Social Security Sinking Us Sooner Than Thought

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Is your I.Q. "3" as in your acronym?

The Bush Social Security plan merely gave those paying into the system the option of placing a portion of their funds into equities. Perhaps you're too ignorant to realize this but since the aftermath of the election Treasury Bonds are down 20% in price from their late year highs.

If social security money flowed into equities the chances of big stock corrections WOULD BE MITIGATED. The market is an auction dumb fuck.

The Bush plan also gave people portability. Want to know the chances of a black guy living long enough to see a Social Security check? But idf those funds could be passed down to his kids maybe just maybe you could ease the cycle of poverty. But why do that? If blacks ever made it OFF THE PLANTATION then who else would elect Democrats?

Quote from gody3:

The top priority on the agenda of conservatives after the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 was the privatization of Social Security. Financial institutions which stood to be the biggest beneficiaries of this plan were the largest contributors to his re-election coffers. Bush tried to do the bidding of his benefactors, overtly and unashamedly. Nothing could be more plain and simple.

Bush's allies at Fox News and USANext were attacking AARP, which opposes privatization. When interviewed in early 2005 by the Washington Post, Bush corrected the reporter's use of the term "privatization plan", insisting on the phrase "personal savings accounts." Privatization was halted as the term used by Republicans to describe the plan, due to its poor performance in polls and focus groups. Another euphemism was deployed by Karl Rove during February 2005 interview with Hannity & Colmes on Fox News - "modernizing Social Security."

IMAGINE IF THEY HAD SUCCEEDED AND SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS HAD BEEN INVESTED IN THE MARKET JUST PRIOR TO THIS BLACK SWAN.

 

[Mnphats]

Quote from gody3:

The top priority on the agenda of conservatives after the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 was the privatization of Social Security. Financial institutions which stood to be the biggest beneficiaries of this plan were the largest contributors to his re-election coffers. Bush tried to do the bidding of his benefactors, overtly and unashamedly. Nothing could be more plain and simple.

Bush's allies at Fox News and USANext were attacking AARP, which opposes privatization. When interviewed in early 2005 by the Washington Post, Bush corrected the reporter's use of the term "privatization plan", insisting on the phrase "personal savings accounts." Privatization was halted as the term used by Republicans to describe the plan, due to its poor performance in polls and focus groups. Another euphemism was deployed by Karl Rove during February 2005 interview with Hannity & Colmes on Fox News - "modernizing Social Security."

IMAGINE IF THEY HAD SUCCEEDED AND SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS HAD BEEN INVESTED IN THE MARKET JUST PRIOR TO THIS BLACK SWAN.

Your blatant hatred gets in the way of your thought processes. I will gladly take the money that I pay in to a inherently bankrupt system and invest it how I see fit. Just because you can't doesn't mean everyone cant.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

If blacks ever made it OFF THE PLANTATION then who else would elect Democrats?

That would be the millions of illegal immigrants Obama is going to give US citizenship. Of course, since the liberals keep trying to block passage of an ID requirement for voting, they probably all voted in the last election.

 

[Mnphats]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

You act as if deflation is some dirty word.

Deflation is just a euphemism for increased purchasing power. In other words something desirable.

After this spending doesn't head off deflation-which it won't-then Obama will engage Stimulus ll-war in Pakistan.

I agree. There needs to be a certain amount of deflation and in the long run will be healthy. Housing, college and many consumer staples. For instance, I was in line to pay for gas today and decided to buy something to drink, for the love of god a buck 50 for a bottle of fricking coke.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Treasury longs are not going to accept massive supply coupled with inflation.

Just wait and see the damage of an 8.5% Long Bond upon growth.....

I could not agree more that that is the danger here. We'll be calling on our central bankers buddies around the world to support the dollar and help us walk a tight rope between deflation and excessive inflation. It sure won't be easy, but we have our creditors over a bit of a barrel in my view. Interest rates will rise. Will it be enough to completely stifle growth?

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Mnphats:

I agree. There needs to be a certain amount of deflation and in the long run will be healthy.

"Deflation" is the natural correction to the inflation created by the Fed. It's a healthy, good thing (except in the eyes of a spendthrift government).

There would BE no deflation nor inflation, if the Fed and government didn't SCREW WITH THE MONEY!!

All of the inflation/deflation, boom/bust cycles have always been intentional... ORCHESTRATED... except this time they pushed the boom too far and it got out of hand... credit ran to exhaustion.... BIG mistake.

 

[spellcheck]

Quote from pspr:

Seriously, war spending did damage and the toxic asset fiasco (which can be laid in the lap of Frank, Dodd and Pelosi) has brought us to the precifus. [/B]

precifus: NO
precipice: YES

 

[piezoe]

We can have this endless debate re SS based on political philosophy or we can look at facts: The SS system as it now functions won't work for low wage earners if we have the option of diverting some funds elsewhere, as it requires widespread participation to provide its full actuarial benefits. Unfortunately, after entitlement contributions, the low wage earner does not have enough disposable income to even consider establishing a meaningful supplemental retirement program. Nor do many have the financial sophistication to make sound investment decisions on their own.

The let-Wall-Street-in-on-the-action crowd says workers will be protected by having the government step in and regulate the choices for their supplemental plans. But then if you are going to limit choice while subjecting participants to more risk, what is the point? I understand that the idea was to allow a portion of what would otherwise be SS contributions be diverted to other plans, and so one could argue that the low wage worker can therefore afford alternative investment -- but this argument ignores reality, viz., those totally dependent on SS for retirement income can not afford the additional risk!

SS trades lower contributions, ones that those at the low end of the wage scale can barely afford, for lack of an estate to leave to ones heirs and for a benefit that can't be outlived. That seems to me a reasonable trade-off. It also provides, and this is very important, some built in disability benefits -- benefits that would otherwise have to be purchased from private insurers.

All the rest of us, those not at the low end of the wage scale, have the option of investing additional money as we see fit -- 401K, 403b, IRA, private brokerage account, etc.

Though it is obvious why Wall Street and the Insurance industry will stop at nothing to discredit Social Security, even if they have to lie by calling it a Ponzi Scheme, etc., it seems to me that we already have the best compromise -- a government protected basic retirement benefit that is "portable" and protected against "big stock corrections", and in addition the option to invest as much as we like and assume as much risk as we want to assume.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

...
The Bush Social Security plan merely gave those paying into the system the option of placing a portion of their funds into equities. ...since the aftermath of the election Treasury Bonds are down 20% in price from their late year highs.

If social security money flowed into equities the chances of big stock corrections WOULD BE MITIGATED. The market is an auction...

The Bush plan also gave people portability. Want to know the chances of a black guy living long enough to see a Social Security check? But if those funds could be passed down to his kids maybe just maybe you could ease the cycle of poverty. But why do that? If blacks ever made it OFF THE PLANTATION then who else would elect Democrats?...

 

[Mnphats]

Quote from piezoe:



Though it is obvious why Wall Street and the Insurance industry will stop at nothing to discredit Social Security, even if they have to lie by calling it a Ponzi Scheme, etc., it seems to me that we already have the best compromise -- a government protected basic retirement benefit that is "portable" and protected against "big stock corrections", and in addition the option to invest as much as we like and assume as much risk as we want to assume.

Social Security is straight forward, young pay for the old. Many more old then young. It will not work in the long run without major a overhaul. Like it or not. Not to mention when enacted it was never meant to serve as retirement income.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Mnphats:

Social Security is straight forward, young pay for the old. Many more old then young. It will not work in the long run without major a overhaul. Like it or not. Not to mention when enacted it was never meant to serve as retirement income.

I understand why you would think a major overhaul is needed, because that is the common misconception promulgated by Wall Street and the Insurance companies. And you are certainly correct that some adjustments are needed, and needed now and not later, to adjust for changing demographics in the US. But they are in truth quite minor and easily accomplished (except perhaps politically). It is a common misconception that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme whereby the young pay the retirement of the old and there will be nothing left for the young when they reach retirement. In fact SS is based on sound actuarial principles, though the system must be adjusted from time to time, as any such system..

You might get the idea that i am a socialist, but i am not. I am a realist, and i would reluctantly part with some individual freedom to avoid the specter of large numbers of destitute old folks eating cat food. I also firmly believe that Social Security is not such a bad deal for any of us except perhaps for the very wealthy, and even they reap some benefits. It is a rather sensible trade-off in my opinion.