Oh the Joys of Holiday Charity Work

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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?[/QUOTE]


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.
 
[quote name='Cheese']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
goatse_35.jpg
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Just when I think I've read the stupidest post ever, you go and post another. Just as the strength of a solitary brick will not save a poorly built structure, your bold typeface does not redeem your craven incoherent words.

If there's an idea in your head, it's in solitary confinement. You couldn't get a clue during clue mating season in a field of clues if you smeared your body in musk and did the clue mating dance. Have you ever noticed that whenever you sit behind a keyboard, some idiot starts typing? As Abba Eban so aptly said: "His ignorance is encyclopedic."

What possessed you to think that you were capable of being entertaining or interesting to read? I bet you thought it was just coincidence that your parents had the same surnames before they married? Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you weren't so dense that light bends around you; if your weren't so fat that you look like The Michelin Man man on steroids, or if your face wasn't so ugly that visitors to the Ugly Palace pay money NOT to see you. Who am I kidding? You would.

Finally, why don't you go and get lost somewhere where they don't have a "found" department?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='Cheese']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.[/QUOTE]

See my post above as to why Social Security is a terrible deal for everybody.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Doesn't take too much knowledge;[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Financial stuff[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Your bottom line is the bottom of the barrel...[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it really works![/QUOTE]

Something about pots and kettles. I think the color black is involved.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Is that the best you can do.[/QUOTE]


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.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']As the facts clearly show, everybody, poor or rich, would be better off with the government out of their retirement pockets.[/QUOTE]


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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Cheese']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]

Even a non-risky venture in the market is sure to outperform the awful return people get from Social Security.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Even a non-risky venture in the market is sure to outperform the awful return people get from Social Security.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='evanft']I think the SS return is something like 2%.[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

Not really. The default could be the S&P 500 or some other index.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top