So you want to disband Social Security and provide for your own retirement huh?

Republicans have been trying to end Social Security for decades but particularly under George Duh-bya Bush. Take a gander above to see how well that would have worked out.

Now as it happens I'm going to be receiving a substantial sum of money this week. Since I don't trust the stock market any more I talked to my banker about getting some CDs. He informed me that the current interest payment is less than one half of one percent. About 0.437% as I recall. (But they still want to charge penalties for early withdrawal.)

That tells me something and it should tell you something too. Not only is corporate America sitting on TRILLIONS of dollars in cash that they are not using to grow their businesses and put Americans to work. But in fact they don't particularly want your money or mine. If they wanted it they would be willing to pay for it. But WALL STREET wants it. They want us to invest our retirement funds into a STACKED DECK stock market despite the fact that they aren't going to actually use that money for growing any businesses. Nope! They just want to slap a bunch of fees on their "services". Probably penalties for one thing or another as well if they have their way. You know how banksters are.

Anyone making less than $100,000 who thinks he can do better than Social Security (which has NEVER missed a single payment) and wants to opt out is not living in the real world.

 

You are right about tariffs and jobs but wrong about Bush.

Bill Clinton opened the floodgates from China.

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html

http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1997/05/favored_china.html

 

I don't know what planet you were living on during the 2000's, but George W Bush pushed privatizing Social Security throughout his entire presidency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ty-privatization-in-2005-what-was-that-again/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ty-privatization-in-2005-what-was-that-again/

 

I was replying to the quote about tariffs.

So my planet is earth.

Your planet is lib la land.

 

That's a lie. They want privatization. It works in many other nations.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st277

Social Security reform in the United States has become a nationally debated topic, but privately managed, funded plans are already a component of the social security systems of more than 30 nations around the world. Chile, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom were the first countries to reform, in the 1980s. Most countries in Latin America, Eastern and Central Europe, as well as some in the Asian-Pacific region, created similar systems during the past 10 years. The Latin American and Eastern European countries funded their worker-based personal account systems by diverting money from a pre-existing payroll tax. By contrast, the industrial countries in Western Europe, along with Australia and Hong Kong, made employer-based retirement plans mandatory, in addition to their tax-financed systems.

If LBJ, a dem. had not put SS on budget, it wouldn't be in the mess it is in.

 

It actually works in America too.

Three counties in Texas are exempt from SS for government employees who have been paying into a private SS account since 1981.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...curity-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all

 

There it is! But libbys want the govt teat to feed them cradle-to-grave and put none of their own money towards their own retirement.

 

If I got all my SS money back I could put a down payment on a house in NY.

Again.

 

But you claimed the the OP was wrong about Bush wanting to privatize Social Security.

And you're still wrong.

 

I said nothing about SS.

In fact I clearly highlighted the quote I was replying to.

 

If you didnt take the people money via social security they would get much larger returns in the market with that money. Try naming a period over even half the average lifespan where that wasn't true.

 

False. FDR started stealing from it on day one.

Social Security is inherently flawed because it doesn't work on the time value of money, but on the demographic makeup of the nation. It will always need cuts or tax hikes to stay afloat, or a very large growth of the population every generation, and this has been its story over the years. Surely no one could come up with a worse way to fund a retirement program. It is a ponzi scheme, and its legality doesn't change that.

 

So your finally admitting Obamas economy and policies have failed. That's some headway.

 

Nope, it does not need population growth. With stable population SS would be sustainable indefinitely, too. It all depends on the ratio of working people to retired people, which is influenced by population dynamics, birth rates, death rates, immigration, unemployment etc, but there is no deep reason why it cannot be quite stable over long term.

As long as this ratio doesnt get too low, retirement funded in this manner is viable. When it does get too low, there needs to be cuts, tax hikes, or change in retirement ages. When it gets high, there can be a surplus.

So it is not like a Ponzi scheme, not in the meaning that failure is inevitable.

 

How do the people get paid out what they put in without an increase in the time they have to pay in, the population shifts in age (population increase since there are no fountains of youth), or tax increases? Walk me through it. Your two sentences

Here are contradictory. Even the increase in women in the work force isn't enough to save it. It is doomed to diminishing returns. Nothing is invested, it is simply transferred, with the first group paying in nothing, the next little, the next more, the next much more etc.. as the benefits drop.

What you will never here is a period of 20 years that the market indexes haven't trounced soc sec returns. Blue chips and the like would be much better.

 

It's called selective reading, and he does it all the time.

 

That works for me too.

 

Privatizing Social Security is the dumbest (*)(*)(*)(*) I've ever heard.

Pension failures all over again.

I'll trust my own retirement savings. Social security is fine the way it is anyway. The crooks (GOP establishment goons) can't touch it without a national riot.

Pete Peterson has been campaigning the falsehood that it is "unsustainable" for years so him and the rest of the CROOKS can make TRILLIONS off of privitized social security.

Pure (*)(*)(*)(*)ery. I don't know how anyone trusts GOP public figures with a potato gun.

 

LMAO, Social Security has a terrible rate of return. Not to mention, people of retirement age are forgoing retirement simply because they cannot afford to live off Social Security alone.

It's great that you are voluntarily willing to take a loss on your investment, but none of that would actually be legal if the private sector did it.

 

If someone thinks they can live off social security alone, that is their own problem.

I'm not voluntarily taking a loss on anything. IT IS THE LAW.

 

Social Security was sold to the American public as a retirement scheme, when it is anything but.

If you choose not to contribute to your own retirement, you are taking a loss.

 

Maybe it was sold that way, but everyone with any financial literacy knows it is just supplemental income at the most. The elderly were once very impoverished (no thanks to...CAPITALISM).

If one feels that social security is actually an investment, they need some........ financial guidance.

Social security is just another tax, in my view.

 

You are very correct. The only people who would have made out were the clearing houses for stock transactions; everyone else would have lost.

And when the market tanked in 2008, many of those nice, wonderful, fat 401.k's literally evaporated before the owners very eyes and now this is why many senior citizens have to work until they drop dead. Bad investment choices? Maybe, but imagine if SS had been privatized?? The government would have had to of stepped in and bailed out those who lost it all since America in general would not allow 20-25 million seniors to live in the streets.

 

They're still impoverished, as benefits do not offset inflation.

That factor is only taken into account when you have a private insurance account, with a Registered Financial Advisor managing it.

The only reason Social Security won't be touched is because it provides a greater source of revenue for Past, President and Future governments to use in their spending boondoggles.

 

How do you figure?

Other nations benchmark their national pensions to their market indexes. Norway, Singapore, etc. They all do it. In the end, your savings is much better in stocks diversified in other assets than it is in Social Security.