Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't trust corporations to act in the best interests of the American public, even less than I trust the gov't to do so; they have never shown any particular interest in doing so, why would they start now?

That's your opinion; you're entitled to it, and the Republican's partial privatization would have let you act on it and leave your money in the system. Likewise, I believe I'm entitled to my opinion -- but the status quo, which the Democrats are defending, does not let people like me act on their opinion by putting our money in accounts of our own. Your antipathy to corporations can decide where you put your money; it shouldn decide where I can put my money.

Sorry, I don't trust privatization to make things better; at all. Why would it? Even if it is mostly computers handling the thing (it takes people to run the computers, btw, and analysts, and investment advisors) there still has to be a rake off of the top; and that's just money wasted.

This week's economic data is going to be hard for the pessimists to explain. Second quarter real GDP growth will be revised upwardly, consumption data will reflect 3.5% to 4.0% real growth in the third quarter, purchasing managers survey's will reflect continued expansion, and the August employment report is highly likely to accelerate from recent months. In the face of this data, denying a continued recovery will be harder than ever.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The economy grew at a 2.9 percent annual rate in the spring -- better than first estimated but nowhere near the brisk pace logged in the winter, another sign of slowing business growth. Inflation marched higher.

The latest snapshot of economic activity, released by the Commerce Department Wednesday, showed that gross domestic product in the April-to-June quarter increased slightly more than the 2.5 percent pace first reported a month ago. That upgrade mostly reflected an improvement in the country's trade picture and stronger inventory building by businesses. [...]

Consumer spending increased at a rate of 2.6 percent, a tad better than first estimated for the second quarter but a steep deceleration from the first quarter's 4.8 percent pace.

SOMEONE takes a rake off of the top, if privatization is involved. It is the only way for the company to make money. There is no incentive otherwise.

I also think that this is in part a plan to put vast sums into the stock market, which is not nearly as stable as people like to pretend...

Someone is already taking their skim off of the top with absolutely NO accountabilty and NO return on our investment at all. I just don't see why you see this as a good enough.

... and what, in your opinion, was the incentive for Congress conserving the status quo? Altruism?

Well, the systems of accountability are in place, we just don't make enforcing them a priority; so the American people really have noone to blame but themselves on this issue. Lack of education on the problem combined with generations of politicians telling them that it's okay to steal monies from the SS fund to run the gov't.

Noone responds to the obvious fact that the 'small percentage' would increase over time. This is nothing but a several-step plan for getting rid of Social Security, and there is a reason why it has been rejected by the electorate in such strong fashion; people like the idea of social security.

Sure it should. Because I would be paying for your privledge to take your monies out of the system.

And you know as well as I do that this 'small percentage' crap is just a foot in the door.

Remember that SS helps to finance other people's lives as well as one's own life;

No, just the simple fact that the program works, has worked for many years, and will continue to work for many more.

But I admit that now we're are approaching the heart of the matter: My main problem with Social Security is that I don't want other people to finance my life; nor do I want to finance the lives of other people.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, just the simple fact that the program works, has worked for many years, and will continue to work for many more.

It isn't working for me. If Social Security didn't exist, I would invest my retirement savings in some fund and get much better terms.

You see, it makes me feel pretty good to know that the money that I pay in SS taxes (which, by the way, isn't bankrupting me or anything like that) not only helps my grandparents, but also the nice ladies next door to them, and the blind man who lives next to them. And someday, others will help pay for me

Or, what if your fund is heavily invested in a couple of Neo-Enrons?

ps. Social Security isn't your retirement savings. You aren't thinking about it the right way.

Thomas, many of you conservatives should, but probably are not, be thankful to social security for providing a basic income to their parents that relieved the children from having to support them.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Or, what if your fund is heavily invested in a couple of Neo-Enrons?

It wouldn't be: Because I'd have the liberty to avoid such funds, I could -- and would choose a well-hedged fund. For example, my current retirement savings are invested in broad-based, exchange-traded index funds. Specifically, I invested half of the money in the Euro Corporate Bond Index and the other half in the EuroStoxx index (Europe's Dow, basically). Both funds hold assets of about 50 corporations, and chances are there's an Enron or two among them. So what? 48-49 companies will still survive. Risks like these are easy to hedge by choosing the right fund.

Or, what if your fund is heavily invested in a couple of Neo-Enrons? You could lose everything. Sure, you say 'I'm smart, I wouldn't do that' but others aren't so smart. The point of SS is to keep old people from starving, not to garner the maximum possible return.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ps. Social Security isn't your retirement savings. You aren't thinking about it the right way.

So you said several times, but repetition doesn't necessarily make it true. Indeed, it reminds me of a scene I read in Barbara Ehrenreich's interesting book "Nickeled and Dimed". In that book Ehrenreich assumes the role of a minimum wage worker and reports about her experiences with colleagues and employers. One chapter deals with her application for a cleaning job as a fake freelancer. The interviewer tells her a very complicated work schedule she is expected to keep, along with an equally complicated payment schedule. Ehrenreich starts thinking, calculating in her head that the job amounts to $4.95 per hour. The interviewer takes notice and interrupts: "nonono -- this is not the way we think about it here!"

If you're comfortable in the role of this interviewer, be my guest.

You shouldn't think of retiring on SS at all. I don't. It isn't a retirement fund. It is a 'you won't starve to death when you are old' fund.

You didn't fully quote me. I said,

Quote:

Or, what if your fund is heavily invested in a couple of Neo-Enrons? You could lose everything. Sure, you say 'I'm smart, I wouldn't do that' but others aren't so smart. The point of SS is to keep old people from starving, not to garner the maximum possible return.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of our population is either unintelligent or poorly educated or both.

Thomas, you could lose all your money in a crash, you could have a strange brain stroke and invest poorly, you could have a child with Leukemia and spend every penny you have trying to save his life, you could have your home be washed away in a flood, you could have a bank or fund act in an evil fashion and steal/mis-manage/defraud you of your money, anything, and Social Security would still be there for you. That's why it isn't an investment.

If you do your retirement financing correctly, you won't need it. But if you do, it is there. That is why SS will continue as an American institution for the known future. That, and the fact that the unintelligent don't just starve to death quietly. They make problems for everyone else...