Oh the Joys of Holiday Charity Work

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I volunteered some time at the Salvation Army for a friend of mine to help with their "Giving Tree" program.

For those of you that don't know what it is needy families register their names with the SA with a gift(s) their family says they need. Usually it's pretty safe stuff like a toaster oven/microwave, kitchenware, kids clothes, diapers/baby stuff, heaters, winter coats etc. All the things you'd pretty much think poor people would need. Which is great, I'd rather help a charity support such programs than pay more taxes where 8% of the money gets to the end recipient and the other 92% gets eaten by government bureaucracy.

So anyways this is the scene. Designer bags on roughly 40% of the women. A female working with us estimated the bags from $400-1,200. The same percentage if not greater (Say half.) have ostentacious jewelry and diamonds. 60% or more are wearing designer clothes.

There are some truly hardship cases where they had a church member drive them to the pickup because they had no car. They had kids in tow and were generally the ones picking up children's items. Great, glad to help.

At the end of it a guy in his late 50's or so asks for help with his family's things. Super, glad to help. That's the theme of the day. So I take the stuff out front and there's some dumb bitch with nails that make her look like Wolverine that pulls up in a brand new Mercedes M Class (Their SUV.) I politely ask the guy, "So how do you like the "M" class?".

He goes on and on about how nice the car is, how great the dealership is, how he doesn't owe anything on it YADDA YADDA YADDA.

My reply was "Great, glad you enjoy your $50,000 car. I think you can load your own presents now, you certainly don't need anyone's help here from the looks of it."

And people in this country wonder why poverty statistics are viewed with great skepticism.

[Ikohn4ever]

you should try goin to the Jubilee Soup Kitchen off of 5th Ave, there are people there that really do need a hand. I have helped out there a few times and these people arent drivin Bendzs

[RedvsBlue]

This reminds me of when Ol' Dirty Bastard was gloating about still getting a government assistance check despite his obvious celebrity status. He was so cocky about it that he brought an MTV News crew with him when he cashed the check and he drove his mercedes (or some other luxury car, can't remember for sure) to cash it.

[E-Z-B]

Some people take advantage of the system like you said, but there are many others that genuinely don't and struggle to make ends meet. Don't let those people distort your perception about the truly needy.

[mykevermin]

This makes me wonder what the major differences between "urban poor" and "rural poor" are.

Yes, some of them seem to be easily deducible, but I don't want to pass judgment in the absence of data. Perhaps if I read more rural sociology I'd have an idea.

[kakomu]

So, you're pissed off that non-poor people shop at Salvation army? Point being?

[E-Z-B]

So, you're pissed off that non-poor people shop at Salvation army? Point being?

I remember back when I was about to start college at Penn State, I made a few trips to the salvation army to buy a couch and some miscellaneous furniture. In a way, I was needy since I didn't have a good job yet. Although the couch is long gone, I still have the coffee table and end table. :)

[mykevermin]

So, you're pissed off that non-poor people shop at Salvation army? Point being?
I didn't have my coffee this morning when I first read this, so I was initially picturing something like out local freestore/foodbank, rather than what TSA really is. I've seen plenty of posts on this very board about "deals" at Goodwill, which is ostensibly the same place as the Salvation Army. I think mao has a point here; perhaps you're just sullen because you could have volunteered somewhere that actually helps the poor, rather than serves as a place where anyone can buy cheap goods?

[E-Z-B]

I think PAD's saying that non-needy families are participating in this 'giving tree' thing. I guess the salvation army should do a better job at determining who's eligible for this charity event, but how? I'm sure the local churches have a general idea, and that's why they help out by driving people to this event like PAD said. But I assume the salvation army doesn't restrict it to church members only, so it's tough to weed out the scum.

[usickenme]

This speaks more to the greed of some people rather than "OMG!...poor people drive Mercedes". I sure it helps you sleep better.

While the guy in the story was a knucklehead don't assume anything. If someone has a "designer" bag, you probably don't know how they got it. Could be last year's cast-off. I remember while going to school in Boulder, I saw some "poor" people with some decent stuff. It was because the quality of what was given away was high. Then I again, I also saw some lazy ass people my age using food stamps for soda and candy while I was working my ass off to pay for school. Of course, I wasa bright enough to realize that they were a small percentage of the people getting help.

I love the old "If you want me to help you, you have to look like a character in a Dickens story"

[PittsburghAfterDark]

you should try goin to the Jubilee Soup Kitchen off of 5th Ave, there are people there that really do need a hand. I have helped out there a few times and these people arent drivin Bendzs

I did that for church youth group years ago. My dad and I still write checks to them every year. That's why I also give money to the Ligt of Life Mission you know that your money is going to the truly needy. I know exactly what you're talking about.

People, understand this. There's nothing wrong with SHOPPING at the SA or Goodwill. That's how they're bringing in money to continue their charity works.

These people had signed up asking for free new things. They weren't spending any of their money.

So Usickenme, I'm glad you have no problem with someone that laid down $50 large on a Benz claiming needing charity. You're the same kind of sucker, er... voter, that Democrats rely on when they need to rally 'round da poor.

[usickenme]

So Usickenme, I'm glad you have no problem with someone that laid down $50 large on a Benz claiming needing charity. You're the same kind of sucker, er... voter, that Democrats rely on when they need to rally 'round da poor.

Didn't say that..but thanks for reading into my post. I would've turn around with the box in hand or at least would've asked WTF? I certainly would not have made some weak comment, slinked away, and then posted about it.

However I do know the difference between the actual poor and the scammers.

[Msut77]

I bet the guy with the Benz was a Bush voter.

[kakomu]

So Usickenme, I'm glad you have no problem with someone that laid down $50 large on a Benz claiming needing charity. You're the same kind of sucker, er... voter, that Democrats rely on when they need to rally 'round da poor.

Actually, I was under the assumption that rich people constantly ask for charity in the form of tax breaks...which republicans are happy to oblige. (sometimes in the hopes that it will trickle down).

[Quillion]

Why all the partisan sniping? Can't we all just get along?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Keeping what you earned isn't charity.

[kakomu]

Keeping what you earned isn't charity.

Charity, noun
1)Provision of help or relief to the poor
Relieving those poor rich people of high tax burdens.

2)Something given to help the needy
3) An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
Those poor rich people need all the help they can get to pay their taxes. A tax break is just the help they need.

4) Benevolence or generosity toward others
The republicans have been very generous and benevolent in their endeavor to help rich people from paying so many taxes.

Anyways, what happened to supporting your government? I thought you and O'Reilly were all about that. I didn't realize you became a Socialist handing out freebies to poor people instead of berating them to 'get a job'. I guess even the staunchest of people can change. I praise your new liberal ways.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Hey, Brainiac.

Confiscating earned wealth to get 8% of confiscated funds to end recipients while fueling government bureaucracy with the other 92% in no way can be defined, defended or construed as charity. It's theft pure and simple.

If the government stuck to its mandated (Constitutionally) roles of funding arts/sciences, building roads, regulating commerce, postal services and defense I'd call taxation something other than legalized theft. However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.

That's theft.

And you're still dumber than dirt.

[kakomu]

Hey, Brainiac.

Confiscating earned wealth to get 8% of confiscated funds to end recipients while fueling government bureaucracy with the other 92% in no way can be defined, defended or construed as charity. It's theft pure and simple.
Really? Care to cite this 92% funding bureaucracy stat? I'm curious what "bureaucracy" entails.

If the government stuck to its mandated (Constitutionally) roles of funding arts/sciences, building roads, regulating commerce, postal services and defense I'd call taxation something other than legalized theft. However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.

That's theft.

Really? So, government workers haven't earned any of their pay? The military has earned none of their pay?

And you're still dumber than dirt.:dunce:

[shipwreck]

Keep the namecalling to a minimum PAD. You can express your point without it.

[Strell]

I've seen this thing myself - obviously rich, plush people asking for charity while hauling around all sort of expensive things.

Particularly at Thanksgiving a church around here was driving around giving food to needy families. Apparently someone pulled up a huge house, checked the address, determined it was correct, and made a delivery. 2 kids running around in brand new Nikes, a huge LCD TV hanging in the living room, all sorts of electronics, and a mom thanking them after putting down a Louis Vuitton handbag.

It's sad, really. I think this is why I hate charity organizations so much. After the Redcross tsunami debacle (losing over half of the donated millions), I stopped feeling bad about not giving more money. I still donate, but only if I know it helps directly. Child's Play comes to mind. Or just handing some cash to someone on the street.

People take advantage of stuff like this all the time. There have been numerous fruad cases following Katrina, with people being handed thousands in free stuff when they claimed they lost everything. You're always going to have people taking advantage of the situation.

So the best defense is a good offense. And in this case it's me refusing to help out charity organizations who obviously don't give a shit about who they give handouts to. I'm willing to bet we, as CAGs, could get away with it if we wanted. But please don't, there's enough heartless fuckjobs ruining it for people who honestly need it.

Sad, really. The depths humanity will sink to to better themselves and simultaneously fuck their fellow men around.

[alonzomourning23]

Wait, so PAD is complaining about charities, the supposed solution to the corruption of government assistance. So charities are corrupt and government is corrupt, with republicans in charge no wonder the poor are fucked.

Personally I think they should do their best to limit this. But, at the same time, I can walk into stores and buy designer jeans for 15%-20% of the original price during certain times of the year. I've seen some very nice clothing at goodwill as well, particularly nike stuff. So basically, you can't get rid of the fraud completely because you'll rule out the poor who just know where to look or got lucky. Fraud is a fact of life with these things, the best you can do is minimize it.

There's also the issue of those who had some money but had a rapid loss of money, often due to the lost of a job. A family may have high debt and all of a sudden lose their well paying job, making it so they can't afford to even pay their monthly bills, let alone any extras.

[lithiumdeuteride]

PittsburghAfterDark:

You seem to think taxes are a bad thing because they steal money that has been earned fair & square. So I pose this question to you:

Would a complete elimination of all taxes be a good thing? That would amount to everyone keeping "what they've earned", wouldn't it? There would be no public services whatsoever. No upkeep of roads apart from what citizens decided to do for themselves (which would be virtually nothing). No centralized military (though private militia would spring up everywhere). The country would collapse into anarchy.

Now, you can obviously go too far with taxes, but we haven't gone that far yet.

[Msut77]

Hey, Brainiac.
to get 8% of confiscated funds to end recipients while fueling government bureaucracy with the other 92%


I would like to see this backed up.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Several Libertarian groups tackle the issue of government overhead in poverty programs and cite the figure 70% of every tax dollar goes to fuel government bureacracy.

Link 1 (http://home.hiwaay.net/~craigg/g4c/welfare.htm)
Link 2 (http://www.lp.org/lpn/9911-poverty.html)

I figure that's going to be a figure more trustworthy to the nuts on this board as opposed to something like the Cato Institute or Citizens Against Government Waste which both have decidedly conservative agendas and have pegged the total as high as 92% in the past.

PittsburghAfterDark:

You seem to think taxes are a bad thing because they steal money that has been earned fair & square. So I pose this question to you:

Would a complete elimination of all taxes be a good thing? That would amount to everyone keeping "what they've earned", wouldn't it? There would be no public services whatsoever. No upkeep of roads apart from what citizens decided to do for themselves (which would be virtually nothing). No centralized military (though private militia would spring up everywhere). The country would collapse into anarchy.

Now, you can obviously go too far with taxes, but we haven't gone that far yet.

If the government stuck to its mandated (Constitutionally) roles of funding arts/sciences, building roads, regulating commerce, postal services and defense I'd call taxation something other than legalized theft. However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.

Pay attention people! This was merely on the previous page. Would you like to tell me where I advocated no roads, military, no government functions, taxation or spending?

This is why I think people are so damn stupid on this board. They can't even decipher what was written 5 posts ago accurately.

[mykevermin]

However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.

The first page you linked (which might as well be "GeoCities," FWIW) said this:

"70% of the Federal welfare budget goes not to the poor but to the bureaucrats."

Note that this is NOT 70 cents of the ENTIRE federal budget; if you stupid enough to try to claim that 70 cents of every dollar Uncle Sam gets from the people is redirected to the "undeserving poor" in their Mercedes (something else you've not addressed at all), then you need to go back and finish elementary school before coming back to argue here, because even the least familiar with government can tell you that's logically impossible.

IF, on the other hand, you want to use that data *as it is meant*, and tell me this is proof that the bureaucracy is inefficient, well, then I'll tell you two things: (1) I dare you to show me a government division that *lacks* an inefficient bureaucracy, and (2) this has nothing to do with welfare.

Look, PAD...sit down for a moment. If you really think that 70% of ALL government spending is welfare, you don't deserve the ability to post on this thread. You have to bring a certain amount of intellectual knowledge to this board, and thinking that welfare spending is that high is intellectually on par with putting cereal in your shoes before you put them on in the morning. As the great W.C. Fields would have said, "Go 'way kid, ya bother me."

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Mykey, you need to calm down and have your morning coffee.

Of course I was talking about welfare and entitlement programs. 60%+ of federal spending is on entitlements whether its welfare, SSI, Medicaid/Medicare, food stamps etc.

If 70% of programs costs are tied up in administration it's criminal. No one would rightly donate to a charity that was so inept at getting funds to their end target. That's still, IMHO, a low figure. If you throw in federal funds that are block granted to the states (Like most welfare and health care programs.) that figure can easily jump to 90%.

The point was if government is so criminally inept at helping those in need as opposed to itself why support such programs?

I can't tell you how many times I've gone grocery shopping on a Friday government checks and food stamps arrive and watch people drop $300 on a cart or two of groceries pay for it with government issue EBT cards and wheel it out into a waiting luxury vehicle like a Jaguar or Mercedes. If that $300 represents 30% of end government expenditures that's $1,000 for one person/family for one month.

I'd wager to bet the number of people on this board that pay $1,000 annually in federal taxes is less than 5. Of course since few of you actually earn money, let alone pay substantial taxes by substantial I mean more than $5,000, you don't care. It's not your money you're talking about its "the rich's" money. You can deal completely in the abstract of fiscal policy because you're not footing the bill just like the overwhelming majority of voters.

[camoor]

I have a buddy who works in a city doctor's office and he sees this all the time. There are routinely people with the nicest cars, the newest phones, and the most "bling" who cannot pay their bills and cry poverty when he tries to collect. These people are poor because they make poor spending choices, and while they don't deserve to die of TB, it just sucks that the rest of us need to fund the jackass who can't feed his kids because he had to buy that $350 Redskins jacket.

PAD was on a role until he turned this into a partisan debate. I would submit that corporate welfare, for example the unneeded subsidies to agribusiness, are a much bigger problem. Also troubling are the companies that open headquarters in Bermuda tax shelters, yet almost exclusively do all their business in the US. Especially because these companies have recently been signing business with the US Federal government (talk about insult to injury)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/back_room_dealing_a_capitol_trend?pg=full

And surprise, surprise:

Dismayed that the technology company Accenture had located its headquarters in Bermuda, thereby avoiding paying hundreds of millions of dollars in US taxes, the House Appropriations Committee voted 35-17 this summer to strip the firm of a $10 billion Homeland Security contract.

It was a rare moment of bipartisan agreement and an important victory for those who decry corporate tax loopholes. But it didn't last long. The Rules Committee, the all-powerful gatekeeper of the Republican leadership, prevented the measure from reaching the House floor. In a further show of its power to pick and choose what the full House can vote on, the Rules Committee allowed the House to vote on a ban on future Homeland Security contracts to overseas companies -- but let the $10 billion flow to Accenture, which spent $2 million last year lobbying the government.

What is it you Republicans say? Oh yes, up-and-down vote, that's all we're asking. Seems fair, right? :)

[E-Z-B]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/back_room_dealing_a_capitol_trend?pg=full

And surprise, surprise:



What is it you Republicans say? Oh yes, up-and-down vote, that's all we're asking. Seems fair, right? :)

Wow, in one breath, I want to say 'unbelievable', but in another, I say 'no surprise'.

[Msut77]

Several Libertarian groups tackle the issue of government overhead in poverty programs and cite the figure 70% of every tax dollar goes to fuel government bureacracy.


Before I even bother to look at your no doubt moronic links.... 70% would be quite a bit lower than 92% right?

[mykevermin]

60%+ of federal spending is on entitlements whether its welfare, SSI, Medicaid/Medicare, food stamps etc.

Are you REALLY trying to say that 60 cents of *every* dollar the government gets goes into welfare?

PAD, I will pay for the plane ticket myself to come to Pittsburgh and blow you if it's that high. That's how confident I am that, if you take medicaid out of the equation (and given the proportion of Wal-Mart and other low-wage yet working Americans on Medicaid, I think it's fair to drop it from a discussion about "undeserving" poor, for want of a better phrase), I'd still be astounded if SSI, welfare, and food stamps are even 10% of our annual expenditures.

I hope I'm still misreading you (no, I've not had my coffee, and I just spent two hours in an optometrists' waiting room), because it seem like you're trying to tell me that "entitlement spending" is TWICE the size of military spending (at its maximum, of course, and if we assume that the government spends nothing on anything but welfare and the military).

You seriously can't be that fucking dumb, and I'm just misreading you.

[Msut77]

Social Security isnt exactly an entitlement. People paid into the system for decades and are getting back more or less what they put in.

[mykevermin]

SSI is not the same as "Social Security."

[E-Z-B]

myke, go here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

Then scroll down to page 81.

Law enforcement & general government: 3%
Social programs: 21%
Physical, community, and human development: 10%
Net interest on debt: 7%
National defense, veterans, and foreign affairs: 23%
Social security, medicare, and other retirement: 36%

Social programs includes medicaid, food stamps, assistance to needy families, unemployment, assisted housing, and social services. This is a far cry from 60%.

[Msut77]

SSI is not the same as "Social Security."

Yeah but he seems to be taken it into account if he gets anywhere near the figure he cites.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

SSI, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, traditional welfare (AFDC), housing subsidies in the form of Section 8. I'm talking ALL forms of government checks and disbursements to the general population.

Is it all welfare? No. Is it all as generally inefficient? Yes.

I'm not even talking about flat out fraud in the system. I'm saying that for every $100 spent on these government handouts or entitlement, which no matter how you slice it Social Security is, the government is spending 70%+ of every gross tax dollar to administrate that disbursement.

Is 70% far from 92%? I clarified and elaborated on that.

Many anti-poverty programs, including Medicaid/care, are block granted to states. If you're losing 70% within the Federal bureacracy there's state overhead and bureacracy on top of the funds block granted back to the states. Let's say states are half as inefficient as the Feds.

$100 of tax payer money.

$70 goes to federal bureacracy.

$30 goes to the states.

$11 goes to state bureacracy. (Assuming they can distribute money twice as efficient as the federal government.)

$19 gets in the hands of end recipient.

Let's say you live in a notoriously inefficient state like New York, Pennsylvania or California and block granted funds are equally inept as the feds.

$100 in tax payer money.

$70 to the fed bureacracy. (70%)

$30 to the states.

$21 to the state bureacracy (70%)

$9 to the end recipient.

Wallah.... 91% inefficiency from government entitlement and welfare programs.

[mykevermin]

I'm talking ALL forms of government checks and disbursements to the general population.
So what you're saying is that government is grossly inefficient? No shit. What's that have to do with welfare?

[nevposey]

Grossly inefficient is not entirely incorrect...unfortunately.

[Msut77]

Is 70% far from 92%? I clarified and elaborated on that.


Throwing in an "IMHO it's higher" is not clarification.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Throwing in an "IMHO it's higher" is not clarification.

Dude, look up. Exactly four posts from this one.

Re-read until you gain some kind of knowledge. If that fails, read again. That fails?

Shoot self.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/tiredoflaundry/zot/anim_loser.gif

[Cheese]

It should be noted that while most HMO's have administration costs of 12 and 15% of their budgets, Medicare's operational overhead has never been over 5% and usually floats around 2-3%.

Social Security's overhead costs are less then 1% of it's total operational budget. (estimated .7%)

That doesn't sound inefficient to me.

[Msut77]

PUD I read your insipid drivel. Nowhere in the garbage you call a post was there any point or factual information whatsoever.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

PUD I read your insipid drivel. Nowhere in the garbage you call a post was there any point or factual information whatsoever.

Nor do we see anything resembling a factual rebuttal in the flowing insipid drivel from you Slut77. Nowhere in the garbage you call a response do you come up with statistics to refute what I say.

See how that works?

I can be condescending and abrasive as well. :D

[Metal Boss]

I can be condescending and abrasive as well. :D


you can be? I thought that was just your normal routine...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Did someone just hear a fart?

[Metal Boss]

Your reagan looks proud of that.

[Danro]

Now now, stick to the controversy ladies.

[elprincipe]

Social Security isnt exactly an entitlement. People paid into the system for decades and are getting back more or less what they put in.

Much more than they put in; however, much, much less than what they would have if the same money were invested in the stock market. Isn't government involvement in retirement programs wonderful?

[alonzomourning23]

Much more than they put in; however, much, much less than what they would have if the same money were invested in the stock market. Isn't government involvement in retirement programs wonderful?

Now, how many people have the knowledge and understanding of how to properly do that?

Yes some people would have had more, but many would have had less. By having each person responsible for investing their money you are putting their long term well being at risk.

Its never a good idea to risk what you can't afford to lose, in comparison to the current system thats what you would be doing.

[Cheese]

Much more than they put in; however, much, much less than what they would have if the same money were invested in the stock market. Isn't government involvement in retirement programs wonderful?


That all depends on what you invest in. Say you invest all your retirement money in Dr. Wirthems Revitalizing Tonic, Inc. and it comes out that he's a fraud and the stock tanks. Then you're left on the street at 65 years old with no income, savings, etc.
What makes you think that Joe Blow high school drop out and minimum wage assembly line worker who can barely read the sports section much less the financial page, is going to make smart, informed investments instead of just using the money in hand to buy a new big screen TV?
Social Security is the most successful social program in American history if simply for the fact that we no longer have middle and lower class elderly, at best, becoming burdens to their families, and at worst, dying in the street. It keeps peoples money safe from things like stock market crashes, industry shake ups, fraud, etc. While it may not pay out as much, at least it's 100% guaranteed to pay out something.

[kakomu]

That all depends on what you invest in. Say you invest all your retirement money in Dr. Wirthems Revitalizing Tonic, Inc. and it comes out that he's a fraud and the stock tanks. Then you're left on the street at 65 years old with no income, savings, etc.
What makes you think that Joe Blow high school drop out and minimum wage assembly line worker who can barely read the sports section much less the financial page, is going to make smart, informed investments instead of just using the money in hand to buy a new big screen TV?
Social Security is the most successful social program in American history if simply for the fact that we no longer have middle and lower class elderly, at best, becoming burdens to their families, and at worst, dying in the street. It keeps peoples money safe from things like stock market crashes, industry shake ups, fraud, etc. While it may not pay out as much, at least it's 100% guaranteed to pay out something.

True. Also, CDs would be a good thing to invest in. On the Flip side, I don't like the idea of the government taking my money and investing it into private firms, especially if they invest them in questionable firms, or firms that I just plain don't like.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Only a short bus riding, hockey helmet wearing, chronically masturbating wonder tard like you capitalist_mao think the government would actually be the organization investing your dollars if privatizing SSI accounts ever took place....

I honestly don't know whether to cry or laugh at you at how truly clueless you are on the rough proposals put forward.

Do some homework before you continue to embarass yourself on topics. Privatization does not mean government involvement.

[kakomu]

Only a short bus riding, hockey helmet wearing, chronically masturbating wonder tard like you capitalist_mao think the government would actually be the organization investing your dollars if privatizing SSI accounts ever took place....

I honestly don't know whether to cry or laugh at you at how truly clueless you are on the rough proposals put forward.

Do some homework before you continue to embarass yourself on topics. Privatization does not mean government involvement.

Actually, the point I brought up was a fear among Cato as well.

The Cato gang argues that they don't want government determining where SS funds ought to be invested because it would give the Government influence over the decisions and practices of private corporations. It is conceivable that Government could end up owning as much as 10% of the shares of major corporations, making the public the largest single stockholder and enabling Government to potentially exercise significant influence over corporate policies.
http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/eisensch.htm

Now, if you think that Cato is a bunch of "short bus riding, hockey helmet wearing, chronically masturbating wonder tards" that are embarassing themselves, I guess we can go from there.

[Vampire Hunter D]

Ladies dont get your tampons in a bundle.

[elprincipe]

Now, how many people have the knowledge and understanding of how to properly do that?

Yes some people would have had more, but many would have had less. By having each person responsible for investing their money you are putting their long term well being at risk.

Its never a good idea to risk what you can't afford to lose, in comparison to the current system thats what you would be doing.

Doesn't take too much knowledge; just invest it in the S&P 500 if you don't know any better. And you don't know much about the history of the stock market if you think anyone who did that would have less than they got from Social Security. Long-term solid investments are not much of a risk and do much, much better than the paltry increases the government authorizes.

Consider:

http://www.finfacts.com/stockperf.htm

The average return from the stock market was 11% per year from 1926-1999, pretty strong historical data.

http://www.sf.frb.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr99/el99-34.html
The authors find that, under current OASI rules, today's lowest paid workers (those in the bottom 20% of the income distribution based on lifetime earnings) can expect internal rates of return between 4% and 5% after adjusting for inflation (Panel A). Today's middle income workers can expect real rates of return between 1% and 2%. Today's highest paid workers can expect real rates of return below 1% and may even face negative rates of return if born after 1975.

Given this data, everyone is suffering from government involvement in (at least in administering) retirement programs. I think you could reasonably argue that people should be required to invest or save a certain percentage of their income for retirement (although I would disagree), but having the government administer it just results in more bloated government bureaucracy and lower rates of return for everyone.

[elprincipe]

That all depends on what you invest in. Say you invest all your retirement money in Dr. Wirthems Revitalizing Tonic, Inc. and it comes out that he's a fraud and the stock tanks. Then you're left on the street at 65 years old with no income, savings, etc.
What makes you think that Joe Blow high school drop out and minimum wage assembly line worker who can barely read the sports section much less the financial page, is going to make smart, informed investments instead of just using the money in hand to buy a new big screen TV?
Social Security is the most successful social program in American history if simply for the fact that we no longer have middle and lower class elderly, at best, becoming burdens to their families, and at worst, dying in the street. It keeps peoples money safe from things like stock market crashes, industry shake ups, fraud, etc. While it may not pay out as much, at least it's 100% guaranteed to pay out something.

See my post above as to why Social Security is a terrible deal for everybody.

[alonzomourning23]

Doesn't take too much knowledge;

That's the problem. While in an ideal world everyone would do something, if they can't keep up with the stock market they'd just take the safe way out. Problem is it doesn't work that way. The ones most likely to screw up (and as long as there is a choice that can lead to screwing up people will) will be the ones who need the money most, the poor. You will end up with hard working, upright citizens who have nothing (or close to it) for their retirement.

And if they actually have the option to take their money (instead of being forced to keep it for retirement) then financially irresponsible people would be likely to take it, and those who are in financial trouble (losing their house or car for example) are also likely to take it. While it may seem like a good idea at the time, years later it may not be.

With the way it is (and it can be reformed without changing this aspect) people who earned their benefits through work will recieve money, their financial sensibilities won't matter.

[kakomu]

Financial stuff
While I see where you're coming from, i also have to agree with Alonzo. That being said, governmental financial planners may be a good thing, but could easily lead to a conflict of interest as governmental agencies may start recommending certain stocks exclusively. That being said, I'd say the easiest way to go about this is to provide money to people to go to their own financial planners.

My main fear amont trading in stocks with money that was social security is not so much a crash, but the conflicts of interest and evil corruption and scandal that could occur behind such a large plan.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Bottom line: The American public is completely stupid and only government knows whats best.

[Metal Boss]

Your bottom line is the bottom of the barrel...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Your bottom line is the bottom of the barrel...

Your post is a tedious, homogenised, chameleon-esque scribble which amounts to nothing more than the demented cacophonous racket of a drugged lunatic banging loudly on kitchen pots and pans. I suggest you hone your writing skills before applying borrowed glories as a mere typist.

I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it really works! You wouldn't know a clue if it walked up to you, bit you on the ass, and announced 'I AM A CLUE'. Have you ever noticed that whenever you sit behind a keyboard, some idiot starts typing? I am reminded of something relevant that Benjamin Disraeli said: "He was distinguished for ignorance - for he had only one idea and that was wrong."

You are about as entertaining as watching grass grow in a windowbox. What do you do for a living? You are living, aren't you? Genius does what it must, talent does what it can, and you had best do what you're told, you dyslexic lobotomy patient. Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you weren't so dumb that even blondes tell jokes about you.

Dullard, do yourself and everyone else a favor, take a fatal overdose of your medication.

[Metal Boss]

Fumed? You're pretty easy, It takes one witty remark to get you to write 3 poorly construed insults as if I stepped on your girlfriends foot and spit in your drink. Weren't this hot headed when I pointed out your hypocritical spelling and grammar errors now were we?

I didn't read all that drivel but please, continue to hump my leg and try to boost your internet ego a little more.

Dork...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Is that the best you can do.

[kakomu]

I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it really works!

Something about pots and kettles. I think the color black is involved.

[Metal Boss]

Is that the best you can do.


I don't know, let me mull over your previous post


The correct spelling is "Homogenized", but I admire your hypocrisy and stupidity in the same & first paragraph, thats kind of a reoccuring theme though for you.

You might as well throw out some yo-mama jokes, ooh really the clue needs to "bite me in the ass" you say?...

It's nice to see your insults are on the same level as your "serious" arguments, which are so poorly thought out anyways it seems like you just type them up for some kind of shock value. So the real bottom line here is, mister, Is that the best you can do? I certainly hope so because your daddy needs his computer back real soon.

[kakomu]

I don't know, let me mull over your previous post


The correct spelling is "Homogenized", but I admire your hypocrisy and stupidity in the same & first paragraph, thats kind of a reoccuring theme though for you.

You might as well throw out some yo-mama jokes, ooh really the clue needs to "bite me in the ass" you say?...

It's nice to see your insults are on the same level as your "serious" arguments, which are so poorly thought out anyways it seems like you just type them up for some kind of shock value. So the real bottom line here is, mister, Is that the best you can do? I certainly hope so because your daddy needs his computer back real soon.
I wouldn't doubt it if he just gets these "insults" from some other website and copies and pastes them verbatim. There's a real disconnect from what he's saying and what's happening. For instance, at some point in time, he decided to write some 3 paragraph rant/insult which referenced things I had not done. Most notably, he mentioned bold faced type, which I had not used.

Of course, in these instances, the warn button works wonders.

[evanft]

I find the ignore list works even better.

[elprincipe]

That's the problem. While in an ideal world everyone would do something, if they can't keep up with the stock market they'd just take the safe way out. Problem is it doesn't work that way. The ones most likely to screw up (and as long as there is a choice that can lead to screwing up people will) will be the ones who need the money most, the poor. You will end up with hard working, upright citizens who have nothing (or close to it) for their retirement.

And if they actually have the option to take their money (instead of being forced to keep it for retirement) then financially irresponsible people would be likely to take it, and those who are in financial trouble (losing their house or car for example) are also likely to take it. While it may seem like a good idea at the time, years later it may not be.

With the way it is (and it can be reformed without changing this aspect) people who earned their benefits through work will recieve money, their financial sensibilities won't matter.

I just totally disagree. Personally I'd abolish Social Security, but a compromise would be to let people make the choice of what to do with their retirement money while requiring them to save/invest a certain percentage, perhaps even setting standards as to acceptable investments (wide-ranging, but no junk bonds, etc.). Heck, they could even keep the current program as a choice for any fool who felt the government could handle his money better than he could. As the facts clearly show, everybody, poor or rich, would be better off with the government out of their retirement pockets.

[evanft]

I like the idea that everyone is guaranteed a certain amount of SS (basically, what they would get now), so if their investments come up short, they won't be screwed over.

[elprincipe]

I like the idea that everyone is guaranteed a certain amount of SS (basically, what they would get now), so if their investments come up short, they won't be screwed over.

Part of what I was saying is that it can be assured that long-term investments (like, say, those over the working life of a person) won't come up short; in fact, looking at the historical data, investments are a far superior choice to government-administrated Social Security for every group.

[Cheese]

As the facts clearly show, everybody, poor or rich, would be better off with the government out of their retirement pockets.


The facts don't show that at all. My 96 year old grandmother who knows diddly squat about finances would be on the street without SS. So would a lot of people. SS is, by far, the single most successful government program ever. Even long term investments can't always be trusted, because of unforeseen stock market crashes, monopoly judgments (Like Bell telephone), fraud, etc.

[evanft]

Part of what I was saying is that it can be assured that long-term investments (like, say, those over the working life of a person) won't come up short; in fact, looking at the historical data, investments are a far superior choice to government-administrated Social Security for every group.

Indeed.

[kakomu]

Part of what I was saying is that it can be assured that long-term investments (like, say, those over the working life of a person) won't come up short; in fact, looking at the historical data, investments are a far superior choice to government-administrated Social Security for every group.

You can play it safe and go with a non-risky venture. Of course, if you're not wealthy, you're just not going to get very much money out of this.

If you don't have any money, you may want to go with riskier stocks. However, no less than 6 years ago, people who had invested in 401ks with riskier stocks got a kick in the ass as their stocks went to shit as 2001 ushered in a lovely recession.

That being said, you have to prove that non-risky investments are going to continue to produce gains that would be better than social security for a low wage worker.

History shows that if you play it safe, you just don't make that much unless you start investing really really early on. If you make riskier investments, it's hit or miss, and the stock market is a cruel maiden.

[elprincipe]

The facts don't show that at all. My 96 year old grandmother who knows diddly squat about finances would be on the street without SS. So would a lot of people. SS is, by far, the single most successful government program ever. Even long term investments can't always be trusted, because of unforeseen stock market crashes, monopoly judgments (Like Bell telephone), fraud, etc.

I guarantee that if your grandmother had taken all the money she was forced to pay into Social Security and invested it in the S&P 500, she'd have far better rate of return than she's gotten from Social Security.

Your focus on a single company having problems and stock market crashes betray your ignorance on the subject. If you have a diversified portfolio (like, say, the S&P 500...) then one company going down won't ruin you. As for the crashes, if you're in it for the long term the market has bounced back within years, or sometimes even months, every single time.

[elprincipe]

You can play it safe and go with a non-risky venture. Of course, if you're not wealthy, you're just not going to get very much money out of this.

Even a non-risky venture in the market is sure to outperform the awful return people get from Social Security.

[evanft]

I think the SS return is something like 2%.

[kakomu]

Even a non-risky venture in the market is sure to outperform the awful return people get from Social Security.
Can you give some figures? Otherwise, it's just opinion.

Also, non-risky stocks are always prone to the market fluctuations. You may not lose it all, but you won't gain anything during economic down time.

[elprincipe]

I think the SS return is something like 2%.

Taken from my previous post:

The authors find that, under current OASI rules, today's lowest paid workers (those in the bottom 20% of the income distribution based on lifetime earnings) can expect internal rates of return between 4% and 5% after adjusting for inflation (Panel A). Today's middle income workers can expect real rates of return between 1% and 2%. Today's highest paid workers can expect real rates of return below 1% and may even face negative rates of return if born after 1975.

So for a poor 96-year-old grandma who never made that much money, it would be between 4-5% perhaps. Less than half of what the market would have given her, but probably better than if she had it in a bank. 1-2% is probably worse than just sticking your money in a CD, much less the market.

[alonzomourning23]

Your focus on a single company having problems and stock market crashes betray your ignorance on the subject. If you have a diversified portfolio (like, say, the S&P 500...) then one company going down won't ruin you.

That's a good summary of why I think giving people control over SS, or getting rid of it, is a bad idea.

Your idea requires them to have some basic knowledge of the stock market.

[Msut77]

SS should be more thought of as retirement insurance than anything else.

[elprincipe]

That's a good summary of why I think giving people control over SS, or getting rid of it, is a bad idea.

Your idea requires them to have some basic knowledge of the stock market.

Not really. The default could be the S&P 500 or some other index.

[lithiumdeuteride]

If the government stuck to its mandated (Constitutionally) roles of funding arts/sciences, building roads, regulating commerce, postal services and defense I'd call taxation something other than legalized theft. However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.

I think the liberals have a slightly better track record when it comes to funding arts/sciences, building roads, regulating commerce, and postal services. However, it's pretty dismal all around. No question about defense, of course. The Republicans win in that category.