8
   

Social Security?

 
 
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:25 pm
Okay Conservatives,

Who amongst you will have the guts to come into this thread and admit that if SS funds had been allowed to be privatized - er, 'private accounts,' sorry, almost used the real name for your plan - a huge amount of that money would now be gone. Vanished. Much of it would have been invested in the same sort of securities that have brought the market crashing down over the course of this year. What would the effects have been, upon the elderly and others? I can't see anything positive coming out of it.

Who amongst you will admit that it was a stupid plan, and one that was designed to make Wall Street rich off of the profits of millions of 'private accounts,' and to hell with those who lost all their money?

Anyone?

I doubt it.

McCain is still pushing this same, goddamned stupid plan. As if people needed another reason to vote against him. I expect Obama to make an issue out of this before the end of the campaign.

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 8 • Views: 6,828 • Replies: 114

 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I have enough guts to face the A2k intellectuals..
but you will never get a response .
I am UNABLE2 KNOW
Ramafuchs
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:56 pm
@Ramafuchs,
918 humans are peeping, penetrating, this forum
Bur none has a civil courage to expose the hypocracy
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:58 pm
@Ramafuchs,
We are aware of your condition Rama Lama.

Ive always said that, if the CAP were removed from Social Security witholding, the problem would be fixed.

A large part of AMericans make over the cutoff and I, for one, would volunteer to have the SS payment taken from the salary part of my earnings.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 04:01 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

We are aware of your condition Rama Lama.

Ive always said that, if the CAP were removed from Social Security witholding, the problem would be fixed.

A large part of AMericans make over the cutoff and I, for one, would volunteer to have the SS payment taken from the salary part of my earnings.


Yup. And Corporations also use it to avoid paying taxes; by concentrating the majority of your salaries paid at the top, you pay less overall SS taxes. Gotta get rid of that little gimmick.

No Conservatives with balls yet....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 04:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Unless you invested your private retirement fund in the stocks of AIG and the other failed companies, the chances are good you would not have lost your money.

First of all the funds would have been mandated to involve relatively low risk investments This would not have included the sort of sub-prime mortgage financial instruments that have contributed the widespread problems.

Secondly, those people who have mutual funds and 401Ks managed by Lehmanns or Merril have not lost their money.

In what manner do you believe retirement funds would have been wiped out as a result of the current mess?

Finally, the way the Govt manages SS, anyone under the age of 55 will be lucky to collect anything.
Ramafuchs
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 04:04 pm
@farmerman,
We are aware of your condition Rama Lama
can you show some objective views without the above quoted words.?
Social security is the main subject of this thread.

Carry on sir.
But be civil when you confront me.
Respects
R
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 04:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

First of all the funds would have been mandated to involve relatively low risk investments This would not have included the sort of sub-prime mortgage financial instruments that have contributed the widespread problems.


Yeah, I looked for evidence of this, and yaknow what? I couldn't find any evidence that they would have been 'mandated' to be in low-risk investments. It certainly wasn't presented that way at the time, and why would it have been? Social Security already was a low-risk investment. Why bother putting the money in a separate account to get the same rate of return as before?

I applaud your attempt, however. It seems to ignore that up until this year, banks and trading houses were considered good investments and it's likely that the collapse of Fannie, Freddie, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Countrywide, Indymac, and gigantic drops in WaMu and AIG would have taken quite a few people' s money with them.

Cycloptichorn
Ramafuchs
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 04:30 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
i respect your views and i will follow this subject in due course.
Pardon me for my lack of English.






fishin
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 04:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, I looked for evidence of this, and yaknow what? I couldn't find any evidence that they would have been 'mandated' to be in low-risk investments. It certainly wasn't presented that way at the time, and why would it have been? Social Security already was a low-risk investment. Why bother putting the money in a separate account to get the same rate of return as before?


And where is your evidence that low-risk investments wouldn't have been mandated? The discussion on the possibilty of privatizing SS never got far enough to have any serious discussion of the nuts/bolts of how it would work.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 05:02 pm
@fishin,
fishin wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, I looked for evidence of this, and yaknow what? I couldn't find any evidence that they would have been 'mandated' to be in low-risk investments. It certainly wasn't presented that way at the time, and why would it have been? Social Security already was a low-risk investment. Why bother putting the money in a separate account to get the same rate of return as before?


And where is your evidence that low-risk investments wouldn't have been mandated? The discussion on the possibilty of privatizing SS never got far enough to have any serious discussion of the nuts/bolts of how it would work.


Incorrect. At the time it was presented, here was the idea -

Quote:
*

President George W. Bush called for a transition to a combination of a government funded program and personal accounts ("individual accounts" or "private accounts") through partial privatization of the system. The personal accounts could be invested in various managed investment funds similar to the government employees' Thrift Savings Plan, in which the investor can choose between Treasury Bills, Corporate bonds and a stock market fund. Since the Report of the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, the Social Security program has been the subject of widespread debate. After President Bush highlighted the issue in his 2005 State of the Union Address, the debate became especially intense.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)

Corporate Bonds? Stock Market fund? Are any of you pretending that people's monies would all have been cooling their heels in T-bills, when these other, higher-paying options were out there? That's the entire reason the Republicans wanted privatization of SS in the first place: to allow people to get a higher rate of return on their investment. So the argument that nobody would have been allowed to choose options which lead to a higher rate of return is false, it contradicts the entire point of privatization.

Cycloptichorn
fishin
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 05:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Since when does presenting a proposal = serious discussion?

In case you are unaware the NORMAL process is for someone to make a proposal to gauge interest. The various parties with an interest make a baisc go/no go decision and IF they decide to go with it they have a discussion on exactly how it will be implemented. As I recall it was your side of the fence that decided to sit on a "no way in hell!" position and the whole thing died. The discussion on how it would be implemented never happened.

What is false here is your strawman argument.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 05:23 pm
@fishin,
fishin wrote:

Since when does presenting a proposal = serious discussion?

In case you are unaware the NORMAL process is for someone to make a proposal to gauge interest. The various parties with an interest make a baisc go/no go decision and IF they decide to go with it they have a discussion on exactly how it will be implemented. As I recall it was your side of the fence that decided to sit on a "no way in hell!" position and the whole thing died. The discussion on how it would be implemented never happened.

What is false here is your strawman argument.


Yeah, right. Bush was proposing to allow people to put their money in the types of accounts which would have been damaged. There was a serious discussion in both the national media and in Congress about his plan. His plan failed, resoundingly, after it became clear that the public rejected Bush's plan.

If you define 'serious discussion' to mean 'whatever Fishin wants it to mean,' then of course, you are right. The rest of us define it a little differently. This was a major policy proposal and was discussed endlessly for months. I'd say that counts as a serious discussion.

Can you answer this question: what's the point of privatizing SS, if you aren't allowed control of where your money goes? And why would people put their money in a private account, if not to go for the higher rate of return - which leads to more risk?

At the end of the day, you admit that Bush was proposing what I wrote. Correct? It's fair to say that this was his plan. You are just spinning away from it, and also failing to acknowledge that it is currently McCain's plan as well. I salute the attempt, however.

Cycloptichorn
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 05:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Okay Conservatives,

Who amongst you will have the guts to come into this thread and admit that if SS funds had been allowed to be privatized - er, 'private accounts,' sorry, almost used the real name for your plan - a huge amount of that money would now be gone. Vanished. Much of it would have been invested in the same sort of securities that have brought the market crashing down over the course of this year. What would the effects have been, upon the elderly and others? I can't see anything positive coming out of it.

I was under the impression that the money doesn't really exist at this time anyway (at least not much of it, in real liquid cash). It's just an "expectation" of money which will be collected from the currently working, to pay those who are currently retired.

Also, the whole system is projected to become inviable before 20 years anyway isn't it?

I'm not implying that privatization is the proper solution because I don't know what the proper solution is. All I know is that I don't ever expect to collect social security. I've heard that the math on the social security problem makes the mortgage crisis and our energy problems seem like chicken scratch.

Ramafuchs
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 05:47 pm
@Ramafuchs,
There should be a minimum cuture tto uphold social security .
I mean in India there is no social security while I was there.
In Germany there is social security( irresspective of your objective view)
I have many(Relatives/friends) in USA.
I come to the conclussion that USA's Dream is nothing to do with the reality of homeless persons( not only in USA).
What a wonderful god who butcher the critical persons.
Rama
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 05:55 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
Okay Conservatives,

Who amongst you will have the guts to come into this thread and admit that if SS funds had been allowed to be privatized - er, 'private accounts,' sorry, almost used the real name for your plan - a huge amount of that money would now be gone. Vanished. Much of it would have been invested in the same sort of securities that have brought the market crashing down over the course of this year. What would the effects have been, upon the elderly and others? I can't see anything positive coming out of it.

I was under the impression that the money doesn't really exist at this time anyway (at least not much of it, in real liquid cash). It's just an "expectation" of money which will be collected from the currently working, to pay those who are currently retired.

Also, the whole system is projected to become inviable before 20 years anyway isn't it?

I'm not implying that privatization is the proper solution because I don't know what the proper solution is. All I know is that I don't ever expect to collect social security. I've heard that the math on the social security problem makes the mortgage crisis and our energy problems seem like chicken scratch.


Well, one at a time -

First the money does exist right now. It's being paid in currently by all taxed workers. If Bush's plan had gone through, people's accounts would have had real money in them and that money would have been in danger.

Second, the death of SS is much exaggerated. It has at least 30 more years of real solvency before it gets in trouble. That time would last much longer if the US government would quit jacking the cash and leaving IOUs in it's place, too.

The SS problem is a real one, but there are ways to solve it without increasing the risk for Americans.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 05:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, right. Bush was proposing to allow people to put their money in the types of accounts which would have been damaged. There was a serious discussion in both the national media and in Congress about his plan. His plan failed, resoundingly, after it became clear that the public rejected Bush's plan.


There wa s alot of public discussion that had one side sticking with a stricty "No way!" response and the other side with a whole range of possibilities. None of possibilities were ever debated because your side refused to even consider it.

Quote:
If you define 'serious discussion' to mean 'whatever Fishin wants it to mean,' then of course, you are right. The rest of us define it a little differently. This was a major policy proposal and was discussed endlessly for months. I'd say that counts as a serious discussion.


Yes, of course. But then you consider things posted here as "serious discussion". Public policy discussions are "serious" when Congress debates them.

Find a link to the Congressional record where there was a committee review and/or proposal of the nuts & bolts of how a privatized SS system would work that was ever put to a vote (even a committe vote) in the Congress.

Quote:
Can you answer this question: what's the point of privatizing SS, if you aren't allowed control of where your money goes? And why would people put their money in a private account, if not to go for the higher rate of return - which leads to more risk?


Errr.. Maybe so that they know the money is really there instead of a big fat IOU from the Congress that they won't be able to fufill? The basic issue wasn't the rate of return - that was an added argument for doing it. The foundation of the proposal to privatize was that SS doesn't have the money that we've been paying into it for decades. The SS funds have been spent.

Quote:
At the end of the day, you admit that Bush was proposing what I wrote. Correct? It's fair to say that this was his plan. You are just spinning away from it, and also failing to acknowledge that it is currently McCain's plan as well. I salute the attempt, however.


I never said it wasn't Bush's proposal. But that's exactly what it was - a proposal. Your claim here that everyone would have lost their retirement savings based on what Bush proposed doesn't have any match with reality. The spin here is your's. As usual, if you can't prove your points with logical reasoning you resort to fear.

Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 06:08 pm
@fishin,
Quote:

I never said it wasn't Bush's proposal. But that's exactly what it was - a proposal. Your claim here that everyone would have lost their retirement savings based on what Bush proposed doesn't have any match with reality. The spin here is your's. As usual, if you can't prove your points with logical reasoning you resort to fear.


First, I didn't claim that 'everyone would have lost their retirement savings.' Stop exaggerating. I said a huge amount of money would be lost. And that's entirely consistent with what we have seen these last few weeks.

I showed evidence that the Republican plan - Bush's plan - would have put these funds in danger. You retort that, because the plans were so unpopular nationally that the Republican-ran Congress could not even get a debate organized around them, that they weren't really 'seriously discussed' and that any projection of the effects is invalid, b/c why again? We can't discuss the effects of something unless there's debate about it in the Congressional record?

It's clear that Bush proposed the plan I described, clear that McCain agrees with it, clear that it would put money in danger, and clear that you are spinning madly to avoid acknowledging these facts.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 06:16 pm
@fishin,
I read your retort.
But let me draw your kind attention to the signature
"No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood... "
correct.
in my world
No single drop of tears will help the people of USA
( Ask the victims of N O or any shelterless, homeless, pathetic persons in 50 states)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 06:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
This is stupid.

Had the money been invested, who can say that what happened now would have happened? There would have been a buttload of cash flowing into the system and who can say what the result would have been.

Otherwise what Fishin said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The collapse of social security - Question by cicerone imposter
Social Security Question - Question by edgarblythe
It's come down to this. - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Social Security Information - Discussion by edgarblythe
after death - Question by jhop3677
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Social Security?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/16/2019 at 11:39:33