The evil plan of republicans for social security - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 01-08-2005, 02:34 PM

Interesting comments from Patrick Ruffini.. It turns out there IS an evil plan by the republicans with respect to social security....it's to make you RICH!...

So much like welfare before it, the democrat party is trying to preserve for retirees.....$926/month. Just enough to keep you on the dole I gues..

--------------------------
ruffini

Disregard the fact that the attribution of the leaked Social Security "memo" marked "not for attribution" likely amounts to a severe breach of the sacred compact between any journalist and any source. Ignore the fact that an off-the-record exchange can now be considered on-the-record and suitable for the front page should a journalist whisper it in another journalist's ear.

Let's focus on something that folks in Washington's media-industrial complex rarely like to discuss: the substance of the debate.

In the last few weeks, the Democratic strategy to distort the truth about personal accounts has congealed. Here's what they're going to do. They're going to claim that Social Security's solvency crisis is no more than a "myth", a ruse for the Republicans "hidden agenda" to "dismantle" the program. They're going to ignore the mathematical certainty that a relatively static number of workers cannot indefinetely support a mushrooming number of retirees. And as the White House official (on blogs, we attribute correctly) adeptly points out, this certainty is compounded by the wage indexation of benefits -- meaning that no matter how quickly tax revenues grow, benefits will grow just as fast, making it impossible for traditional Social Security to ever close this funding gap.

But let's leave aside the question of solvency. The bottom line of this whole debate remains that modernizing Social Security with personal accounts is the right thing to do. Even if Social Security were perfectly solvent, it would still be the right thing to do. You accuse us of having a "hidden agenda." Let's spell out in clear terms of what that "hidden agenda" actually is.

The status quo that Democrats are so desperately defending is this: an average benefit of that's a paltry $926 a month, $11,112 a year. Seventy years of New Deal largesse, and this is the best you can do for seniors with no other retirement savings? The opportunity to make life dramatically better through significantly higher Social Security benefits lies before us, and your "solution" is simply to postpone doom?

Fiscal realities aside, that's a choice that's morally indefensible.
.......
Because Republicans do have an evil "hidden agenda."
To make you rich.

FishForLunch · 01-08-2005, 03:30 PM

I read somewhere that if you invest 1000 a year for the next 50 years the compound interest on it would yeild around a Million dollars.

dude1394 · 03-05-2005, 02:09 AM

Here's a common-sense look at why we should do private accounts. It's also why government employess would scream bloody murder if they had to join the ponzi social security scheme.

polipundit

Money Management for Idiots

I’ve been thinking about the whole Social Security/Income Tax/Medicare reform thing for a little while, from the perspective of those whistling wonders, the naysayers who cry out oh-so-desperately that there is no crisis, here, at hand, or on the way. I tried to leave out the obvious political whores, who would say anything for political gain. I will leave the reader to imagine how empty the halls of Congress are when that process is employed.

Anyway, a quick review of the Dow Jones History shows the rises and falls for more than a century, certainly a reasonable time frame. Since 1900, the Dow Jones Average has risen from 66.61 (January 3, 1900) to 10815.3 (June 5, 2000) . Even with the Great Depression, it’s impossible to miss the fact that simply investing in an Index Fund produces historically strong returns.

The Social Security Administration has a calculator for people who want to figure out what they’ll be getting from SSA, assuming it exists when the time comes. As an example, let’s run the numbers for an average guy. The results for someone making $50,000 who is now 45 and retiring at age 75, projects $1,392.00 a month in SSA benefits. Contributions from age 22 to retirement, assuming $40,000 in average salary means (at 6.2%) an average of $2,480.00 contributed a year for 53 years, or $131,440.00 put in.

Taking the numbers then and plugging them in as a Stock Market investment, let’s say our guy averages that $2,480.00 each year over the years from 1982 to now. By 1997, my stock portfolio is worth all the money I will have invested by 2035. By 2009, I will have $576,376.05 in the portfolio, enough to pay me 1,440 a month to live on, better than Social Security can promise 26 years later. If I keep putting in that money, at that average rate, I will have $1.6 million saved by the time I am 60 years old. I could retire fifteen years earlier than with Social Security, and give myself $83,000 a year to live off (never touching the principal, by the way, which I can give to my children), against waiting another fifteen years in hopes the government will grant me $16,704 a year.

Even if there is no crisis, how big an idiot do you have to be to not understand the difference here?
-- DJ Drummond

#1MavsFan · 03-06-2005, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I read somewhere that if you invest 1000 a year for the next 50 years the compound interest on it would yeild around a Million dollars.

hahahah. Wow. Chances of that are way below 1%. Investing in the stock market isn't a game, you must spend endless time watching your stocks, reading up on the companies’ history, etc. Even than you still only have a 50-50 chance to make money in the stock market in the current situation of the slumping market. Who’s got all the extra time to research your stocks for endless hours after coming home from your job? And even than still risk not having any money at all when you retire?

Yeah. The only people that are guaranteed to benefit from this are the millionaires who own these companies since they get people to invest in there companies stock.

The smart thing to do would be to put in a law so people cannot sue medical companies for "pain and suffering" more than 10% of there medical damages. This would cause medical practices and medicine prices to drop since the medical companies would no longer need to invest in these huge insurance coverage packages.

Another SMART thing to do would be to tax the rich once again and put that money into Social Security thus insuring SS to be just fine for the next 60+ years.

Seriously people that live and breath the stock market are having a hard enough time making a living through it and you except the average citizen with no knowledge of the market to insure there future with it. Just think about it and your decision shouldn't be based on whether or not you support Bush but on the plan it self.

dude1394 · 03-06-2005, 10:51 AM

The S&P itself has risen almost 2000% since 1980.. You could invest in a S&P fund (like many do, like almost all federal/state employee's can do ) is a no-brainer investment avenue for that portion of moneys you want to put into stocks.

Mutual fund investing would be the mechanisms that the guvment would support.

The "smart" thing to do is to find ways to give people more freedom from the governmnet whims with their retirement. As soon as social security goes bankrupt, we will all see how easy (with the stroke of a pen) social security benefits will be cut.

Social Security as an investement program is something only a leftist would love. It stinks, the return stinks, when you die you get nothing for your 12% investment over your working life.

If you die before 67 the guvment gets a nice windfall of all the money you put into the ponzi scheme,, no wonder leftists love it.

#1MavsFan · 03-06-2005, 03:36 PM

Of course its risen in the past 25 years since every things risen. But go check the data for the past 5 years and than lets see. Its been VERY unstable since than and PROFESSIONALS are losing money in it and you except a random person to risk there future on it?

(go learn something about how the market works before you start throwing out numbers without understanding 1 thing about them.)

dude1394 · 03-06-2005, 06:09 PM

So what dude... We're talking about a 50 year investment not 5 years. No one said you'd have all your investments in stocks anyway, repeat after me, "diversification". It's nice to just cherry-pick 5 years to make your point. How about the last 1 year, 10, 20,30,40,50 and more years.

#1MavsFan · 03-06-2005, 06:32 PM

But the fact of the matter is the market isn't like it used to be and even when it was striving people had to spend countless hours researching their stocks to make a profit but now after spending all that time researching you don't really make a profit. Even if the stock market magically rebounds in the next couple years with the huge debt, and the questionable at best economy who’s going to spend all that time keeping up with there stocks...after doing there day job? Think about it.

capitalcity · 03-06-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: #1MavsFan
But the fact of the matter is the market isn't like it used to be and even when it was striving people had to spend countless hours researching their stocks to make a profit but now after spending all that time researching you don't really make a profit. Even if the stock market magically rebounds in the next couple years with the huge debt, and the questionable at best economy who’s going to spend all that time keeping up with there stocks...after doing there day job? Think about it.

You're misinformed.

Of course everyday management of individual stocks is time consuming - but that is hardly what any reasonable person would do. The age of the "day-trader" died with the tech boom. Nobody with a regular job watches the ticker all day... and you don't have to.

For beginners especially there is limited liability and even less responsiblility in "keeping up with" Mutual Funds. Overall, mutuals are protected by their diversification and are managed for you - not by you.

The dems have got you looking at this all wrong.
You shouldn't be afraid of losing that money - but afraid of losing out on the money that intial investment will generate.

dude1394 · 03-06-2005, 08:04 PM

Capital in the words of #1MavsFan

Quote:

go learn something about how the market works before you start throwing out numbers without understanding 1 thing about them.)

Right...

capitalcity · 03-06-2005, 08:21 PM

Got it.

I'll try sitting on my hands - that'll make me rich.

dude1394 · 03-06-2005, 08:38 PM

or you could give 12.x percent of your money to the guvment, let them spend it and promise you a return of what 3%?? That's assuming that the 2 people supporting you in the ponzi scheme don't decide that you should go straight to hades before you get any more of their money.

It's also kind of sad to see the AARP getting into this situation. It makes me think that obviously they feel their political power will be dissappated by independent citizens and not dependent ones. Especially when their current members won't see a penny cut.

dude1394 · 03-06-2005, 08:46 PM

Mavdog · 03-07-2005, 03:42 PM

From what is posted above it would seem that every dollar invested has returned a profit to the investor.
Sadly, that is not the truth. In fact, contrary to the above graph many investors have lost money playing stocks.
Here's a list of the worst mutual funds in the 4Q 04. Notice that most have negative returns over the previous 3 years and many with negative returns over a 5 yr period.
Link
The idea that private accounts invested in stocks would be immune to market movement, and therefore not have the money at risk, is ludicrous. Or will these accounts take on added risk only to have their principle guaranteed by the feds? that would be an "uh oh" ....

reeds · 03-07-2005, 08:49 PM

Well, here is the problem as I see it..Investing in the stock market is a good idea in the long run- I will agree with that..History proves it. The problem comes with being able to opt in or out of the private account at any time. Certainly, private accounts will dump lots of money into the stock market in the beginning. This will boost the economy as stock prices rise from increased demand. The question is: What will happen if there is a recession? It is conceivable that when an economic slowdown starts, savvy individuals will realize that it might be better to opt back into the classic Social Security system, instead of adding more money to a loosing market. This will shock the market in my opinion; as fewer funds are added in and stock prices drop even further because of decreased demand. This may well exaggerate a depression, or create a bigger bubble when the markets are on the rise. Greater participation in the stock market game could change its dynamics. I still say it is a very dangerous thought if the majority of people think this is a "cant lose" prop- there is NO such thing...

FishForLunch · 03-08-2005, 08:27 AM

Why should we have to wait till 67 or 69 to receive any benefits, I am sure based on my ethnicity I will not live past 70 to 75. So all the money I put into Social Security will not benefit me much. I am glad that Bush is proposing that some of the money I invest goes to my children, atleast they will benefit from my investment in Social Security.

It would be interesting to see a chart what the life expectancy is of various ethnicities.

dude1394 · 03-08-2005, 11:38 AM

It is funny that the NAACP is coming out against personal accounts. It's a way for poorer people to actually accrue some real assetts instead of being beholden to the government. Well maybe it isn't so surprising since the NAACP was against welfare reform as well.

I thought I read that it was something like white women, black women, white men, black men get less beneftis in decreasing order. I'm not sure about the black women, white men positions.

If you look at most funds they are going to something called lifestyle funds. You determine when you are going to retire, as you get closer to retirement, more and more of your funds are invested in bonds, cash and not stocks. So even if a recession did hit your moneys would already be out of the stock market.

I would be surprised if you would be allowed to opt "back" into the social security system, you could however opt into a 100% safe cash fund until for example.

Drbio · 03-08-2005, 02:24 PM

The NAACP has become a liberal organization that blindly follows the lib mantra. It ceased being a representative organization with the best interests of african americans years ago.

Mavdog · 03-08-2005, 02:35 PM

The issue of Social Security and race was broache by Bush last month, Bush attempted to portray the current SS framework as discriminatory to black americans as historically black americans have not been paid a much in benefits as white americans.

Why? Simple, black americans have a shorter life expectancy, so they on average do not live a long as white americans.

Of course, rather than to confront the real issue- which is NOT getting less retirement benefits BTW it is the lack of average black americans access to heathcare and better paying jobs- Bush attempts to wrap his policy goals around a mantle of equal rights. Pretty disgusting.

In fact the privatization of SS does nothing to correct this discrepancy, if black americans continue to not receive heathcare services that will allow for an equal life expectancy they will continue to die earlier and will continue to receive less benefits. The private account does not pass on to the heirs either.

The Bush proposal as laid out will not correct this situation. Injecting the race card into the debate is indeed pretty disgusting.

dude1394 · 03-08-2005, 04:10 PM

Why is it not better for poorer people to have their own retirement 401K than have a government program that can just as easily be removed?

Mavdog · 03-08-2005, 05:30 PM

Two questions actually.

The first was should everybody have access to a 401 account? I believe they do, either thru employer run (401k) or individual (IRAs) tax deferred accounts. The concept of the medical accounts Bush spoke of also seem to have some future value retained in the unspent monies, but that's not going to help these poorer folk...

As for the second, should poor people be forced to participate in the SS, with a personal savings rate for the US close to zero I would argue the state run program is better.

#1MavsFan · 03-08-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

The dems have got you looking at this all wrong.

Last time I checked quite a bit of Republicans in the Senate/House oppose it too. hmmmm?

dude1394 · 03-08-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Two questions actually.

The first was should everybody have access to a 401 account? I believe they do, either thru employer run (401k) or individual (IRAs) tax deferred accounts. The concept of the medical accounts Bush spoke of also seem to have some future value retained in the unspent monies, but that's not going to help these poorer folk...

As for the second, should poor people be forced to participate in the SS, with a personal savings rate for the US close to zero I would argue the state run program is better.

"Possibly" everyone may have access to a 401K account. However everyone does not have excess dollars to put in that account. However there is a forced taxation that is enforced on those people as well as their employers that is 12% of their income.

The question stands, should not those people have the opportunity to invest that taxable income into a 401K account that they will own versus being beholden to the government for their retirement.

FishForLunch · 03-08-2005, 06:38 PM

Wow so the gov would also have to regulate lifestyle of people, like diet, social habits etc.. so that they live longer and take advantage of the availbale SS. This would be disgusting micromanaging peoples lives.

capitalcity · 03-08-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: #1MavsFan

Quote:

The dems have got you looking at this all wrong.

Last time I checked quite a bit of Republicans in the Senate/House oppose it too. hmmmm?

I was speaking more to the abstract concept of controlling your own retirement funds vs. conveying said responsibility to the feds.

In regards to lifelong planning; do you, or do you not, discount the average American's fiscal accountability?

dude1394 · 03-08-2005, 08:22 PM

It's hard to say capital. In some respects if you think the guv is going to give you medicare/ss when you retire then some folks might consider that adequate. I do not, but I also have the wherewithal to allow the government to take 12% from me and my employer and still have extra dollars to put away.

To be honest as well, the rise of an investor class has made financial advice, vehicles (different mutual funds, indexes, other lifestyle mixes) more prevalent. My company's 401K for example has 5 funds based on my expected work time. I could easily not think about a thing, put dollars in those funds and mitigate my risk as I approach retirement. I see no reason why the government will not have the same and probalby less choices in some respects as there would not be the ability to isolate my investments into company stock as I can now.