Social Security into the Market

[Guest]

August was the worst market in the last 9 years.


Several years ago the push was on to privatize Social Security. Well look at the market and just imagine what would have happened to the Social Security program on that gamble. Yes, the market is a gamble and I prefer not to gamble with my future. Another idea is to allow citizens to opt out. Another silly idea as we all know that millions of people would opt out just to have a few more dollars in their pocket right now. Most of those same people would not save or invest the extra funds, and would be back on the government’s payroll later in life. You and I would then be providing even more to keep these folks above water. Social Security is what keeps so many people alive when they find themselves in a number of unfortunate financial categories and without it, we would still give them money to do so in some other form of government program. You could always euthanize them and turn the bodies into Soylent Green or fertilizer for farm use. I am not so sure that even the radical right would support that program, so you are left with supporting them even after they have spent their would be Social Security savings.

[Guest]

it all depends on how you look at it. If you look at the LONG TERM returns, especially since Social Security was started, you'll see the stock market has vastly outperformed anything. Yes, if you put ALL your money in real estate before the bubble burst, you lost about 30-40%. But how much did you gain before that?

[Guest]

it all depends on how you look at it. If you look at the LONG TERM returns, especially since Social Security was started, you'll see the stock market has vastly outperformed anything. Yes, if you put ALL your money in real estate before the bubble burst, you lost about 30-40%. But how much did you gain before that?

I do agree with that, and I think I could do better with my money than the government has done. My big concern would be for the millions that would take the money and run and then be the first ones in line for a handout when the poop hits the fan for them. We as a country have shown we will not leave anyone hungry no matter how stupid they have been with their life. So since we will pay for them in the end anyway, I say take a little each paycheck to offset the bill in the end. I think the limit for SS withholding is still right at the first 100,000 of earning and no matter how much you retire with, you can still draw your SS when you get to that age.

[Guest]

I do agree with that, and I think I could do better with my money than the government has done. My big concern would be for the millions that would take the money and run and then be the first ones in line for a handout when the poop hits the fan for them. We as a country have shown we will not leave anyone hungry no matter how stupid they have been with their life. So since we will pay for them in the end anyway, I say take a little each paycheck to offset the bill in the end. I think the limit for SS withholding is still right at the first 100,000 of earning and no matter how much you retire with, you can still draw your SS when you get to that age.

I don't believe that anyone promoted 100% of social security be privatized, but only a portion, and that even would have been voluntary. Truth be known that account is already overdrawn, and I recall the comment being made back in about 2003 or so that at least what we privatize, the government cannot take away. If we do not get the deficit in tow very soon, THAT SS account will be in the news more and more and not in a way we want it.

[Guest]

Please watch this video with an opened mind and with your thinking hat on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdgv7n9xCY

[Guest]

I hope that everyone who reads or posts on this board will take the time to watch this. It is just ten minutes. Milton Friedman is correct in his analysis of Social Security and was prophetic in his statements about National Health Care.

None of my children, all intelligent college graduates, believe they will ever receive a dime from Social Security. They're right, they will receive nothing. A wise man once observed that,..."we do not contribute money to Social Security, we contribute children."

To illustrate this, my parents had six kids - 3 to support each of them in their retirement. My wife and I had four children - 2 to support each of us in our retirement. Three of my four children have had two children each and have taken actions to prevent their family growing - 1 to support each of them in their retirement.

We have a rapidly collapsing Ponzi scheme. There is no way to tweak or slightly modify Social Security to make it continue for the next two decades. Radical and painful change will be needed. This may sound like a plea for Government interference and mitigation. It is not. There is no easy path to national solvency. If we are going to deal with these issues we need to realize than Social Security is bankrupt, Obamacare is bankrupt before it even starts and that the Federal Government can no longer impose unfunded mandates upon the states.

This will be painful, but as the old oil commercial says, ..."Pay me now or pay me later." The cost of paying now will hurt - the cost of paying later will be far worse.

[Guest]

August was the worst market in the last 9 years.


Several years ago the push was on to privatize Social Security. [/I]. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Lou - The plan being pushed at that time was to allow people to voluntarily put between 2 and 4% of the contribution into a plan where they could invest those funds just like they manage their 401K's and IRA's. That is a far cry from what the Dems want you to believe with their revisionist history. It is obvious though that a lot of people believe whatever they say rather than wasting their time actually researching it. Know what I mean, Lou ?

[Guest]

Lou - The plan being pushed at that time was to allow people to voluntarily put between 2 and 4% of the contribution into a plan where they could invest those funds just like they manage their 401K's and IRA's. That is a far cry from what the Dems want you to believe with their revisionist history. It is obvious though that a lot of people believe whatever they say rather than wasting their time actually researching it. Know what I mean, Lou ?

Close, but misleading. the 2 and 4% you refer to is of payroll up to 1000 per account. Bad idea that would benefit the rich and devastate the poor. You should do your research pauld and you would change your tone.

[Guest]

Close, but misleading. the 2 and 4% you refer to is of payroll up to 1000 per account. Bad idea that would benefit the rich and devastate the poor. You should do your research pauld and you would change your tone.

I don't know what you are talking about when you say 1000 per account.

This is directly from The Washington Post dated February 8,2006 in an article by Allan Sloan, who by the way, was critical of the plan.

"In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into what Bush called "voluntary private accounts." The maximum contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year through 2016"
What are you trying to say here Lou, the government does a better job managing your investments than you do ?

[Guest]

I don't know what you are talking about when you say 1000 per account.

This is directly from The Washington Post dated February 8,2006 in an article by Allan Sloan, who by the way, was critical of the plan.

"In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into what Bush called "voluntary private accounts." The maximum contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year through 2016"
What are you trying to say here Lou, the government does a better job managing your investments than you do ?

Thats right and its would not work for most.

[Guest]

Never mind Lou, I can't figure out the way you think. Too convoluted for me.

[Guest]

Lou - The plan being pushed at that time was to allow people to voluntarily put between 2 and 4% of the contribution into a plan where they could invest those funds just like they manage their 401K's and IRA's. That is a far cry from what the Dems want you to believe with their revisionist history. It is obvious though that a lot of people believe whatever they say rather than wasting their time actually researching it. Know what I mean, Lou ?

You are absolutely right pauld315. Lou, you have been conned. The left has been repeating those lies and they have been proven wrong every time. Only a some percentage was to go into private accounts, 2 to 4%, meaning 96% of the money would stay in the government's Ponzi scheme.

[Guest]

And the frosting on the cake is that these monies in the private accounts would be owned by the taxpayer and his estate; THAT'S RIGHT!!, the money would belong to YOU and your heirs, unlike Social Security, and that's the reason the Dems are against it.

[Guest]

Hummmmm. Somebody is not telling the straight truth. Call me a silly boy, but I put my trust in my countries President. When one Glenn Beck's candidates becomes president, I will give him/her my respect and support as well. Don't reelect Obama if that is your will, but support your sitting president.

[Guest]

:22yikes:YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!:22yikes:

[Guest]

Hummmmm. Somebody is not telling the straight truth. Call me a silly boy, but I put my trust in my countries President. When one Glenn Beck's candidates becomes president, I will give him/her my respect and support as well. Don't reelect Obama if that is your will, but support your sitting president.

Silly boy it is!!!!! President Bush, when he was the sitting president, was lobbying for the 2-4% private fund. Don't be blind, look it up.

[Guest]

Hummmmm. Somebody is not telling the straight truth. Call me a silly boy, but I put my trust in my countries President. When one Glenn Beck's candidates becomes president, I will give him/her my respect and support as well. Don't reelect Obama if that is your will, but support your sitting president.

Did you support the sitting President (GW Bush) when he proposed this plan ? Doesn't sound like it. I can support the President all day as an institution but be against the president's policies at the same time. I will never support Obama's socialist policies. Can't wait to vote him out.

[Guest]

Did you support the sitting President (GW Bush) when he proposed this plan ? Doesn't sound like it. I can support the President all day as an institution but be against the president's policies at the same time. I will never support Obama's socialist policies. Can't wait to vote him out.


Yes I did. I voted for George Bush both times and supported him all 8 years. I would have voted for John M. if he would have left that Alaska Governor in Alaska.

[Guest]

Lou - you are a man of contradicitons. You say you voted for W and supported him yet you say you were against his plan for Social Security privitization. So, now it is OK to be against a president's policies ?

[Guest]

Lou - you are a man of contradicitons. You say you voted for W and supported him yet you say you were against his plan for Social Security privitization. So, now it is OK to be against a president's policies ?
It should be very clear. I did support Bush, but Obama does not like the plan, so I support him. I never liked the plan under Bush, but I don't think he did either. Chaney was the driving force in most of George's policies.

[Guest]

It should be very clear. I did support Bush, but Obama does not like the plan, so I support him. I never liked the plan under Bush, but I don't think he did either. Chaney was the driving force in most of George's policies.

How do you justify such statements?????????

[Guest]

It should be very clear. I did support Bush, but Obama does not like the plan, so I support him. I never liked the plan under Bush, but I don't think he did either. Chaney was the driving force in most of George's policies.

"Cheney was the driving force in most of George's policies"? That old canard.
Lou; it doesn't sound like respect for the president to me when you demean his intelligence and leadership this way.

Respect for the office of The President doesn't mean I have to blindly support ill conceived policies, does it? I refuse to follow anyone over the cliff. Call me silly, but that's the way I am.

[Guest]

"Cheney was the driving force in most of George's policies"? That old canard.
Lou; it doesn't sound like respect for the president to me when you demean his intelligence and leadership this way.

Respect for the office of The President doesn't mean I have to blindly support ill conceived policies, does it? I refuse to follow anyone over the cliff. Call me silly, but that's the way I am.

If you don't think Cheney was the man in charge you were not paying attention.

Richie, remember, I was 22 years military and be it right or wrong, I WOULD FOLLOW MY LEADER OVER THE CLIFF. Thats just the way a true military man is. Without complete loyalty to your leader is to have chaos. When just any one in the crowd starts making decisions against the leader ii becomes a direct route to failure.

[Guest]

If you don't think Cheney was the man in charge you were not paying attention.

Richie, remember, I was 22 years military and be it right or wrong, I WOULD FOLLOW MY LEADER OVER THE CLIFF. Thats just the way a true military man is. Without complete loyalty to your leader is to have chaos. When just any one in the crowd starts making decisions against the leader ii becomes a direct route to failure.


This goes off subject but I want to ask you to think about something Lou. When you took the US Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment, you didn't promise to follow your leader over the cliff. But I get what you are saying. That is honorable.

What you did say in the oath was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; bear true faith and allegiance to the US Constitution. PERIOD Nothing more. Nothing less.

Then comes the part about obeying the orders of the US President and officers appointed over you. There is no PERIOD here. The oath dealing with obeying orders goes on to say, "...according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Constitution comes before anything else in that oath. Defending the Constitution doesn't come with any stipulations or according to's. When someone says Obama, or anyone for that matter, is going against the Constitution and they are trying to destroy the principles in that important document that is the foundation of our liberties and freedoms, I hope you research what they say and try to understand how important it is to understand what is happening to this country. Just something to think about.

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[Guest]

BK Cunningham. Like Jack Nicholson said "you make me want to be a better man".

BK, I think you know I only believe half of what I say in here, but it is an integral part of the back and forth that make a certain 5 members of the Political forum continue to have a heart beat. If everyone treated liberals in here like you do, I for one would be a short step from becoming a returning Republican. Unfortunately, no matter what I say or how I say it, I get slammed by the same 5 members. I have made statements that contain multiple paragraphs of fact and projections. These 5 will comb thru it and if they find nothing to be negative about, they do not reply, but they seam elated when they find something that they can insult me about. It is very simple, if they would agree with a few things that I know to be my and Republican values, then we would be working toward a solution to problems. When I get nothing positive in return, I become as childish as they are and reply in turn. I do thank you BK as you have your views and you keep it straight and very civil all the time. For that, I do in fact read and think about everything you post. You have changed my mind on a few issues I have been firmly against in the past. I can listen and learn, but when I get nothing but insults from the negative 5, I freeze my brain into the negative mode with them.

If you and djplong were the only ones that gave me advise in this site, I would be a different person as I do believe we are in trouble in this country. The top 5 are here to prey on every word I type in an effort to sling mud my way. Try to understand how hard it is to be one out of a thousand on this site. Does that mean I should just give up and leave. No. I hope that some of the lurkers will read and understand some of the concerns of the liberal side and maybe, just maybe look for a solution. Please keep up the good work and maybe you can save some of the folks on the fence from falling onto the other side by the Negative 5.

[Guest]

BK Cunningham. Like Jack Nicholson said "you make me want to be a better man".

BK, I think you know I only believe half of what I say in here, but it is an integral part of the back and forth that make a certain 5 members of the Political forum continue to have a heart beat. If everyone treated liberals in here like you do, I for one would be a short step from becoming a returning Republican. Unfortunately, no matter what I say or how I say it, I get slammed by the same 5 members. I have made statements that contain multiple paragraphs of fact and projections. These 5 will comb thru it and if they find nothing to be negative about, they do not reply, but they seam elated when they find something that they can insult me about. It is very simple, if they would agree with a few things that I know to be my and Republican values, then we would be working toward a solution to problems. When I get nothing positive in return, I become as childish as they are and reply in turn. I do thank you BK as you have your views and you keep it straight and very civil all the time. For that, I do in fact read and think about everything you post. You have changed my mind on a few issues I have been firmly against in the past. I can listen and learn, but when I get nothing but insults from the negative 5, I freeze my brain into the negative mode with them.

If you and djplong were the only ones that gave me advise in this site, I would be a different person as I do believe we are in trouble in this country. The top 5 are here to prey on every word I type in an effort to sling mud my way. Try to understand how hard it is to be one out of a thousand on this site. Does that mean I should just give up and leave. No. I hope that some of the lurkers will read and understand some of the concerns of the liberal side and maybe, just maybe look for a solution. Please keep up the good work and maybe you can save some of the folks on the fence from falling onto the other side by the Negative 5.

So; if I disagree with something you say and I tell you about it I'm preying on you and slinging mud.
When you disagree with me, it's OK; but when I disagree with you it's a personal attack.
This is more angst than I can deal with.
Am I supposed to quietly walk away when you're speaking so as not to offend you by having a different opinion?
I'm at a loss at how to respond to you as you seem to take everything as a deep personal insult.

[Guest]

So; if I disagree with something you say and I tell you about it I'm preying on you and slinging mud.
When you disagree with me, it's OK; but when I disagree with you it's a personal attack.
This is more angst than I can deal with.
Am I supposed to quietly walk away when you're speaking so as not to offend you by having a different opinion?
I'm at a loss at how to respond to you as you seem to take everything as a deep personal insult.

If ya don't get it, ya don't get it and, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. Thank God we have a few in here that do. No offence my republican friend.

[Guest]

I am not going to sling any arrows with this post but I will say that there is a bundle of knowledgeable people who post here. Many who post do a great job of researching before they post. And I will say that I have read many of RichieLion's posts and he definitely knows what he is talking about.

[Guest]

I am not going to sling any arrows with this post but I will say that there is a bundle of knowledgeable people who post here. Many who post do a great job of researching before they post. And I will say that I have read many of RichieLion's posts and he definitely knows what he is talking about.

I agree with you villa2. Richielion's knowledge of topics discussed on this site far exceeds the norm.

[Guest]

BK Cunningham. Like Jack Nicholson said "you make me want to be a better man".

BK, I think you know I only believe half of what I say in here, but it is an integral part of the back and forth that make a certain 5 members of the Political forum continue to have a heart beat. If everyone treated liberals in here like you do, I for one would be a short step from becoming a returning Republican. Unfortunately, no matter what I say or how I say it, I get slammed by the same 5 members. I have made statements that contain multiple paragraphs of fact and projections. These 5 will comb thru it and if they find nothing to be negative about, they do not reply, but they seam elated when they find something that they can insult me about. It is very simple, if they would agree with a few things that I know to be my and Republican values, then we would be working toward a solution to problems. When I get nothing positive in return, I become as childish as they are and reply in turn. I do thank you BK as you have your views and you keep it straight and very civil all the time. For that, I do in fact read and think about everything you post. You have changed my mind on a few issues I have been firmly against in the past. I can listen and learn, but when I get nothing but insults from the negative 5, I freeze my brain into the negative mode with them.

If you and djplong were the only ones that gave me advise in this site, I would be a different person as I do believe we are in trouble in this country. The top 5 are here to prey on every word I type in an effort to sling mud my way. Try to understand how hard it is to be one out of a thousand on this site. Does that mean I should just give up and leave. No. I hope that some of the lurkers will read and understand some of the concerns of the liberal side and maybe, just maybe look for a solution. Please keep up the good work and maybe you can save some of the folks on the fence from falling onto the other side by the Negative 5.

If this is true (and who knows what is going on in your head) then responding to anything you post is a waste of time since nobody knows if you are just toying with them. Have fun talking to yourself.

[Guest]

If ya don't get it, ya don't get it and, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. Thank God we have a few in here that do. No offence my republican friend.

Actually I prefer to label myself, if I must, as a Conservative, and the Republican party is the closest I can come. Hopefully we are in the process of reclaiming the party leadership from the many rinos that hold many leadership positions in the party; fingers crossed.

What don't I get? I think I get it pretty well and that's why you're yelling at me.

[Guest]

Actually I prefer to label myself, if I must, as a Conservative, and the Republican party is the closest I can come. Hopefully we are in the process of reclaiming the party leadership from the many rinos that hold many leadership positions in the party; fingers crossed.

What don't I get? I think I get it pretty well and that's why you're yelling at me.

Sorry Richie, Conservative it is. I like to think of myself as a centrist independent.

[Guest]

The only thing I learned from this series of postings is the definition of a Phony.

[Guest]

The only thing I learned from this series of postings is the definition of a Phony.

Congratulations Cashman, you are starting to get it. Lets pray for a few more to see the light.

[Guest]

The only thing I learned from this series of postings is the definition of a Phony.

???

[Guest]

Congratulations Cashman, you are starting to get it. Lets pray for a few more to see the light.

???

[Guest]

I feel like people here are talking in code. :shrug:

[Guest]

I feel like people here are talking in code. :shrug:

Hang in there villa2. We are all starting to get along better through understanding and civil communication. It will all make sense in a few more days.

I love this board and all the great Americans on it. Don't give up on anyone just yet.

[Guest]

Hang in there villa2. We are all starting to get along better through understanding and civil communication. It will all make sense in a few more days.

I love this board and all the great Americans on it. Don't give up on anyone just yet.

Lou, I don't mean this in a harsh way but you are a strange duck. I do not see us communicating any better and what the heck is to occur in a few days that will make sense????????

[Guest]

I am very proud of being a strange duck thank you. Being cookie cutter normal all the time is boring to me. Inventors, philosophy professors, writers and artists, are of the most part, strange ducks and don't forget silly children at play. There is to much emphasis put on being straight and normal all the time. After 22 years in the army, I am ready for a little less of the hard corp and want some strange duck moments in my life.