subsequent return are much less.

You are the one who provided misleading figures, and I explained that. Your entire projection has been invalidated because you ignored an obvious and significant factor.

It is not my responsiblity to correct your shoddy work. Do you expect your teachers to redo your homework when you fuck it up? It is your obligation to either withdraw your bogus projections, do it right, or STFU.

I guess Skull Pilot's projections would hold true for some that already have disability insurance that is portable between employers.

But regardless, income redistribution programs such as Social Security never work here's why they don't.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1155

1. Taxes for the purpose of income redistribution discourage the taxpayers from earning taxable income or raising the value of taxable property through investment. People who stand to lose part of their earnings respond to the altered personal payoff. As a result, they produce fewer goods and services and accumulate less wealth than they otherwise would. Hence the society is poorer, both now and later.

2. Transfer payments discourage the recipients from earning income now and from investing in their potential to earn future income. People respond to a reduced cost of idleness by choosing to be idle more often. When they can get current income without earning it, they exert less effort to earn income. When they expect to get future income without earning it, they invest less in education, training, job experience, personal health, migration, and other forms of human capital that enhance their potential to earn income in the future. Hence the society is even poorer, both now and later, than it would have been merely because taxes discourage current production and investment by the taxpayers who fund the transfers.

6. Just as recipients engage in internecine warfare, so do taxpayers, who resent disproportionate burdens in funding the transfers. For instance, young people now learn that their Social Security taxes are going straight into the pockets of retired people who as a group are better off. Young taxpayers also learn that they probably will never recoup their own contributions, unlike the present-day elderly, who have realized an extraordinarily high effective rate of return on their contributions. (Currently the average married couple gets back everything ever paid in, with interest, in just over four years. )4 Black Social Security taxpayers learn that, because of their lower life expectancy, they cannot expect to receive as much retirement income as the average white person can expect. Taxpayers who consider themselves disproportionately burdened grow to resent their exploitation by the tax-and-transfer system. Therefore they give more support to politicians who promise to defend their pocketbooks against legislative marauders, and they strive harder to avoid or evade taxes.

15. In the end many citizens will pay taxes to finance the transfers. Even if no one tries to resist the taxes or alters his behavior in supplying labor and capital, the cost to taxpayers will be more than one dollar for each dollar taken by the government, because it is costly just to comply with the tax laws. Taxpayers must keep records, research the tax rules, fill out forms, and all the rest. These activities require time and effort withdrawn from valuable alternative uses. Many people, even though they intend nothing more than full compliance with the law, hire the expert assistance of accountants and tax preparers—the tax rules are so complicated that mere mortals cannot cope. Use of resources to comply with tax laws makes the society poorer.

According to a study by James L. Payne, just the private compliance expense of taxpayers plus the budgetary and enforcement expense of the IRS add $270,000,000 to the tab for each billion dollars of spending by the federal government.7
17. Just as taxpayers must employ resources to comply with the tax laws, so recipients of transfers must employ resources to establish and maintain their eligibility to receive the transfers. For example, recipients of unemployment insurance benefits must visit the department of employment security and wait in long lines to certify that they are indeed unemployed. Sometimes they must go from place to place applying for jobs, which they may have no intention of accepting, in order to demonstrate that they are “seeking employment.” Recipients of disability insurance benefits must visit doctors and other health professionals to acquire certification that they are indeed disabled. In each case, more resources are squandered, and society is that much poorer.

As James Madison remarked more than two centuries ago, “one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding.”8 When the government created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, for example, it set in motion a train of events that led inexorably to the subsequent “crisis” of escalating health-care costs and thence to the bigger government now being wrought by congressional efforts to deal with this artificial crisis.

But do keep telling yourself that the government can provide better for us than we can provide for ourselves. It's a typical entitled attitude, the government needs to wipe my ass because I can't wipe it for myself.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I guess Skull Pilot's projections would hold true for some that already have disability insurance that is portable between employers.

But regardless, income redistribution programs such as Social Security never work here's why they don't.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1155

1. Taxes for the purpose of income redistribution discourage the taxpayers from earning taxable income or raising the value of taxable property through investment. People who stand to lose part of their earnings respond to the altered personal payoff. As a result, they produce fewer goods and services and accumulate less wealth than they otherwise would. Hence the society is poorer, both now and later.

2. Transfer payments discourage the recipients from earning income now and from investing in their potential to earn future income. People respond to a reduced cost of idleness by choosing to be idle more often. When they can get current income without earning it, they exert less effort to earn income. When they expect to get future income without earning it, they invest less in education, training, job experience, personal health, migration, and other forms of human capital that enhance their potential to earn income in the future. Hence the society is even poorer, both now and later, than it would have been merely because taxes discourage current production and investment by the taxpayers who fund the transfers.

6. Just as recipients engage in internecine warfare, so do taxpayers, who resent disproportionate burdens in funding the transfers. For instance, young people now learn that their Social Security taxes are going straight into the pockets of retired people who as a group are better off. Young taxpayers also learn that they probably will never recoup their own contributions, unlike the present-day elderly, who have realized an extraordinarily high effective rate of return on their contributions. (Currently the average married couple gets back everything ever paid in, with interest, in just over four years. )4 Black Social Security taxpayers learn that, because of their lower life expectancy, they cannot expect to receive as much retirement income as the average white person can expect. Taxpayers who consider themselves disproportionately burdened grow to resent their exploitation by the tax-and-transfer system. Therefore they give more support to politicians who promise to defend their pocketbooks against legislative marauders, and they strive harder to avoid or evade taxes.

15. In the end many citizens will pay taxes to finance the transfers. Even if no one tries to resist the taxes or alters his behavior in supplying labor and capital, the cost to taxpayers will be more than one dollar for each dollar taken by the government, because it is costly just to comply with the tax laws. Taxpayers must keep records, research the tax rules, fill out forms, and all the rest. These activities require time and effort withdrawn from valuable alternative uses. Many people, even though they intend nothing more than full compliance with the law, hire the expert assistance of accountants and tax preparers—the tax rules are so complicated that mere mortals cannot cope. Use of resources to comply with tax laws makes the society poorer.

According to a study by James L. Payne, just the private compliance expense of taxpayers plus the budgetary and enforcement expense of the IRS add $270,000,000 to the tab for each billion dollars of spending by the federal government.7
17. Just as taxpayers must employ resources to comply with the tax laws, so recipients of transfers must employ resources to establish and maintain their eligibility to receive the transfers. For example, recipients of unemployment insurance benefits must visit the department of employment security and wait in long lines to certify that they are indeed unemployed. Sometimes they must go from place to place applying for jobs, which they may have no intention of accepting, in order to demonstrate that they are “seeking employment.” Recipients of disability insurance benefits must visit doctors and other health professionals to acquire certification that they are indeed disabled. In each case, more resources are squandered, and society is that much poorer.

As James Madison remarked more than two centuries ago, “one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding.”8 When the government created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, for example, it set in motion a train of events that led inexorably to the subsequent “crisis” of escalating health-care costs and thence to the bigger government now being wrought by congressional efforts to deal with this artificial crisis.

But do keep telling yourself that the government can provide better for us than we can provide for ourselves. It's a typical entitled attitude, the government needs to wipe my ass because I can't wipe it for myself.

Boiled down to it's most basic component, economic liberalism, aka socialism, run counter to basic human nature while capitalism is the embodiment of that nature in economic terms...

Stated another way, liberals believe the human species has evolved much more than it really has. We are many eons, not decades, from the point where the accumulation of material goods is no longer the prime concern of individual human endeavor...

 

[Skull Pilot]

The "teach a man to fish thing" means he'll eat nothing but fish.

You are the one who provided return estimates based upon investing the entire 15% of annual income that goes to FICA. But if you reduce that amount by the cost of the disability insurance that you and other right-wingers never seem to remember, the contributions and subsequent return are much less.

You are the one who provided misleading figures, and I explained that. Your entire projection has been invalidated because you ignored an obvious and significant factor.

It is not my responsiblity to correct your shoddy work. Do you expect your teachers to redo your homework when you fuck it up? It is your obligation to either withdraw your bogus projections, do it right, or STFU.

don't teach a man to fish and he can eat government cheese the rest of his life. I'll take the fish.

Actually if you read my post, you would have seen that i used 10% and 13% not 15%, i linked to just one mutual fund that has a 30 year track record of earning 15% so why don't you get your facts straight before you tell me I'm wrong.

if this was homework you would have failed for not getting your facts right

it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure out or at least to extrapolate that disability insurance does not appreciably affect the numbers. and here is a little info in SS disability

http://www.disability-insurance-center.com/disability_insurance_overview.html

and if you want to know, a 24 year old making 45K can get a DI policy that will pay him 2700 per month for a mere 75 bucks a month (better benefits than SS)

http://www.instantdisabilityinsurancequote.com/Default.aspx

you'll see that SS will pay only 1600 a month to someone earning 70K a year. i'd say my policy is a better value no???????


here I'll hold your hand as i explain so the thought of life without government help doesn't scare you.

if a married couple, and most people are married so don't start whining about the single people because single people have much lower expenses than married folks so saving for them should be even easier, both put 15% of their money away using my numbers from my first post at a 10% average return after 40 years they would have about 6.5 million do you really think that if they spent over that same 40 years about 200 a month on DI that they would even have to use any of the 15% they save for retirement. hell that's less than a cable bill for christ's sake. and you are forgetting that most people also contribute to a 401k or other employer sponsored retirement plan add that to my numbers and the future for these people is even better than my projections.

you think that just because the government provides insurance through SS that it MUST not be able to be had at a better value. well you can get a better DI policy that pays better benefits for peanuts