02-04-2005, 11:54 AM | #42 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
The first step is to demonstrate that there is a problem or "crisis". Bush has failed to do that and there certainly is no agreement on the matter. So instead of Bush attempting to prove the necessity of significant change, he is pushing some kind, any kind, of significant change. He skipped the validation portion of the process. So instead of receiving plans for change, he is being attacked. Makes perfect sense to me. Until it is demonstrated that significant change is required, all talk of significant change is nothing more than a scam. |
|
02-04-2005, 12:16 PM | #43 (permalink) |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
o.k. Manx,
If there isn't a problem, please explain away the plummeting ROI and the ratios that are quickly heading to 1:1? At what ratio should I stop be concerned? If there isn't a problem, why was the SS tax increased? If there isn't a problem, why did Gore need a "lock box"? If there isn't a problem, what do we da about the SS IOU's? |
02-04-2005, 12:34 PM | #45 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
I don't think we can depend on companies to continue to offer retirement plans, they seem to be cancelling them more and more. We will have to take care of ourselves. The money we put away for retirement including SS should at least be able to be invested and build up and grow. I don't understand how anyone can be against this. |
|
02-04-2005, 12:53 PM | #46 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
government to pay back what it has already borrowed from the SS Trust Fund, via his outrageous tax cuts that clearly favor the rich. He destroyed the tax revenue vs. debt obligation that the Clinton administration had put in place for the country before the 2000 election. This "PLAN" includes Bush's intention for the government to default on the repayment of the trillions already owed to the SS Trust Fund. In your wildest dreams, do you really believe that the criminal thugs of the Bushco are expending their rhetoric and "political capital" to do something FOR you? Wake up America !!!! The Bushco thugs WASTED the State of the Union Speech on more of their deceptive wealth redistribution scheme, at a time of several timebombs of their own making. A crises in the condition of military staffing and in readyness, in energy policy, evironmental policy, and in the rapidly eroding toilet paper of a currency that their fiscal policy is in the process of completely destroying! Quote:
|
||
02-04-2005, 01:10 PM | #47 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
|
|
02-04-2005, 03:08 PM | #48 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
But that is all really a seperate issue. The issue here is that Bush and those that agree with him have not demonstrated that there is a crisis. Until they do, the talk of significant changes is nothing more than pushing an agenda through without regard to the necessities of the agenda. I.E., a scam. |
|
02-04-2005, 03:11 PM | #49 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
And just to be clear, the privatization of SS is not supposed to improve an individuals retirement benefits, it is very specifically supposed to remove the governments obligation to provide it (whether it improves benefits or not is a secondary intention). The exact opposite of what you are looking to gain. Last edited by Manx; 02-04-2005 at 03:14 PM.. |
|
02-04-2005, 03:27 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
|
|
02-04-2005, 03:35 PM | #52 (permalink) |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
All right, so I read through the SS info on EPI.
First, the "issue guide" suffers from the same aversion to the truth as the article that started this whole debate. Many of the claims made in the article (from the thread starter) are identical to claims made in the "issue guide" compiled by EPI. That, in and of itself, makes me wonder who really is behind this propoganda. anyways... As to ROI's in a death spiral and ratios nearing 1:1, the "issue guide" completely avoids the issue. I didn't see one reference to these problems that are very core to the problem/crisis/whatever that is Social Security. The very ommission of these problems makes the whole "guide" suspect to me--i.e. why avoid 'em, its not like nobody is discussing them and they are hidden problems. It does, however, have really good info on the program itself, so, if you want to bone up on what SS is, it is a good read. |
02-04-2005, 05:36 PM | #53 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
||
02-04-2005, 06:04 PM | #54 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
I didn't realize until recently that FDR proposed supplanting SS with self supported accounts:
Quote:
Last edited by flstf; 02-05-2005 at 09:27 AM.. Reason: added last sentence |
|
02-04-2005, 06:10 PM | #55 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
sheesh, from the posts thus far, I'm wagering that not very many of you had your investments tied up in the stock market during the last 5 years.
If you don't remember what happened to retirees, ask your grandparents or parents. I asked mine, and they are none to happy about their future prospects.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
02-04-2005, 06:27 PM | #56 (permalink) |
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
5 years is not very long term. When you are talking about investing for retirement you are thinking long term. For those in their 20-30's, 25-30 years. Do some homework, get a few mutual funds, and diversify. There's really not much more to it.
If your so averse to risk, get a 30-yr t-bond. But don't keep me from investing my money how I see fit. |
02-04-2005, 06:35 PM | #57 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
I'm 55 and have just finished re-balancing my portfolio to include more fixed income devices like bond funds. But if I were younger I'd go for stock funds. I have to be more conservative now since I'm retired and drawing out money every year to live on. |
|
02-04-2005, 09:39 PM | #58 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
lol, typical posts arguing over the trees at the expense of the forest.
To clarify, the wonderful panacea of the free market was actually a bunch of greedy corporate heads ransacking the public's money. Maybe you don't think that will happen again, whatever. The truth of the matter is that young investors may rebound, but many people who are retired right now are fucked. Their investment plans unraveled, not through any fault of their own, but through the lack of government oversight and greedy individuals. That's the shell-game people are urging others to play by banking their future retirements on whether unscrupulous people will take their money and run. My post had nothing to do with rates of return, but plain thievery. I didn't, but could easily have, asked how someone making minimum wage or slightly above that, is going to get $1000 dollars per month to invest in their own retirement. Our economy is shifting to a service economy, and low-paying jobs. People are going to have a hell of a time preparing for their own retirement when they can't even afford to pay their own rent and health care at the same time. No one is stopping anyone from privately investing in their future retirement. I do it already, and a number of you lament at how you are prevented from doing so in one post, yet brag about your earnings in another. Which is it? What has been your average rate of return? Just to break even you need to achieve a 3.3 rate of return. You're going to suddently strike it rich because you get to put money into a special fund yourself? hmm, right. Well, here's something for you: how much to employers contribute according to this plan? That's something I haven't been seeing. Do they still match their employees' contributions?
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
02-05-2005, 09:11 AM | #59 (permalink) |
►
|
i'd definitely opt out of SS if i could. that sounds like a great idea. there is some REAL choice.
AARP is soiling their depends on this. but do they expect payouts to be high forever? i really don't think my gramps needs 1-2 grand per month. he buys a new van every 3 years. he drives around aimlessly with no passengers. the point is that SS $ should probably be reduced, which is no doubt going to happen. also, notice democrats say "privativization" while republicans say "personalization." as for the plan itself, there is no bill to analyze as mentioned. so we are speculating, but with a general idea of the issues. i'm just wondering why this is such a high priority. i thought this was funny. i do think some of the risk has been exaggerated. mutual funds are a stable investment. bad things happen, of course, but it's not like a game of chance. bush's plan could work, but i don't like the $1-3 trillion estimated price. he sould have saved some money to do this. the democrats have no strong ideas. their response to the SOTU was very weak. what have they been doing in all those conferences for the last 3 months? bush is probably going to push this through just like everything else he wants to do. |
02-05-2005, 09:55 AM | #60 (permalink) | ||
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
02-05-2005, 10:18 AM | #61 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
according to the article, you need to achieve a rate of return over 3% above inflation to break even. You don't just get to look at whether one obtains a 10% return, but that return minus the average rate of inflation from 1925 to 2004 (measured by the CPI), which has been 3.1%. So that places your real rate of return closer to 6-7%.
a) are you going to get to invest in the S&P 500? so I guess I'm just wondering what relevance it is to post the rate of return for the S&P 500 if you don't get to invest in it. b) hopefully you don't turn 70 on any of those down decades, or your retirement will be sitting on the floor and you'll be waiting for 15 years for it the market to regain traction c) I am more interested in the median rate return, which is resistant to outliers. Both the mean and the median are "averages," so which one is being used here? I suspect the mean is since that portrays the average in a better light than the other two measurements: the median and the mode (which one might also be interested in knowing, since that gives the most often occurence). All this ignores my larger concern regarding the one point in time someone decides to run off with your money or any large dip in the market. it only takes once and you are screwed if it happens at the wrong time (e.g., right when you retire)
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 02-05-2005 at 10:39 AM.. |
02-05-2005, 11:09 AM | #62 (permalink) | |||||
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
02-05-2005, 11:20 AM | #63 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
ok, your responses lead me to suspect that you believe you will get to invest your retirement funds whereever you want.
Do you think that? You won't get to invest them in anything other than a special, low-risk fund the government designs. There's your choice. BTW, your last statement isn't accurate anymore. That's what the pundits were telling people all through the last decade. The panacea of mutual funds has now been skunked. Anyway, you really need to tally in the big picture, such as, fees and commissions, market volatility, and inflation, along with unforseeable crap like thievery and currency blips, before you make a solid assumption about getting a lot more than SS will give. I'm not saying that you won't get more. I'm saying you need to weigh the risks before deciding if that more is worth it. If you are only going to obtain 25K to 35K more over the course of your lifetime, is that worth risking your entire retirement fund?
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 02-05-2005 at 11:24 AM.. |
02-05-2005, 11:22 AM | #64 (permalink) |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
don't forget, under the privatization plan, the plan becomes my property.
Under the current plan, if I die, the money I invested goes away because of the design of the system. Under the privatization plan, the money is now part of my estate, to do with as my will states. Rate of return and long run averages mean nothing if you're going to lose 100% of the money. Something to pass on to my kids is lot better than a broken system that they will have to pay into and have the same problems with. |
02-05-2005, 11:23 AM | #65 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
There is already a similar plan in place for fed employees that is performing quite well. If I can, I will see if I can find some more info on it, but the existing plan and the proposed plan are very similar. |
|
02-05-2005, 11:34 AM | #66 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Interesting that there was no reaction by the anti "democrat party" posters to my referenced (Washington Post is one of three national
"newspapers of record") posts that detail Bush's true intention. Bush destroyed the tax revenue flows that were in place when he took office four years ago. Bush demonized inheritance taxes, for example, by spinning that very necessary tax, judging by the fact that with it in place, the top two percent of wealth holders still increased their portion of total national wealth from less than fifteent percent in 1970, to thirty three percent by 2003, renaming it the "death tax", and then repeating that phrase over and over. Bush's latest "Goebbels like" schtick, is to correct anyone who, in his presence, refers to Bush's "plan" as privatization of SS, or to private accounts; he has been programmed to reflexively tell one and all to call them "personal accounts". It is pathetic that the only thing Bush can contribute is to parrot the result of Karl Rove's favorability polling, playing word games to get this done. Bush does not want his legacy to result in what will happen if he doesn't get this done. He took office with Roosevelt's original SS (retirement security) plan requiring only the repayment of the money that the federal government had borrowed from the SSA surplus since the 1940's. The tax structure was in place in early 2001 to make it possible to collect this money owed to SSA without large federal borrowing. SSA would have had enough money in it's trust fund to pay most benefits for 60 to 70 years! The money owed to SSA was entirely from contributions of 6.2 percent of all wages earned, matched by equal 6.2 percent contributions from each wage earner's employer. Self employed people payed in the entire 12.4 percent themselves. Bush and his "advisors" knew that the federal government had an obligation to pay SSA nearly $2 trillion in funds and interest the federal gov. had borrowed, and it chose to drasticallly, but "temporarily" cut taxes, instead. Bush wants tp make those tax cuts permanent now. The only way to do that is to default on paying back the money that the federal government had borrowed from SSA surplus contributions. Thos contributions were made by you and by your employer. SSA only has expenses of one percent to administer benefits, including retirement benefits and disability and survivors benefits. In the mid 1990's SSA was made an independent entity, much like any private enterprise. It is owed this money. Bush's plan includes defaulting on paying back the SSA, to preserve his tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich, and have glaringly not resulted in the huge creation of jobs that he had predicted. The national media has not bought into Bush's new wealth redistrubution scheme, so he has taken his propaganda apparatus to small town America. Buy his Bush Shit at your own peril. One result is that Brokers will charge 5 percent of principle to "invest" your money for you ! Last edited by host; 02-05-2005 at 11:37 AM.. |
02-05-2005, 11:39 AM | #67 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Similar is not the same, do we agree? So now you and I need to ask ourselves and each other why we are not getting the same? Why is Bush not allowing us the option that federal employees recieve, if he is really for choice and not just using a political wedge topic in an attempt to discredit the democratic party? I mean, if we want to talk about "similar" programs, shouldn't we be looking to see how similar this plan is to Clinton's? I suggest that you do so, you might be surprised to learn that it is more similar to the Clinton plan than to the TSP.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
02-05-2005, 11:50 AM | #68 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
02-05-2005, 11:51 AM | #69 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
Either that, or tell us how you define "destroyed", because I do not think it means what you think it means. For example: Tax Revenue for 2001: Greater than any year Clinton was Prez except 2000 (not bad considering the recession) Tax Revenue for 2002: Greater than any year Clinton was Prez except 2000. Tax Revenue for 2003: Greater than Clinton years except 1999 and 2000. All categories are on the rise and either meet or exceed revenues from Clinton's best years. The info is easy to get, just go to the IRS website. |
|
02-05-2005, 11:54 AM | #70 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
Hey Smooth, over here. I read it but I can't say I am all the better for it. It is a playbook, pure and simple. And I hope you are not trying to say that this is a one-sided thing. I would still like to see how the "No Crisis" crowd answers my questions. |
|
02-05-2005, 11:55 AM | #71 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
And..... I am working on figuring out the differences (I kinda have similar time constraints that you have). In fact, I shouldn't be here right now......but.....I......can't.....help.....myself. |
|
02-05-2005, 12:00 PM | #72 (permalink) |
Banned
|
I'm fascinated that cheerleaders for this riip-off can't advocate leaving the
system alone and simply investing four percent of their own funds in any method of their own choosing. How about in gold, for instance, to offset risks to the solvency of the US dollar. Gold has risen from $250's per ounce in the early days of the Bushco to $425's now. That's a great return on the world's "no confidence" vote of Bush's tenure. If there is so much optimism about great future returns in the stock market, why don't the "personal account" advocated all get part time jobs to supplement their incomes and pump the extra cash into investments ? Maybe they expect that the investment returns will require an investment bubble that overvalues stocks due to the influx from Bush's planned SSA wealth transfer, and without it, stocks won't run to irrational heights. Anyone below retirement age is entitled to SSA disability benefits if he becomes legitmately unable to work. That disability insurance coverage isn't even ackowleged in these debates. |
02-05-2005, 12:07 PM | #73 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
Anyways.... Was there an answer to my question to you in there somewhere? I think I missed it. It was the one about clarifying your statement that didn't seem to be very factual. |
|
02-05-2005, 12:10 PM | #74 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
It is a pittance, trust me. Anyway, it isn't acknowledged because it isn't going away. That has already been stated and cleared up. |
|
02-05-2005, 12:12 PM | #75 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
I'm not opposed to propaganda, just lamenting at the fact that liberals haven't bothered to translate their knowledge of Gramsci to the general public like the conservatives have. In short, it's one sided because the liberals aren't up to snuff on their propaganda agitation tactics so they're getting creamed in this war of position maybe they're loath to be fascists, but I say phoo! that's no excuse...
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 02-05-2005 at 02:12 PM.. |
|
02-05-2005, 12:25 PM | #76 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
|
|
02-05-2005, 02:21 PM | #77 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Quote:
I wonder what all those mights and coulds portend. Regardless, I think that document supports what I said, despite your attempt to rewrap it. Good to see the republicans are finally on board with the government protecting us with safe, limited choice
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
||
02-05-2005, 02:26 PM | #78 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
Anyway, at least it's a choice. Right now, we have no choice. Given the options, I would rather have limited choice than no choice. By the way, aren't you Pro-Choice? Then you should be all for this. |
|
02-05-2005, 02:30 PM | #79 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
I'm a commie. I'm just waiting to see what these portfolios are going to look like: choice A: Haliburton and subsidiaries choice B: Bushco and subsidiaries choice c: Ricecorp and subsidiaries ahh, choices...choices and even though I jest in how blatant that would be, how would the most powerful not benefit by dumping trillians of public money into the private market?
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
02-05-2005, 02:49 PM | #80 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
KMA, man, they really got to you.
The whole document is an exercise in how to use subtle shifts of language in order to reframe the debate. That is, shift the word "choice" for example so that the listeners won't catch how this plan runs counter to traditional Republican values. Why are you willing to accept this as a "choice?" When someone suggested that you take your private money and stick it in a 401K, that didn't really qualifty as a choice. But when the republicans give you three options, comprised of companies they choose, then it becomes a viable "choice?" I don't understand, except for the fact that you are willing to trust that political party and unwilling to trust the democrat party. So one choice is unviable, while the other one, albeit limited, is still a choice. Powerful people have hijacked the Republican party. I hope you take the time to digest that document. It's not written by some leftist reactionary group. It's a full on propaganda manual for the people who are going to enter the public discourse "armed" with a "effective and consistent message." Quote:
Quote:
KMA, this is your fucking government, dude. They went out and tested a bunch of words that could be embedded into a political message to convince you of their position. Right or wrong, your own government is using head techniques to convince you to support its programs! What the fuck is that? They need to implement what the people want--not convince the people to do what they want! It's all right there! It's as blatant as it can get. they are so caught up in hubris they don't even give a shit who reads their documents. LOOK, you people don't even give a shit! They write what they want to do overseas, and you people support them. Even say that what they wrote they will do and what they are doing is some liberal plot to undermine their authority. When it's written and posted all over official websites. Then they start on the domestic plans. And now it's some liberal plot to undermine our nation's retirement. When right here is an official document to the party leaders, from the party leaders, flat out stating that they've got field tested propaganda that will alter the hearts and minds of the American people. Fucking get real and get serious about what your government is doing to you. Your freedoms, your safety, your econcomic safety, & etc. I feel for you KMA, because you seem like a cool dude. But I don't what it will take to open hard working, honest people's eyes to the hood our very own government is pulling over us.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
||
Tags |
account, bush, forfeit, plan, profits |
|
|