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.

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?

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

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.

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

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 ?

Originally Posted by pauld315

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.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

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 ?

Originally Posted by pauld315

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.

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

Originally Posted by pauld315

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.

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.

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.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!