Don’t Take Investment Advice From Bill Frist
By on Apr 22nd, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Don’t Take Investment Advice From Bill Frist
Bill Frist, 3/3/05:
[W]e must harness the power of the market and give younger Americans the choice of personal retirement accounts whose rate of growth, and ultimately rate of benefits, will grow faster than traditional Social Security.
Chattanooga Times Free Press, 4/20/05:
The campaign committee of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., lost more than $16,000 in the stock market in the first three months of the year, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The committee also needs an infusion of $60,000 to cover the outstanding balance on a U.S. Bank loan, records show.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, even if if there is less money with personal accounts, at least it’s my money.
April 22nd, 2005 at 3:27 pmSo because his campaign committee made some shoddy investments…..
I don’t see the point. Personal accounts are a good idea. What’s the alternative? Government bonds? No thanks, I’ll take the stock market risk any day.
April 22nd, 2005 at 3:36 pmWhy not government bonds, zach? Are you not comfortable with the full faith and credit of the Republican party?
April 22nd, 2005 at 3:49 pmThe market goes up and down in the short term. Big deal. Over 40 years of working, with holdings moved gradually toward bonds and fixed instruments as retirement approaches, you’ll end ahead with a PRA. Or just hold bonds the entire time, if you like. Or stay in the current system.
April 22nd, 2005 at 3:49 pmStay in the current system? The “current system” under Bush’s plan features benefit cuts to pay for both the “crisis” and for the additional debt incurred in phasing in PRAs. Don’t talk like PRAs wouldn’t affect those who chose not to participate.
April 22nd, 2005 at 4:38 pmE-mart: does Bush have a concrete plan? The Ryan-Sununu bill (a real Congressional bill) does not reduce traditional benefits to pay for PRAs. It’s not the Republicans’ fault that S.S. is doomed for failure in 2017. Repubs are just trying to do the best with the hand they’re dealt.
April 22nd, 2005 at 4:53 pmASSUMING you made good investments, and ASSUMING the market didn’t take a DIVE, and ASSUMING that Bush had NEVER lied to you before….NO THANKS, my Social Security aint much, but it pays the bills and puts food on the table!
April 22nd, 2005 at 4:56 pmhttp://www.thereisnocrisis.com/
The point is, Bush is most definitely not doing the best with the hand he was dealt. How would PRAs affect people if they had been in place in 1929? What advice do you have for people if history repeats itself? Just put off retiring for 20 years?
April 22nd, 2005 at 5:10 pmPersonal accounts are a great idea, AND they already exist. They are called IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401K accounts. Bolster up Social Security with all the money being spent in Iraq, and on Bush’s Bamboozlepalooza Tour, and then leave it alone! Most Americans do not know how to save money, so if they manage to save nothing over their lifetimes, at least there is Social Security. If Bush guts Social Security now, we’re going to have to create a new system in the future to keep the old and disabled from starving and freezing. Shore it up and leave it alone. –And start up that IRA, it’s never too late.
April 22nd, 2005 at 6:40 pmThe market is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Therefore it’s not in the best interests of the vast majority of the population; that is to say, anyone who doesn’t have a shitload of money and a collection of political whores in their pocket. Therefore #2, it should be phased out and closed ASAP. That’s a $64 billion solution to small investors getting screwed by Ken Lay and the other big-money pimps
April 23rd, 2005 at 1:37 pmtom- Had S.S. been in place in 1929, thee program would have been in serious financial trouble, since all the unemployment would have caused a large decrease in S.S. tax collected. People with PRA’s having shifted away from stocks close to retirement, would have been fine. Those with a lot of stock would have time before retirement for the market to go back up.
Zookeeper- The problem is, a lot of americans can’t afford 401k’s and IRA’s because 12% of their paycheck goes towards a program that nets them 1% or less return. People would be better off putting that money in a passbook savings account at their local bank. Also if they were to die, that money could go to their heirs. Also, it is not goverment’s job to keep people from starving and freezing.
April 25th, 2005 at 10:31 amThe largest gamble in Personal Accounts is the fact that you are handing the average person their retirement money to invest as they see fit. Now I don’t know about you but in all honesty opens a Pandora’s Box of bad investment choices, scams, fall-out from “Enrons” and other instances that could wipe someone out. The average person will not dedicate the necessary time involved in properly running an investment. When the sheer magnitude of this hits you…EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN…and you think about it the potential for a catatrophe of unimaginable proportions is frightening to say the least. S.S. has worked and it can continue. Why is it that Repubs, who supposedly want smaller gov’t, only want to diminsh systems that help people? Education, retirement, health care, environment and all the while the parts of the gov’t that destroy, kill and other wise could make this country as fanatical in power as our “enemies”. (which we are creating more of everyday)
April 25th, 2005 at 12:53 pmTony, you mean people would not have the choice of how to invest their PRAs? Given the skyrocketing market value of 1928, don’t you think a sizeable percentage of people, say 10 years from retirement, might take the chance for an extra few hundred thousand it looked like they could make? That decision in 1928 would have had a serious consequence on a 1938 retirement. Or should people who make that decision simply be selected out of society?
April 25th, 2005 at 1:29 pm- The alleged Social Security disaster is premised on low levels of economic growth. If times are better than predicted, then the projections are wrong and the trust fund will remain solvent longer. If times are as bad or worse than projected, however, then the stock market is bad place to put one’s money. In other words, the Social Security hustlers are predicting economic gloom for the trust fund but a boom for the market. You can’t have both
April 25th, 2005 at 2:21 pmEven beyond tom’s noting the fact that people wouldn’t necessarily shift to bonds, let’s look at Tony’s claim that even those who had stocks in 1929 would have time to make it up before retiring. According to Global Financial Data, Inc. historical data, an all-stock PRA in 1929 would lose so much value that it would not break even, on a return basis (not just price indexed), until 1945. That’s 16 years to get back to square-one. Plus, as workers get older, they would move to bonds if they want to keep from risking even that nest egg as they approach “retirement�, and that’s going to further lower their potential rate of return. I don’t know what sort of mathematical model Tony has in mind that makes catchup possible in this scenario yet supports his seeming concern about the affordability of add-on accounts, but I do know that “it is not goverment’s job to keep people from starving and freezing� is possibly one of the most callous statements I’ve seen lately.
April 25th, 2005 at 3:11 pm2399
You can also check the sites on 2194
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:57 am