AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, The huge difference is the crisis that happened in 2008; if most were invested in the stock market to fund their retirements, most would be too broke to retire. Before 2008, many getting close to retirement were looking forward to their retirement. What actually happened was, most now must work much longer than they planned, and will work much longer to survive.

The stock market is no guarantee, but social security has been there for our generation. With the huge government deficit that grows even larger every year, I'm not so sure the social security fund will last until 2048 as most economists claim. Especially since less workers are paying into the system with our unemployment at 25% (the true rate).

ci, it would be very interesting for someone to calculate your or my payments into Social Security from the time we started working until our retirement and find out what the principal would be, given the average rates of annual returns through the years. Even counting the market losses in recent years, I would bet you that the principal would support a greater retirement funding amount than you or I will receive through the Social Security system. I don't know about you, but I started working and contributing into the system in the early 60's, and the amounts continued to increase through the late 60s into the 70's and until now. We have had recent market losses, but overall the market would have produced a net gain in pretty spectacular fashion I would estimate, considering the compounding of gains and additional contributions through the years.

If anyone has ever calculated a typical example of this, starting with employment in the 60's and ramping it up until retirement about 2000 or 2010, that would be interesting. What would about 200 grand have resulted into by about 2010, by assuming a growing income from maybe about 1965? I would be willing to bet it might be 300 grand or more now, even after big market losses.

Actually, I think the concept of Social Security is a good one if executed responsibly, which means that a private company could probably do it more efficiently than the government. The government has essentially frittered away the income of it and has the system headed toward bankruptcy.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Even counting the market losses in recent years, I would bet you that the principal would support a greater retirement funding amount than you or I will receive through the Social Security system.

I'll bet you it won't. But then I guess we should first bet on whether you understand the what the word principal means in finance. I bet you don't.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, I already posted what my wife and I paid into social security, and how much in benefits we have collected through December 31, 2009.

To repeat; we paid in $138k and got benefits over $300k. We plan on collecting for several more years.

As for stock market investments, almost everybody lost in 2008; the average from most financial institutions gave 40%. Let me show you how that works:
e.g. Say you had $100,000 before the 2008 crash, and you lost 40%. That means you end up with $60,000. To get back to $100,000 where you started, you would need to gain more than 66%. In this market environment, how long do you think it'll be before anyone gains 66%?

So much for your stock market investments for your retirement/social security.

Have you changed your ideas about government socialism yet?

1 Reply

here are the results of a contest held to compose campaign slogans for a palin/beck or beck/palin ticket:

t's a No-Brainer
Restoring Horror
Don't Think. Just Vote.
Making (Up) History
Take America Back ... to the Dark Ages
According to the Mayans, the world's supposed to end anyway.
The Audacity of Dopes
And you thought Bush-Cheney was bad!
Putting the "Dumb" in Freedom
Your FOXes Guarding the Hen House
Because common sense is overrated!
We can fool some people all of the time.
A Failin' Wreck
Hate & Fear Monger Express
Never Let the Truth Get in the Way of a Good Tea Party
Let's Get Crazy
Lipstick and Dipstick
Rewriting the Constitution OUR WAY
Two Wrongs From the Right
God, Guns & Ignorance
Let Greedom Ring
Give Us 4 Years & Afghanistan Will Look Like Heaven

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

okie is certainly in the running for the title of "most conceited poster on a2k."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

ci, did you read my post? I pointed out that your 138 k would have been far greater by the time you retired and by the time the market hit a down time, because of compounding and interest and all of that. It is silly of you to assume your investments would only suffer loss, without also realizing the market gains prior to the loss, or even after the loss.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

You're wrong about savings bonds. My father purchased Series E bonds for my brothers and I many years ago, hoping we could use them for something important. Well, I bought my current computer and my daughter bought windows for her house, which are along the lines of his thinking.

However, most of the bonds were cashed to cover expenses. Guess what? There is a heavy tax burden on the interest.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

However, most of the bonds were cashed to cover expenses. Guess what? There is a heavy tax burden on the interest.

Hey, I thought paying taxes was the patriotic thing to do, and the compassionate thing to do as well? Why should you complain of all people, you love paying taxes don't you?

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

here are the results of a contest held to compose campaign slogans for a palin/beck or beck/palin ticket:
....
The Audacity of Dopes
.....

Uhh, wasn't that the book written by Obama?

0 Replies

@okie,

How do you know it would have been far greater? Greater than what? Social security is mandatory for all workers. Nobody questioned social security until GW Bush talked about "private accounts" in which he lied about social security going broke. That's when the OMB said that social security was secure until 2052.

Also, the government ensured us for health insurance after we reached 65 years old. I've enjoyed excellent health care since my retirement, and the cost for us is minimal compared to what insurance companies have charged for insurance premiums that increased double-digits for many years while wages remained stagnant.

I look at both social programs as a god-send, because my care for prostate cancer alone would have cost upwards of $50,000 without Medicare.

Many people did not save for their retirement, and any gains made in the stock market varies from individual to individual. If you have kept up with the financial news, you would know that most people who were saving for retirement had to postpone it and continue working for an indefinite period in the future to survive. Those people who worked for one company with stock in their own company lost millions (like Enron).

We're not typical investors; my wife lost only 11% and I lost 17% in 2008. Our funds are still sufficient for us to enjoy life to the fullest. I can still continue with my world travels, and spend some money on eating out. I have all the toys I wish or need.

We're not wealthy, but comfortable, and we try to live within or means. We've done a yeoman's job so far.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You can't lump the $131k as the initial investment of our social security taxes, because that was accumulated since 1963, the year of our marriage, throughout our working years until 2006 when my wife retired. How that would have played out in investments is very questionable, and not an easy task to determine results.

How did you come to the conclusion that our social security payments if we had invested it would have returned better results? Just another one of your great imaginations?

Here's another phenomenon that you don't seem to understand. When people get their paychecks, most do not save any money for retirement. If they do, it's hardly enough to support them in retirement.

With the social security program, most adults at the very least have enough to eat. Otherwise, they would starve.

Those are facts that you can check out on Google.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

okie would never know there was a concept called reading comprehension if I hadn't told him that his was poor. He parrots almost everything I say. I ought to copyright my posts and make some money off him because he steals things I write.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Your post delineating the history of your SS payments and your wife's retirement and of the failure of people to save (largely because for 80% of the population, wages have remained static since 1979) is everything okie falsely clams for himself: it is logical and exhibits common sense.

0 Replies

@okie,

This article is from cnnmoney:

Quote:

43% have less than $10k for retirement
By Chavon Sutton, staff reporterMarch 9, 2010: 8:21 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The percentage of American workers with virtually no retirement savings grew for the third straight year, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The percentage of workers who said they have less than $10,000 in savings grew to 43% in 2010, from 39% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute's annual Retirement Confidence Survey. That excludes the value of primary homes and defined-benefit pension plans.

Workers who said they had less than $1,000 jumped to 27%, from 20% in 2009.

Confidence in ability to save enough for a comfortable retirement hovered at 16% of respondents, the second lowest point in the 20-year history of the survey.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

No he cant.
If that were so, you would not be so pissed about Bush taking us to war in Iraq.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

You're not making any sense.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I just reread my last post, and you are correct. I'm not even sure where I was trying to go with that statement.

For that I apologize.
In my defense I had just gotten home from work and my brain was fried after the way everything went at work.
So, just pretend that last post of mine doesnt exist, please.

I am going to see if I can delete it.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

No prob., mm

0 Replies

American conservatism today is based on the election in November. They don't care how they accomplish winning, and will continue to say "No" to everything Obama wants. The latest is the $50 billion fund for small businesses that the GOP said "no" to, and they're supposed to be the party that supports businesses.

It's too bad the American people don't see their tactic that hurts our country. By denying this fund for small businesses, they can't expand or hire more workers, and the reason most American are unhappy is because of the high unemployment rate.

The majority of Americans also do not want Muslim Americans to build their community center/mosque in NYC. They can't remember the simple rights established in our constitution; freedom of religion.

Americans are destroying our own country with their ignorance.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

American conservatism today is based on the election in November. They don't care how they accomplish winning, and will continue to say "No" to everything Obama wants. The latest is the $50 billion fund for small businesses that the GOP said "no" to, and they're supposed to be the party that supports businesses.

This is sadly true. They won't say yes to a single thing right now, because they don't want to give Obama any legislative victories to point at right before the election. Which is sad for us all.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know