There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[bripat9643]

There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!
Yea, tell that to the economic meltdown Republicans caused during the Bush years. They were as right about deregulation as they are about gambling retirement savings in the stock market. There recent record on being right about stuff has been amazing in the last 15 years. Iraq, deregulation, the Bush Tax cuts, cut education, look how well it's all worked for the country.

Democrat sub-prime mortgages caused the meltdown, not the Republicans.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay, you want to invest the Trust Fund in the stock market instead of US treasury securities?

Fine, step one is, the Federal government has to come up with 2+ trillion in tax revenue to pay off the bonds.

Are you willing to see your income taxes go up to pay for that or do you just want to tack that onto the deficit and debt?

Why should the government have to come with anything if those bonds are an asset to the federal government as you continue to claim? Obviously, you realize they aren't an asset, that they're utterly worthless. You just admitted it.

Not only are you stupid, but you're also dishonest. In other words, you're a typical libturd.

 

[healthmyths]

Okay, you want to invest the Trust Fund in the stock market instead of US treasury securities?

Fine, step one is, the Federal government has to come up with 2+ trillion in tax revenue to pay off the bonds.

Are you willing to see your income taxes go up to pay for that or do you just want to tack that onto the deficit and debt?

OH my God! Where oh where did I want the Government to be involved in the stock market any more then they are NOW? I mean what the f..k is Qualitative Easing by the Federal reserve that prints more money so banks can lend more to buy more stocks? That's one of the stupidities of this economy! It is a FALSE premise!
MY point is LET ME decide where MY payroll taxes are put!
Am I young enough to let it ride on the risky stock market...YES if I'm 25 but NOT if I'm 65!
That's the point. WE ARE NOT ALL the same! I have different attitudes,etc, then you!
Great YOU want to blow it at 65 in the stock market THAT's YOUR choice!
I at 71 need it almost ALL to be in secured bonds,etc. NOT volatile equities!
But see that's where people like you still don't grasp that WE ARE ALL individuals..NOT a collective!

 

[bripat9643]

It seems a bit of a stretch to declare that investing in the stock market is safe.

This thread is really just about the absurdity of radical rightwingers trying to justify some sort of extremist privatization ideology that they've been programmed to worship.

Yeah, right. privatization is "extremist," but a $100 trillion unfunded liability is "mainstream."

 

[Camp]

Promoting privatization of Social Security always falls apart when the insurance coverage included in SS is brought into the picture. If SS is replaced by privatization the cost of providing private insurance coverage that compares to what the individual gets from SS must be added. What would it cost to insure that your four kids collect monthly checks from SS till they reach adulthood when you die at the age of thirty-two? What does it cost to insure that it you don't die, but become disabled you will receive a monthly check until the day you do die? That could be fifty years worth of monthly checks. Maybe even more.

ssa.gov/survivorplan

 

[zeke]

Democrat sub-prime mortgages caused the meltdown, not the Republicans.

Dude, your stupidity is ASTOUNDING. Really. ******* stupidity that is almost beyond belief. Do it hurt to be so stupid? It has to. I am surprised you can post your stupidity on a computer.

Don't you ever read ANYTHING beside right wing trash and bullshit? Your well thought out position that Dems caused the housing mess has been shown to be bullshit so many times it makes me think you can't read and comprehend anything beyond right wing nuts drivel. They keep it real simple for your simple mind, don't they?

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you really think the stock market is as safe as Social Security, you should be able to show us that the number of Americans who have ever seen their personal retirement accounts decimated, or wiped out, or suffered some similar damage is no more than the number of Americans who have ever lost their Social Security.

Of course you realize that in order to get a fair comparison you would have to include all the people who paid into social security and never received a dime because they died or whatever because unlike social security stocks can be redeemed at any time. If I bought 100 shares of Microsoft in 50 years my kids can sell it whether I'm alive or not. Assuming Microsoft is still around in 50 years of course.

on the other hand, take a 50 year old man with grown kids and for the sake of argument let's say no spouse. He dies and bam social security pays his estate NOTHING on the money he paid in over the years.

For any person that draws out less SS then he paid in, that money stays in SS for future recipients.

That's all well and good, but the family of the person who collected nothing would benefit more from having stocks and bonds to cash in.

I get what you are saying. But an honest conversation must start by admitting both ends of the discussion, not just one.

You make the erroneous assumption that NY has ANY interest in any sort of HONEST discussion!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, you want to invest the Trust Fund in the stock market instead of US treasury securities?

Fine, step one is, the Federal government has to come up with 2+ trillion in tax revenue to pay off the bonds.

Are you willing to see your income taxes go up to pay for that or do you just want to tack that onto the deficit and debt?

OH my God! Where oh where did I want the Government to be involved in the stock market any more then they are NOW? I mean what the f..k is Qualitative Easing by the Federal reserve that prints more money so banks can lend more to buy more stocks? That's one of the stupidities of this economy! It is a FALSE premise!
MY point is LET ME decide where MY payroll taxes are put!
Am I young enough to let it ride on the risky stock market...YES if I'm 25 but NOT if I'm 65!
That's the point. WE ARE NOT ALL the same! I have different attitudes,etc, then you!
Great YOU want to blow it at 65 in the stock market THAT's YOUR choice!
I at 71 need it almost ALL to be in secured bonds,etc. NOT volatile equities!
But see that's where people like you still don't grasp that WE ARE ALL individuals..NOT a collective!

I'm trying to explain to you the financial logistics, and problems, that occur if the annual payroll tax revenues stop going into Social Security.

You have no desire to listen, so **** off.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For any person that draws out less SS then he paid in, that money stays in SS for future recipients.

Was that a joke? Or do you actually not know how SS works?

The money is used to buy government bonds. In other words, the money is given to Congress, in exchange for an IOU. There is no money saved for future recipients.

The money is given to Congress, which spends it. It's gone.

The only way future recipients are paid, is by increasing taxes. They either increase the Social Security tax directly, or they increase income taxes, to pay back the IOUs. There is no trust fund. There is no money.

Do you realize that your bank uses the money you deposit? That they don't keep it there for you in a shoebox? That your savings and checking accounts are really just IOU's?

 

[SteadyMercury]

No, I haven't. When the government reports inflation, it uses the w/o Food and Energy figure as it's headline number (similar to how it uses U3 for unemployment). So that figure is bogus.

Now you are intentionally ignoring facts, I clearly demonstrated that the headline figure for July was 2%, which from your own breakdown of July was the CPI including food and energy.

Would you care to explain where I was wrong? Your link shows here: http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/ad143/cappuccinoisgod/CPI.jpg that all items including food and energy was 2%. I included both the summary from them and various financial headlines reporting that 2% as CPI for July.

But if you wish to use the one with food and energy,

There is no "I wish" there is the fact that is how CPI is reported, and people like you with a political agenda make shit up and when busted and proven wrong just stand there ridiculously repeating what you know is wrong. People like you crack me up, even when you know you're wrong you'll humiliate yourself further just to support your chosen political team.

 

[SteadyMercury]

When the government reports inflation, it uses the w/o Food and Energy figure as it's headline number

Common Misconceptions about the Consumer Price Index Questions and Answers

However, all consumer goods and services, including food and energy, are represented in the headline CPI. Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy.

Derp.

 

[Andylusion]

If you really think the stock market is as safe as Social Security, you should be able to show us that the number of Americans who have ever seen their personal retirement accounts decimated, or wiped out, or suffered some similar damage is no more than the number of Americans who have ever lost their Social Security.

Of course you realize that in order to get a fair comparison you would have to include all the people who paid into social security and never received a dime because they died or whatever because unlike social security stocks can be redeemed at any time. If I bought 100 shares of Microsoft in 50 years my kids can sell it whether I'm alive or not. Assuming Microsoft is still around in 50 years of course.

on the other hand, take a 50 year old man with grown kids and for the sake of argument let's say no spouse. He dies and bam social security pays his estate NOTHING on the money he paid in over the years.

For any person that draws out less SS then he paid in, that money stays in SS for future recipients.

Wrong. Congress spends every dime the minute it gets its filthy hands on the swag.

LOL you believe Congress only spends money they actually have?

Yes. Of course. Are you suggesting they spend nothing? When they sell a bond... they have that money. They then spend that money.

Yes, they spend the money they actually have.

For any person that draws out less SS then he paid in, that money stays in SS for future recipients.

Was that a joke? Or do you actually not know how SS works?

The money is used to buy government bonds. In other words, the money is given to Congress, in exchange for an IOU. There is no money saved for future recipients.

The money is given to Congress, which spends it. It's gone.

The only way future recipients are paid, is by increasing taxes. They either increase the Social Security tax directly, or they increase income taxes, to pay back the IOUs. There is no trust fund. There is no money.

Do you realize that your bank uses the money you deposit? That they don't keep it there for you in a shoebox? That your savings and checking accounts are really just IOU's?

Massive difference.

A bank uses the money, by investing it into something that grows. What grows? Well like loaning to credit worthy borrowers. A successful profitable business, which is likely to pay it back.

If I put it in an IRA, or 401K, it is used to purchase stocks and shares in a company that is successful and profitable.

All of these, when you boil them down, invest into growth of the money. I invest in your business, and you use that money to make more money, by producing more goods, or more services, which are profitable.

This is wise.

But government doesn't do that. Government does not invest in things that are profitable. Welfare is not a profitable business venture. FEMA is not a profitable business adventure. The military is not a profitable business venture. Medicare is not a profitable business venture.

Government does not create wealth. Government only destroys wealth. When you look at the Federal Budget, this is clear. There's a reason we're $16 Trillion in debt.

Take cash for clunkers. You tax the public, to take a used vehicle that has value on the market, to destroy it, so it has no value. The public loses money, the government loses money, and things of value are ruined.

The Federal Government doesn't get money by creating wealth. They get money by forcibly confiscating it from the public, or borrowing it by selling bonds.

Which goes back to my point before. There is no money in Social Security, like there is in my IRA. My IRA has things of value in it. Because Ford is making products that have value to society, the company itself has value to society. Because the company itself has value, my stocks in the company has value. Because those stocks have value, my IRA has value.

Again, Government doesn't do any of that. Government consumes wealth, not produces it. As a result, the only value my Social Security account has, is limited to the willingness of the public to be taxes at ever greater amounts, or the willingness of investors to continue giving money to the Federal Government, which already has a debt greater than the entire GDP of whole nation.

There is nothing of any real value in SS. It's a bunch of IOUs, that the government has no money to pay back. My bank, that you referred to before, is making a profit. Government is not. My bank, has a track record of wise fiscal budgets, resulting in that profit. Government does not. My bank has made wise loans to credit worthy borrowers and businesses. Government has Solyndra, Clinch River Breeder Reactor, Synthetic Fuels Corporation, Beacon Power, Ener, Hydrogen Cars, and Clean Coal.

Huge differences. Not even close to comparable.

 

[SteadyMercury]

No more than calling social security a safety net (unless, of course, you do enjoy cat food).

There are millions of senior citizens who lead dignified lives with nothing more than a social security check and medicare. I'm sure most of them aren't leading an extravagant lifestyle but I think it pretty well suits the definition of safety net.

According to social security my wife and I would have a total monthly benefit of almost $5,000 between the two of us if we retire at 67, which is more than our current monthly expenses. I'm not planning on that since working until 67 sounds horrible but it sure isn't cat food.

 

[SteadyMercury]

It's also a stretch to call Social Security an "investment."

It would be beyond a stretch, it would be flat out wrong. You never own any balance and aren't given any rate of return.

Money is collected, pooled, and a defined monthly benefit is paid out based on certain conditions being met.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Massive difference.

A bank uses the money, by investing it into something that grows. What grows? Well like loaning to credit worthy borrowers. A successful profitable business, which is likely to pay it back.

.

A massive difference because banks never go under, but the US government has?

lol, you people are a joke.

 

[bripat9643]

[

Massive difference.

A bank uses the money, by investing it into something that grows. What grows? Well like loaning to credit worthy borrowers. A successful profitable business, which is likely to pay it back.

.

A massive difference because banks never go under, but the US government has?

lol, you people are a joke.

governments may not go under, but they frequently renig on the promises they make. Social Security already has multiple times. One thing they do is eliminate their debts by debasing the currency.

On the other hand, banks have to make good on their promises or they will be sued or the officers arrested.

 

[bripat9643]

It's also a stretch to call Social Security an "investment."

It would be beyond a stretch, it would be flat out wrong. You never own any balance and aren't given any rate of return.

Money is collected, pooled, and a defined monthly benefit is paid out based on certain conditions being met.

No law requires the government to have the necessary funds to pay the benefits and Congress can renig on it's promises with the stroke of a pen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan and a Democratic Congress fixed Social Security in 1983. That will amount to about a 50 year fix. All we need is another 50 year fix and neither I nor 90% of you will ever have to worry about it again.

 

[healthmyths]

Promoting privatization of Social Security always falls apart when the insurance coverage included in SS is brought into the picture. If SS is replaced by privatization the cost of providing private insurance coverage that compares to what the individual gets from SS must be added. What would it cost to insure that your four kids collect monthly checks from SS till they reach adulthood when you die at the age of thirty-two? What does it cost to insure that it you don't die, but become disabled you will receive a monthly check until the day you do die? That could be fifty years worth of monthly checks. Maybe even more.

ssa.gov/survivorplan

Valid point. So let me offer some points...
1) $1,000,000 Life insurance 20 year term at age 30 -- $50.00/ month.... OK???
dies at 32 $500,000 lump sum divided by 4 kids all age 1 till age 18 : each kid gets $1,000/month!
And guess what ?? Most people that have 4 kids will probably already HAVE life insurance!
2) Now Disability insurance... YUP problem..
A 30 year old in the example above is paying $37.84 per month or around $454 per year for a disability policy with a monthly benefit of $2500.
AND GUESS WHAT??? Most people with 4 kids probably have a job, that also has disability insurance coverage but what would I know right???

But you see what YOU have done is what most people are doing even with regards to Ferguson MO... USING an Isolated infrequent event, i.e. 32 year male with 4 kids becomes disabled or dies.
YES it happens! But explain me then why insurance company actuaries (case you don't know what an "actuary" is ... advanced degreed individual that calculates premiums...) are willing to pay out
$1,000,000 for the 32 year if he dies at 32 or pay out nearly a $1,000,000 if the 32 becomes disabled?
They've calculated the odds and UNLIKE YOU they know this is NOT the usual event for a 32 year old with 4 kids! They don't JUMP to exaggerated examples. USE these examples as the RULE but rather the EXCEPTION! YOU understand that there are historical tables that tell actuaries what the disability and mortality potentials are and obviously they consider the guy if he had to pay out
of his pocket the $90/month for a $1m policy and a $1m disability policy again...
both most likely already available AT no cost to the 32 year old from his employer!!
But you like usual have jumped to conclusions based on individual examples i.e. the exception and not the rule!

 

[Camp]

Promoting privatization of Social Security always falls apart when the insurance coverage included in SS is brought into the picture. If SS is replaced by privatization the cost of providing private insurance coverage that compares to what the individual gets from SS must be added. What would it cost to insure that your four kids collect monthly checks from SS till they reach adulthood when you die at the age of thirty-two? What does it cost to insure that it you don't die, but become disabled you will receive a monthly check until the day you do die? That could be fifty years worth of monthly checks. Maybe even more.

ssa.gov/survivorplan

Valid point. So let me offer some points...
1) $1,000,000 Life insurance 20 year term at age 30 -- $50.00/ month.... OK???
dies at 32 $500,000 lump sum divided by 4 kids all age 1 till age 18 : each kid gets $1,000/month!

And guess what ?? Most people that have 4 kids will probably already HAVE life insurance!

2) Now Disability insurance... YUP problem..
A 30 year old in the example above is paying $37.84 per month or around $454 per year for a disability policy with a monthly benefit of $2500.

AND GUESS WHAT??? Most people with 4 kids probably have a job, that also has disability insurance

coverage but what would I know right???

But you see what YOU have done is what most people are doing even with regards to Ferguson MO... USING an Isolated infrequent event, i.e. 32 year male with 4 kids becomes disabled or dies.
YES it happens! But explain me then why insurance company actuaries (case you don't know what an "actuary" is ... advanced degreed individual that calculates premiums...) are willing to pay out
$1,000,000 for the 32 year if he dies at 32 or pay out nearly a $1,000,000 if the 32 becomes disabled?
They've calculated the odds and UNLIKE YOU they know this is NOT the usual event for a 32 year old with 4 kids! They don't JUMP to exaggerated examples. USE these examples as the RULE but rather the EXCEPTION! YOU understand that there are historical tables that tell actuaries what the disability and mortality potentials are and obviously they consider the guy if he had to pay out
of his pocket the $90/month for a $1m policy and a $1m disability policy again...
both most likely already available AT no cost to the 32 year old from his employer!!
But you like usual have jumped to conclusions based on individual examples i.e. the exception and not the rule!

Oops, my mistake, I thought the conversation was about Social Security in America.