Privatized social security

[ShawnD64]

[Sinisterbeatz]

Re: Privatized social security

All he wants to do is flood his wall st. buddies with shit loads of cash, and when mutual funds and stocks become over bought stock prices are going to plummet because the market will become watered down...Just another attempt to destroy F.D.R's legacy...

[ShawnD64]

not just people on wall street. i have already started retirement money working in a school, so it is fine for people like me. but for anyone working on hourly wages from pay check to pay check will have to work literally till the day they die :cry:

[BSully828]

Re: Privatized social security

All he wants to do is flood his wall st. buddies with shit loads of cash, and when mutual funds and stocks become over bought stock prices are going to plummet because the market will become watered down...Just another attempt to destroy F.D.R's legacy...

Wall Street Buddies? I thought he was only looking out for his "Oil Industry buddies"

The 'Stock Market' is a building where people gauge the success or failure of hundreds of unrelated businesses. If a business is successful then people (like you and me w/ 401k's) want to be a part of it and buy a piece of their company(stock). The more money that you and I invest in companies, that have proven to be successful, the more they are able to expand, improve infrastructure, create more jobs, etc and thus become more profitable and we gain (not even counting the additional jobs added to the economy)..

Anyone who says the market will be 'watered down' shows that they have no knowledge of how the world of business works. It's a ridiculous 'flat world' type thing to say but lets be nice and just call it naive and uniformed. The more money that is put into mutual funds and stocks allows for expansion and creation of new money and more profit to the investor (you and me).Of course rich people invest in the market but so does middle America.

Social Security was never meant to be your pension, it was meant as a supplement to people at retirement. You probably heard Bush say that when it started 16 people contributed to each retired person so it worked. The world has change,average age in 1940 was 64 it is now 77, so the average individual is collecting for 13 more Years!!! Now its 2-3 people per retiree. Common sense tells you this can't be sustained.

People that hate Bush don't want him to do anything, if he's involved its EVIL. Politicians (Dems and Reps) have been saying for years that Soc Sec has to be fixed! Now their saying "it's not that bad"?. In a general discussion, just looking at the facts of increasing outlays and declining income into the Soc Sec system, any rational person would agree that the govt should do something to fix it. But since it is Bush introducing it they are blinded by their hatred of him personally.

FDR legacy is already established, nothing that Bush does will tarnish what one of the greatest presidents in history has done. To ignore a problem is irresponsable, we normally abuse politicians for not dealing with real problems. It is a political maxim that you can't touch Soc Security because it is the 'third rail' and would end anyone's political life. Here is Bush who could very easily ignore this and pass it on to the next President or generation but he decides to take on another contentious issue head on. Isn't that what a Leader is?

On second thought I should have just kept outta this but what the hell... work is slow today so I have some time to kill - flame away!

[toasty]

No doubt about it, common sense will tell you that something needs to be done or the system will collapse. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The question is how to go about it.

I'm frankly on the fence on this. Intrinsicly, I would like to have control over my own money to the extent possible, and I think that I could outperform SS in the market investing it myself. My concern is that some people will either not take advantage of the opportunity to save for their retirement or will do so poorly, and then they become society's problem down the road. I guess it will depend to some extent upon how it is structured.

No rational person of our generation believes that SS will sustain us for our retirement -- like BSully said, for most people, it should be a component of a retirement plan, not the plan itself. I kinda like knowing that there is a portion of my retirement plan, albeit a very small one, that is pretty well insulated from normal economic forces and is "safe."

There was a recent study with some alarming results:

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

the gist of it is that, at least in some circumstances, SS has outperformed the market, which is staggering to me.

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?

He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends).

To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

It's an astonishing finding. The DJIA represents blue-chip stocks. Social Security invests in US Treasury bonds. Over long periods of time, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds. So, you would think that Logue's theoretical stock investments from 1950 to 1994 would have surely outpaced the return on government bonds.

The fact that they didn't illustrates one of the hard truths about stock investing: Timing matters.

I'm going to wait until I see how, in fact, the plan will be structured before I pass judgment on it. Too many variables as it stands right now to even discuss it intelligently.

[asdf_admin]

I can not wait. Why should I pay for a system that was started all ready behind? Plus with all the baby boomers rolling out here shortly, I ain't gonna pay for them chumps.

Go Bush. Save This Nation.

[BSully828]

My concern is that some people will either not take advantage of the opportunity to save for their retirement or will do so poorly, and then they become society's problem down the road. I guess it will depend to some extent upon how it is structured.

Good point, Toasty - that's an angle I never really considered (guess that speaks to my compassion for my neighbors...). That is something that will have to be addressed as the process continues - but it is something I hope that the creators of this plan have taken into account. Ignoring that possibility could lead to a similar situation that we have with welfare abuse - the collection of the few milking the work of the many.

Hopefully a meaningful dialogue can start to take shape between the two sides, but considering the words and actions of some dem's as of late, that looks to be a long shot.

[neoee]

This is one of the few things I support Bush on (at least the concept). Though, as toasty said, I'm waiting to see how it will be done.

[DaStottman]

This totally fucks over the poor who need that Social Security money as a main form of income. There has to be a better way to save it.

[thesightless]

you should only get what you put in. that way we might have a chance of actually seeing it.

distributions beyond what you give into it (adjusted with a COLA of course), should be disallowed along with being able to recieve welfare beyond one month. 2 things that need to go. im already sick of giving my money away knowing i'll never see a dime. 2018 isnt far off, and if you use the neutral assessment of it 2020 is only 2 years later. :?

one more thing. dont ignore the fact that you are taxed on SS payments to a degree and if you personally invested in the same bonds SS does, you wouldnt be. also, the DJIA takes the most valueable stocks, not those with the growth potential, for instance google. opened at 85 now floating over 200. no real way to solve it for our generation, so i am all for it being privatized so i might have a degree of control over my future and know what im getting.

[Kobe]

I saw a poll on CNN last night, do you think W's plan will work?

91% - no
6% - yes
3% - what plan?

I think this money will get flushed with a market "correction" and once again the middle class gets screwed.

"Go Bush. Save This Nation."

[rubyraks]

any poll taken on cnn or fox can't really be taken seriously. They both have their agenda and the people who watch them and would vote in their polls are a product of or already in support of that agenda.

...not that I support the plan, but 91% is quite a bit preposterous.

[mylexicon]

People you are making one huge oversight. People are not going to take
SS money and throw it into high risk undiversified portfolios....and if
they do they are fucking idiots. Plus I need to remind everybody that
when the market "corrects" rich investor capitalists are the ones who lose
their shirts not middle class citizens. Third their are tons of securities
other than stocks. Like government or private bonds, or CD's.

I have mixed feelings about this too. I know that privatization is the
right thing to do......but it will probably never benefit me. Even with
privatization is still think that SS will go defunct and they will still jack
our taxes. Plus I'm afraid that privatized SS will cause a bunch of
retarded non-financial savvy imbiciles will start crying for legislation
everytime their private account makes even the most minor dip. Which
will probably cause me to go postal....

[toasty]

People are not going to take
SS money and throw it into high risk undiversified portfolios....and if
they do they are fucking idiots.

I think you may be giving the masses too much credit. There are some REALLY unsophisticated people in some parts of this country. Not all, of course, but not an insignificant number, either.

[Sinisterbeatz]

Re: Privatized social security

All he wants to do is flood his wall st. buddies with shit loads of cash, and when mutual funds and stocks become over bought stock prices are going to plummet because the market will become watered down...Just another attempt to destroy F.D.R's legacy...

Wall Street Buddies? I thought he was only looking out for his "Oil Industry buddies"

The 'Stock Market' is a building where people gauge the success or failure of hundreds of unrelated businesses. If a business is successful then people (like you and me w/ 401k's) want to be a part of it and buy a piece of their company(stock). The more money that you and I invest in companies, that have proven to be successful, the more they are able to expand, improve infrastructure, create more jobs, etc and thus become more profitable and we gain (not even counting the additional jobs added to the economy)..

Anyone who says the market will be 'watered down' shows that they have no knowledge of how the world of business works. It's a ridiculous 'flat world' type thing to say but lets be nice and just call it naive and uniformed. The more money that is put into mutual funds and stocks allows for expansion and creation of new money and more profit to the investor (you and me).Of course rich people invest in the market but so does middle America.

Social Security was never meant to be your pension, it was meant as a supplement to people at retirement. You probably heard Bush say that when it started 16 people contributed to each retired person so it worked. The world has change,average age in 1940 was 64 it is now 77, so the average individual is collecting for 13 more Years!!! Now its 2-3 people per retiree. Common sense tells you this can't be sustained.

People that hate Bush don't want him to do anything, if he's involved its EVIL. Politicians (Dems and Reps) have been saying for years that Soc Sec has to be fixed! Now their saying "it's not that bad"?. In a general discussion, just looking at the facts of increasing outlays and declining income into the Soc Sec system, any rational person would agree that the govt should do something to fix it. But since it is Bush introducing it they are blinded by their hatred of him personally.

FDR legacy is already established, nothing that Bush does will tarnish what one of the greatest presidents in history has done. To ignore a problem is irresponsable, we normally abuse politicians for not dealing with real problems. It is a political maxim that you can't touch Soc Security because it is the 'third rail' and would end anyone's political life. Here is Bush who could very easily ignore this and pass it on to the next President or generation but he decides to take on another contentious issue head on. Isn't that what a Leader is?

On second thought I should have just kept outta this but what the hell... work is slow today so I have some time to kill - flame away!

1) Big Buisness is Big Buisness

2) Personal accounts dont solve the solvencey (sp?) problem

3) I dont have a complete understanding of how the market works...My bad

4) The Social Security tax is capped at 90k ( meaning anything you make over 90k is not taxed) roughly one of my parents makes 90k why should they pay as much social security as bill gates...now your going to say well gates can only draw as much as you parents...this is true benefits structures should be re-worked

5) Not everything Bush does is evil, only naive people think that...I just disagree with his policies....