Former governor Mitt Romney
By on Jun 7th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Former governor Mitt Romney
backs Social Security privatization. “Personal accounts would be a big plus,” Romney said in New Hampshire yesterday.
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
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
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
"Personal accounts would be a big plus"
For who exactly? Wall Street?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pmNo matter how presidential you republicans think this guy looks and acts, are you ready to vote for a mormon?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pmWould that be divided per wife?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pmMItt Romney: the twenty-first century's Warren G. Harding.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pmWall Street wants your social security.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pmFor who exactly? Wall Street?
Comment by Crump's Brother
Exactly. Just look what happened to Health Savings Accounts (the low premium/higher deductible solution to health insurance)
June 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pmIt'd be a big plus for the American people, that's for sure.
Social Security is a horrible "investment." If your contributions were dollar-cost averaged into the total stock market index for all of your working years, you'd have so much more money.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:19 pm#2-Its not his religion that bothers me. It his overall lack of Intelligence and inherent stupidity as a Repug.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:20 pmI think most Repubs, including Ron Paul are for this.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:21 pmBut it doesn't matter what a president thinks about this or how badly he wants it.
George Bush proved that.
Sure Mitt, push that Social Security privatization angle, after all, it worked such wonders for W that the more people learned about it, the more intensely they disliked it
June 7th, 2007 at 3:22 pmSocial Security is NOT a tradtional investment like what you do in the Stock Market. It is not designed to work that way Muckdog. It is the Safety Net that many people depend on when they retire.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pmmuckdog,
social security was never meant to be an 'investment'. IT's an insurance policy. They are different
June 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pmSocial Security also acts like a huge slush fund for government. Maybe we could have Al Gore's "lockbox."
June 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm???
muckdog sez:
Sure...assuming some unfortunate downturn didn't wipe out your portfolio at some point.
Would there be any guarantees on this plan, muckdog?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm2. No matter how presidential you republicans think this guy looks and acts, are you ready to vote for a mormon?
Don't you mean MORON;
mo·ron /ˈmɔrɒn, ˈmoʊr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-on, mohr-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
June 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm–noun
1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
#2-Its not his religion that bothers me. It his overall lack of Intelligence and inherent stupidity as a Repug. - - It's more than that, it's that he's a Republichameleon.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pm#6 - What happened?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pmMr. 7 Homes : why the hell does this clown care?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:27 pmThe American people are ALWAYS ready to vote for a moron. Never underestimate them.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pmNo matter how presidential you republicans think this guy looks and acts, are you ready to vote for a mormon?
Comment by Namtillaku — June 7, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Uh, did you mean "Mormon", or MORON"?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pmOh, Southwest Bob... you beat me to it. Just proves, great minds think alike.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pmIf you wanted to come up with the greatest scam possible you would be hard pressed to beat Social Security. What do you moonbats suggest when the balance of one retiree for every two workers makes keeping this scheme going impossible?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm#22. Republicans track record on fiscal matters is laughable. See: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThe greater scam is that the people who vote on Social Security won't use it or need it. Or how about the continual robbing from Social Security to pay for pork projects. I'll report, you decide.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pmMuckdog, as Crump's Brother said, SS is an insurance policy, not an "investment". From the '00 campaign, when Bush first touted the privatized SS accounts until today, the Dow Jones has risen approximately 12%. That's over more than six years. That's a little less than 2% per year.
Wow. That's some investment performance, huh?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pmsocial security was never meant to be an ‘investment’. IT’s an insurance policy. They are different
Comment by Crump's Brother — June 7, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Yes, but it's like an insurance policy for an accident that's guaranteed to happen, sold by a company that accepts all customers regardless of risk. Insurance depends on the premiums of many policyholders to pay the claims of a few. The traditional insurance model is not going to be adequate when the boomer bubble starts retiring and living longer than prior generations.
I think some form of privatisation/market investment would be good for social security. Short-term dips in the Dow are not going to wipe out an index fund over the long term.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:36 pmGood luck with that one Mitt. Nice to see the Republicans back in the saddle. Being the front runner in their party is kind like winning first place at the special olympics.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pmRomney bends down and places his lips on the third rail.....
June 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pmPrivate accounts would be an improvement. Even if you invested in CDs, you'd get at least a 5% yearly return, which is better than the estimates of a max 2% that you get with SS. Plus (this is the best part) when you die (before or after retirement), your spouse and kids would get the hundreds of thousands of $$ instead of a bridge to nowhere.
(Yes, hundreds of thousands--even if you only make $11,000/yr your WHOLE life from age 20-65, putting aside 12.4% of that every year at 5% would give you over $200,000 at age 65. Much more then the couple thou you get from SSA upon death.)
The first step towards fixing SS, though should be to stop spending the SS surplus, so that the surplus will actually be around to cover the shortfall starting in 2017. All parties can agree to this.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:44 pm“Personal accounts would be a big plusâ€
Okaaay. Would you care to elaborate on your underlying logic?
Who stands to benefit from privatized social security? What are the potential downsides?
Are the interests of private companies handling social security congruent with the interest in protecting the assets of american taxpayers being contributed to social security? What are the relative levels of risk tolerance between these private investment firms and taxpayers?
Are there conflicts of interest involving the investment firms that stand to benefit from privatized social security and the politicians that support it?
If god forbid an investment firm goes broke, how will taxpayer investments be protected? If the government promises to make good on the money lost, doesn't this create an incentive for investment firms to make *more* risky investments, knowing that the government will step in? And if the government is going to be continually rescuing failed investments, how do we keep it from going broke?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pmRusty, my wife's cousin competed in the Special Olympics. Thanks for being a jerk.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:49 pmsocial security was never meant to be an ‘investment’. IT’s an insurance policy. They are different
Says who?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pmSure…assuming some unfortunate downturn didn’t wipe out your portfolio at some point.
Would there be any guarantees on this plan, muckdog?
Over a 40 year working horizon, absolutely.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm"Privatized Social Security" is code for "Funnel Money to My Wall Street Friends." Plain and simple. If you want to invest your money for your future, by all means do so. In fact, no one should rely on Social Security for their retirement. It's not an investment system, so don't compare it to investment systems.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pmTony, Ever consider writing Infomercials for the morons who would actually buy your shit?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pmNot Cool Rusty. You owe Tony an apology. NOW
June 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pmm12 sez:
...details?
(I kinda was expecting more information than a flat 'yes'.)
June 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pmSays who?
Comment by m12 — June 7, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Good one, You're12! Next one, try "Yer mother wears army boots".
June 7th, 2007 at 3:55 pmThats the problem. When asked for details, they have none.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pmWho benefits from privatizing Social Security? Retirees. They'd have bigger retirement checks from Social Security if it were privatized. Can you imagine if you had put your Social Security contributions in the SP500 or total market index month after month from 1957-2007? There were lots of bear markets during that period, and you'd still be way ahead. You'd be a multi-millionaire.
It'd benefit the government, because the current system is scheduled to stop running a surplus in the near future, and the government will have to "do something" to fix it. This means raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, increasing taxes, means testing (so that most of YOU wouldn't get it, only the poor would).
Why do that when private accounts would be more beneficial for everyone?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pmNot Cool Rusty. You owe Tony an apology. NOW
Comment by Jim Wolf359 — June 7, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Why? Did Tony's wife's cousin not do well in the Games? Or did he win the gold and now Tony is upset because Rusty denigrated the accomplishment by comparing it to the Republican Presidential race?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pmMuckdog, There are already Private Accounts available. There called IRAs and 401(k)s.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pma big plus for a cheap-ass government...
June 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pmCalling social security an "insurance" program misses the point.
It gives a monthly check to folks when they retire.
Why not give a BIGGER monthly check to folks when they retire?
(And yes, we'd have to extract the disability and other things that have tapped into the system over the years. It'd have to be run similar to an annuity with survivorship benefits, so there would be some overhead).
If we don't do anything, the reality is that most of you won't receive anything because it'll be means tested. In otherwords, if you have any sort of retirement income from pensions or 401(k) plans, IRAs, etc. then you won't get it. At that point, it's just a welfare program for the poor.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pmNo matter how presidential you republicans think this guy looks and acts, are you ready to vote for a mormon?
Comment by Namtillaku — June 7, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
where in the Constitution can you find that you should take the religion of a Presidential candidate into account?
you bigot!
incredible that my left wing tools who claim to be so tolerant are truly the most intolerant sheeps on planet earth.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pmmuckdog,
Can you imagine if you had put your Social Security contributions in the
total market index month after month from 1885-1935?
As good as you can have it with the stock market, it can also be real real bad. Let's not forget.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pmMuckdog, There are already Private Accounts available. There called IRAs and 401(k)s.
Unfortunately, the government is taking the money that people would be putting into IRAs away for their pyramid scheme.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pmYes a REAL PLUS FOR WALL STREET.
Social Security is an INSURANCE PROGRAM against poverty in old age...
June 7th, 2007 at 4:03 pmIt is NOT MEANT AS AN INVESTMENT PROGRAM...
#41- I see the species of Trolls isn't limited to the Right Wing Nuts who invade this board. Damm shame that.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pmThe idea is simple and I don't understand why the Republicans cannot fathom it - the market is subject to... well... the market. The Social Security program is not. All this stuff about returns and rates is a part of the largest economic expansion in the history of the world, lasting (with some stutters and fits) since the end of WW2. Will it last forever? Probably not. I would like to have some insurance policy that isn't attahced to the market, since my IRA and 401K are.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pmProve that M12. Time to put up or shut up. And make sure you provide links this time.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pmJim you're missing the point.
We're spending a ton of money to return very little.
Why are you against retirees receiving bigger monthly Social Security checks?
Would you rather means test it, and only give Social Security benefits to the poor? That'd be a huge tax increase on America, as folks who used to receive something from the system would now receive nothing. It'd just be a wealth transfer scheme.
Would you rather raise the retirement age? You can't be serious.
Why not modify the system to work more like an annuity? Extract the disability and other stuff that have been added, and the rest should be an annuity where you have survivorship benefits and such, and investment options like the total stock market and total bond market indexes.
There are the details. Quite simple.
The transition period would be hard, but once Obama wins in 2008, he can pull the troops out of Iraq and use the money to cover the transition.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pmMuckdog, There are already Private Accounts available. There called IRAs and 401(k)s.
Unfortunately, the government is taking the money that people would be putting into IRAs away for their pyramid scheme.
Comment by m12 — June 7, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Social Security is broken. Go read the speeches that I gave in the 1990s about this. Go read how I said that by the middle of the 2010s if things were not fixed, Social Security would be a goner.
FDR created a great program for its time, but we in government, both Republicans and Democrats have dipped into Social Security funds to balance the budget and to be able to pay our salaries, our benefits, etc. leaving millions of Americans S.O.L..
Private accounts would be great, but the problem I see is that how would people know where to invest and where to put their money so that if the market goes down, their savings don't go down. I would hate, and I know this is what would happen, the government would have to create more government to tell people and to force people to invest their money in low risk accounts.
In either case, government is going to be involved.
But how Social Security is now, needs to be revamped and reworked. I said so in the 1990s and the Democratic politicians backed me up. Now that Bush said it, we changed our mind.
You know us Democrats can never agree with anything Bush is for.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pmPay attention to me. I am an attention-hungry troll who seeks to provoke by pretending to be a popular figure and putting inane words in hier mouth. Aren't I clever? My mom says I'm the cleverest girl in school. Maybe someday I'll grow up to be just like President Hillary Clinton. My daddy loves me and says I'm pretty. But they both work all day so I'm alone with my computer and I'm lonely.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#48, but it's mandatory insurance where everyone has to participate. Why not be able to pick and choose which kind of insurance program I want? Why be forced to pick the worst plan?
We mandate car insurance in CA, but we have the option of picking and choosing.
We may soon mandate health insurance, with the option of picking and choosing our doctors.
Why not do the same with retirement insurance?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#37
Sure. Most people tend to work for a minimum of 40 years.
Even if you retired after the downfall in 2002, the money you invested in the 60s and 70s (when the Dow was at 1k) has still appreciated to its 8k figure during the post 911 slump.
That unfortunate downturn only took out 5 years of gains. People still had the other 35.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm# 49 - can you explain why Rusty "owes Tony an apology"?
Why should Tony get upset because his wife's cousin competed in the Special Olympics? Is that shameful?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pmJim you’re missing the point.
We’re spending a ton of money to return very little.
Why are you against retirees receiving bigger monthly Social Security checks?
Would you rather means test it, and only give Social Security benefits to the poor? That’d be a huge tax increase on America, as folks who used to receive something from the system would now receive nothing. It’d just be a wealth transfer scheme.
Would you rather raise the retirement age? You can’t be serious.
Why not modify the system to work more like an annuity? Extract the disability and other stuff that have been added, and the rest should be an annuity where you have survivorship benefits and such, and investment options like the total stock market and total bond market indexes.
There are the details. Quite simple.
The transition period would be hard, but once Obama wins in 2008, he can pull the troops out of Iraq and use the money to cover the transition.
Comment by muckdog — June 7, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Which fairy tale do you live in? Obama pull the troops from Iraq if he wins? I can guarantee you that that won't happen, even if he wins. Us Democrats don't get tired of our politicians making promises during the campaign that they know they can't keep and/or have not intention of keeping.
second of all, the transition would be hard? so you wouldn't mind if a few millions people receiving Social Security would get screwed while your lovely transition is happening, eh? idiot.
do tell, how are you going to get more money into Social Security? how are you going to prevent us politicians from going into social security money and using it for other things, like I used it to try to balance the budget?
how are you going to increase Social Security paychecks? what government agencies and programs are you willing to cut?
We didn't have the Iraq War during my time and Social Security checks were not getting hiked?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pmPay attention to me. I am an attention-hungry troll who seeks to provoke by pretending to be a popular figure and putting inane words in hier mouth. Aren’t I clever? My mom says I’m the cleverest girl in school. Maybe someday I’ll grow up to be just like President Hillary Clinton. My daddy loves me and says I’m pretty. But they both work all day so I’m alone with my computer and I’m lonely.
Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
1) My daddy didn't love me, he abandoned my house when I was little. REad my book. It was my father's fault that I became a sex addict. All his fault.
2) My mommy died a long time ago. Why you going there fake Clinton?
3) How dare you make fun of me, the greatest President to ever step on the Oval Office rug? How dare you?!
4) If you don't stop it, I will go Chinese Embassy in Serbia on you.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:16 pmCan you imagine if you had put your Social Security contributions in the
total market index month after month from 1885-1935?
As good as you can have it with the stock market, it can also be real real bad. Let’s not forget.
The Dow Jones was around 30 in 1885 and 100 in 1935. You still got your money back.
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html
June 7th, 2007 at 4:16 pmMittuns,
If I had inherited my Daddy's fortune w/o lifting a pinky, perhaps I'd agree with you.
I don't.
Until you have to work 60-70 hrs/wk just to get by, you or W will never understand this issue.
'Nuff said.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pmCindy Sheehan was right when she said that America is becoming a corporate, fascist wasteland.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:19 pmPAY ATTENTION TO ME! Respond to my provacative posts or I'll go all Chinee Embassy on your ass. Even though I'm not really President Hillary Clinton, I pretend to be her on these boards. So maybe I could really be her. You don't know.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pmNo Muckdog, I'm not missing the point or any points for that matter.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pmThose of you who insist that Social Security is a "Scam" or doesn't give you a rate of return comparable to the Stock Market are missing the point.
Social Security is set up as a social safety net. That was the intent of the legislation in 1932 when FDR got it through the Congress. Mindful of the fact that what happened in1929 could happen again, Social Security was set up so that if the economy went into another Deep Recession or-God Forbid-a Depression like 1929, then there would be something there for retirees, widows and the disabled to use if need be.
Bottom Line is: Social Security was never meant to generate a huge return on Investment. Its ROA is tied to the rate on the 30 year Bond. It is designed to be a Supplement to your Retirement Income, not your Primary source.
I think a good, hard stock market crash is in order.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pmPAY ATTENTION TO ME! Respond to my provacative posts or I’ll go all Chinee Embassy on your ass. Even though I’m not really President Hillary Clinton, I pretend to be her on these boards. So maybe I could really be her. You don’t know.
Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Hillary, is this you? or this Monica? which one are you? why are you putting me down? why?
you know how much you love me!
Both of you would be nobodies if it wouldn't had been for me, so respect your man, or I'll pimp slap you, ok?
Respect the greatest President to ever set foot on the Oval Office rug or I'll go Chinese Embassy in Serbia on you.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:27 pm"“Personal accounts would be a big plusâ€
For who exactly?
Comment by Crump's Brother — June 7, 2007"
You! Dope!
June 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pmSocial Security is an *insurance* policy - what a dum bass these wingnuts are!!!
June 7th, 2007 at 4:29 pm"are you ready to vote for a mormon?
Comment by Namtillaku — June 7, 2007"
Are you ready to vote for a muslim?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:29 pm"Wall Street wants your social security.
Comment by Kasandra — June 7, 2007"
Want to take a stab at explaining that dumb statement?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pmMuckdog, Agree or disagree I do appreciate the Civil Tone of our discussion.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pmWe may soon mandate health insurance, with the option of picking and choosing our doctors.
Why not do the same with retirement insurance?
Comment by muckdog — June 7, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
That's what you already have dum bass! There's the required *baseline* insurance of Social Security. If you want more, there's no limitation. The difference however is that the *baseline* isn't going to f*ck you if the private insurance company goes bankrupt.
Pull your head out of your *ss - dum bass.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pmYou! Dope!
Comment by michael — June 7, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Says the poll smoking coward...
June 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pmWant to take a stab at explaining that dumb statement?
Comment by michael — June 7, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Want to take a stab at explaining that dumb question?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pmAre you ready to vote for a muslim?
Comment by michael — June 7, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Says the *Jewish/Christian* Fascist... F*ck you, and the rest of you religious zealots.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pmJust give people more options. Let people decide to what degree they want to be in the SS program. If they opt out, let them. Then lock down the trust fund. No double dipping. Then people are free to invest their money in PSAs or IRAs or HSAs to their hearts content (like they are now) and they wouldn't have to pay so much in FICA. But, what politician is going to go for that with the trust fund so wide open for double dipping? They want everyone to pay into it (on income up to $90,000).
June 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pmOh my little sheep. You amuse me greatly because you actually think I'm President Clinton, even though she hasn't been elected yet.
That's what we Democraps need, good little sheep like you who believe stupid stuff like what I type on hear. Good little sheep like you will keep me in power a long time.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pmMitt Romney's "Quiet" Contributors:Bain Capital, Carlyle Group, KKR and Clear Channel,Absolute Return Capital (ARC),Brookside Capital,Sankaty Advisors, LLC etc.
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/04/05/mitt_romneys_quiet_contributors_neil_cavuto_ignores_the_billionaire_candidates_connections_to_bain_capital_carlyle_group_kkr_and_clear_channel.php
June 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pm"Exactly. Just look what happened to Health Savings Accounts
Comment by Proud Dem — June 7, 2007"
And just what would happen to social security? If you want to make money on money you save you put it in an interest bearing account such as savings or money market. If you think that the government can do a better job with your savings than a bank, then why not give them your savings to invest for you?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pm"It his overall lack of Intelligence and inherent stupidity as a Repug.
Comment by Jim Wolf359 — June 7, 2007"
Give us an example?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pmJim, LMAO. Tied to the 30 year bond, eh? There is no Social Security trust fund. All the money IS SPENT. Either in benefits or absorbed into the general fund.
You say it's "insurance." When you buy something from an insurance company, what do they do with the money? They invest it in stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This way they can be sure that when you make a claim or need the money, it will be there.
The reason Social Security is in trouble is BECAUSE it was not treated as an investment.
The only real solution is to treat the underlying cause of the problem. Raising taxes, reducing benefits, or means testing are only addressing the symptoms of the problem. And as someone mentioned, the government would just spend the money anyways.
The only way to save Social Security for the long term, is to get it out of government's hands. They're a very poor steward of money.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:35 pmSocial Security is an *insurance* policy - what a dum bass these wingnuts are!!!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — June 7, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
yes, an insurance policy that FDR never intended to last for this long. Read his policies before you open you big trap, you stupid tool. Stupid dumb a*s my liberal sheeps are.
and if it was suppose to be such an insurance policy, why is that I dipped into it during the 1990s to try to balance the budget?
idiot, pure and utter idiodicy.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:35 pm"the more people learned about it, the more intensely they disliked it
Comment by KingCranky — June 7, 2007"
What did they learn that turned them off to this?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:36 pmMuckdog, Agree or disagree I do appreciate the Civil Tone of our discussion.
Comment by Jim Wolf359 — June 7, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Agreed. Cheers, Jim.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:36 pm#64 is right on. And, if we did have Al's lockbox, this might not be as urgent an issue, methinks.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pmNot arguing merits of safety nets, longtime gains, etc., isn't it "American" to have a choice as to how your social security funds are invested?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:39 pmIt's your money, so what's wrong with having a say as to what to do with it? I'm not advocating any particular plan here, mind you.
Nor am I advocating comlete mandatory privatization. But what is the harm of people investing on their own instead of the government doing it for them?
"Want to take a stab at explaining that dumb question?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — June 7, 2007"
I knew you couldn't! You're not smart enough.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:39 pmNo one making 11,000 a year would save 12% of their income because they couldn't afford it. That's poverty.
Sure it is. Income is tied to the market and FICA is tied to income. But, correct me if I'm wrong, these PSAs, would they be similar to an IRA? An IRA isn't going to wiped out simply because of a market crash. The interest may be. Or are PSAs more like an annuity? In that case it would be like an investment and insurance.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:40 pmAwww, the poor little troll who can only try and score easily debunked points by signing the name of a politician it absolutely despises, talk about your mental conflict
I can't even begin to imagine the lunacy of blasting others with an online ID the above troll obviously hates, and I really can't imagine how tortured the mental gymnastics are that it goes through every time it tries its slightly clever stunt, probably along the lines of "Man, this'll really burn the libs, but I can't stand making my points as a President I absolutely cannot abide in any way, shape or form, ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!"
Oh sure, it'll say how much it enjoys trying to rile up the Dems, but really, we all know that hitting that "Post" button, while signing off as Slick Clinton, just must cause it no end of frustration
But hey, whine all you want troll, after all, as we see with the GOP and Administration these days, crying and blaming others for the party's own self-inflicted political fiascoes are the main platform for any of it's Presidential Candidates and Minority Leadership roles in the congress
I feel your completely self-inflicted pain every time you must clench your teeth about signing off on your wingnut ravings as President Clinton, so it's all right if you want to cry, really it is
June 7th, 2007 at 4:41 pm"The only way to save Social Security for the long term, is to get it out of government’s hands.
Comment by muckdog — June 7, 2007"
ABSOLUTELY!
June 7th, 2007 at 4:41 pmLet me tell you about presidential history, since I'm the only one who pretend to be a president around hear. Even though I am a democrap, I criticize all democraps and pretend to wink like it's a big joke the democrap party pulls over on America. Isn't that clever? I thought of it all by myself. See, that way, I get to pretend to be President Clinton (even though she hasn't been elected yet) and I can still cut down left-wingers.
Bow down before me all you litle sheep! For as far as you know, I am President Clinton (even though she hasn't been elected yet)!
June 7th, 2007 at 4:42 pmBut what is the harm of people investing on their own instead of the government doing it for them?
Comment by Wilco — June 7, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
What is stopping people from investing on their own?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:43 pmTypical. Republicans want to take away benefits promised to Americans.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI'm willing to do my part to help out Social Security. Just pay me, in a lump sum, every dime I've paid into the system for the past forty three years. I won't ask for anything else, promise.
That people propose various schemes for "saving" SS, ranging from decreased benefits, to increased retirement age, to privatization (Thar's GOLD in them there hills, boys!) is utterly ludicrous.
Just remove the cap on income subject to SS withholding. Oops, sorry, that would amount to a "tax increase" on the wealthy - and we can't have that, can we?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pmNot this again ...... well, I guess there is a lot of money to be made by the right people so this will not go away. Fire up the AARP folks and those who know about "dollar cost averaging" for investments in companies like Enron.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pmspit take, as you well know, everyone can invest on their own, but only the money not taken by social security.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pmPlease address the issue, not deflect it.
muckdog
"The only way to save Social Security for the long term, is to get it out of government’s hands. They’re a very poor steward of money."
I think you meant to say
"The only way to save Social Security for the long term, is to get it out of Republican ran government’s hands. They’re a very poor steward of money."
After Reagan initiated the largest peace time tax increase in history, and established the SS trust fund, he made it solvent for what should have been fifty years. But then what happened? He and every other Republican President since him, borrowed heavily out of that trust fund. Why? Becuase it's already part of the budget. You don't have to count it as part of the official deficit number. But it still counts as debt to AMerican tax payer that is paying into that fund with the expectation that they will receive their benefits when they need them.
As you are surely aware, Republicans have been the borrow and spend party over the last 27 years. The party of fiscal conservatism has been anything but. They have 'quietly' tried to 'starve the beast' for nearly three decades.
If the program doesn't work, it is surely do to Republican mismanagement.
Further, if the American people wanted privatization, they would have told the Presdient to go for it in '04 when he was trying to change it. But it appears, as with just about every other issue, the President doesn't see it the American people's way.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:52 pmAwww, the poor little troll who can only try and score easily debunked points by signing the name of a politician it absolutely despises, talk about your mental conflict
you bigot!
incredible that my left wing tools who claim to be so tolerant are truly the most intolerant sheeps on planet earth.
Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
I can’t even begin to imagine the lunacy of blasting others with an online ID the above troll obviously hates, and I really can’t imagine how tortured the mental gymnastics are that it goes through every time it tries its slightly clever stunt, probably along the lines of “Man, this’ll really burn the libs, but I can’t stand making my points as a President I absolutely cannot abide in any way, shape or form, ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!â€
Oh sure, it’ll say how much it enjoys trying to rile up the Dems, but really, we all know that hitting that “Post†button, while signing off as Slick Clinton, just must cause it no end of frustration
But hey, whine all you want troll, after all, as we see with the GOP and Administration these days, crying and blaming others for the party’s own self-inflicted political fiascoes are the main platform for any of it’s Presidential Candidates and Minority Leadership roles in the congress
I feel your completely self-inflicted pain every time you must clench your teeth about signing off on your wingnut ravings as President Clinton, so it’s all right if you want to cry, really it is
Comment by KingCranky — June 7, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
easily debunked points? just because you believe the voices in your head it doesn't mean anything has been debunked, my poor toolish fool.
I love tools like you, you certainly try hard, but how much does it irk you that your greatest idol, your President, is here telling you how it is.
I am laughing at your silly attempt to attack me. Last person that did that ended up suicided. Ask Vinnie, you know the guy from my administration that appeared suicided in a DC public park.
It took you almost an hour to come up with your "witty" respond. That's ok, at least you broke the record of most of my sheeps here.
Now please try again, this time take two hours and you might finally come up with something that really hurts my feelings, you know like telling me why the hell do I always have affairs with nasty looking women, or maybe pointing out the fact that I agreed in the 1990s with the fact that Social Security is broken, or that I agreed in the 1990s that Hussein had WMDs and he had every intend on using them.
and remember, the voices in your head don't count, ok? I know how it works, I am one of you, I am a left wing lunatic and I always listen to the voices in my head, but at least I am smart enough to know that these voices are not real, but in my head.
go for it King Cranky and see if you can do the job this time.
I wish you luck and I send you all my love, my little sheep, my tool.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:52 pmGeez, talk about a sad state of affairs.....
It's all about how managing those Social Security accounts would be lucrative on the part of those doing the managing
Pretty sad when a GOP apologist/lackey misses the financial component, after all, I thought that money was the be all end all for you party apparatchiks
Hey, what do you know, a twofer
And why do you think W stopped talking about privatizing Social Security, because the more he talked about it, the more unpopular his lunacy became with the voters and public
All that "Political Capital" W bragged about after election night 2004, with the GOP in complete control of the House AND Senate, yet they whimpered and backed away from privatizing social security, because it's not something they're willing to defy their own constituents about
Now, if you don't like my answer, if you wish to spin it as somehow not answering your question, then why don't you explain to everyone here just how that loser of a campaign to privatize social security actually ended up as a big GOP and Administration win on Capitol Hill, and a big loss that's sure to keep the Dems in permanent minority status in DC?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pmNo one making 11,000 a year would save 12% of their income because they couldn’t afford it. That’s poverty.
They already are. 12% is the social security tax that individuals could be saving.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pmBut what is the harm of people investing on their own instead of the government doing it for them?
Comment by Wilco — June 7, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
What is stopping people from investing on their own?
Comment by spit take — June 7, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
We can't invest the money that the governmen takes from our paychecks and puts into social security.
If you are a person that doesn't have enough to invest in the stock market, why should the government not let go of the Social Security that it takes and allow you to invest it?
why do we Liberals, Democrats who always claim that the government doesn't work, always for programs that must be run by government? why?
we want a health care system ran by an incompetent politicians, a social security system run by incompetent politicians, really now.
Politicians were given a chance with Social Security, and they screwed it up majorly. Or are you saying that government knows better than the people that elects it?
this is what is at the core of this debate.
I, as the greatest President to ever set foot on the Oval Office, believe that I know more than the average American and that I am their great white hope. I am here to save them from themselves. In fact, this is what most of my party members believe. That us in government know better than the average American and that we must save them from themselves.
Furthermore, we in government need Social security money so that we can then spend it in whatever we want. I mean the Social Security funds are in trouble because we politicians have used it for everything else BUT retirenment.
dirty little secret that no politicians wants Americans to know.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pmAfter Reagan initiated the largest peace time tax increase in history, and established the SS trust fund, he made it solvent for what should have been fifty years. But then what happened? He and every other Republican President since him, borrowed heavily out of that trust fund. Why? Becuase it’s already part of the budget. You don’t have to count it as part of the official deficit number. But it still counts as debt to AMerican tax payer that is paying into that fund with the expectation that they will receive their benefits when they need them.
With the assistance of Democrats in Congress, then and now.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pmHow was I deflecting the issue? Social Security does not prevent anyone from investing on their own.
It's a program, as some have pointed out, designed to protect against an economic disaster, not as an investment strategy. The harm that you ask about and seem to believe doesn't exist comes when there is a market downturn and the money that would have gone to fund the social security system is lost.
It's the fundamental difference between insurance and investment.
Investment is always risky. Social Security seeks to reduce the risk.
No one says you can't invest. But a large part of the reltively better standard of living that American retirees now enjoy (better than a century agao) is a baseline income from SS. Especially now, with pensions much less widely available through work, and those that exist no longer financially solid, most Americans want something they can depend on when they retire.
Besides, today's workers fund the benefits for those who have retired. If money is diverted into individual accounts, how do you propose to fund those whose benefits have already been earned and are due?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:59 pmNo one making 11,000 a year would save 12% of their income because they couldn’t afford it. That’s poverty.
They already are. 12% is the social security tax that individuals could be saving.
Comment by m12 — June 7, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Exactly m12!!! you are smart, and that is why you are a Republican. I hate smart people like you, you stop voting Democratic. Damn you to Hell you smart people, you will never vote Democratic!!!!
but don't you know m12, the real argument is not about Social Security, but about government controlling you and me.
The poor must rely on Social Security to try to meet their food, water, and shelter necessities. If you invest in the market, you would get a higher return than if the government steals from your paycheck. And we Democratic politicians need people to rely on our social programs so that they continuously vote for us.
this is the real debate, real argument. Government control over private citizens life.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:02 pmAfter Reagan initiated the largest peace time tax increase in history, and established the SS trust fund, he made it solvent for what should have been fifty years. But then what happened? He and every other Republican President since him, borrowed heavily out of that trust fund. Why? Becuase it’s already part of the budget. You don’t have to count it as part of the official deficit number. But it still counts as debt to AMerican tax payer that is paying into that fund with the expectation that they will receive their benefits when they need them.
With the assistance of Democrats in Congress, then and now.
Comment by m12 — June 7, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Excuse me, excuse me....I SAID EXCUSE ME!!!! WHY THE HELL DO YOU LEAVE ME OUT?!!!
I ALSO BORROWED HEAVILY FROM HERE!!! DON'T BE GIVEN PROPS TO THE REPUBLICANS ONLY!!!
I want my mad props too, ok? I want some recognitionf or this also!
June 7th, 2007 at 5:03 pmNot Cool Rusty. You owe Tony an apology. NOW
Comment by Jim Wolf359 — June 7, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
I agree, JimWolf359, that was totally uncalled for.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pmI AM NOT DELUSIONAL!!! I REALLY AM PRESIDENT CLINTON AND I WANT EVERYONE TO PAY ATTENTIN TO ME AS I DRAG MY OWN NAME THROUGH THE MUD!!!!
AREN'T I CLEVER??? TELL ME I'M CLEVER, MY LITTLE SHEEP OR I'LL GO ALL CHINEE EMBASSY ON YOU!!!
June 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pmBut what is the harm of people investing on their own instead of the government doing it for them?
Comment by Wilco — June 7, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
What is stopping people from investing on their own?
Comment by spit take — June 7, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
If they are able to do so, people really ought to do both.
Not all people are able to do both, so there must be a safety net in place.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:09 pmI AM NOT DELUSIONAL!!! I REALLY AM PRESIDENT CLINTON AND I WANT EVERYONE TO PAY ATTENTIN TO ME AS I DRAG MY OWN NAME THROUGH THE MUD!!!!
AREN’T I CLEVER??? TELL ME I’M CLEVER, MY LITTLE SHEEP OR I’LL GO ALL CHINEE EMBASSY ON YOU!!!
Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Excuse me, I am having a personal meltdown since Monica left me and Hillary won't come back from the campaign trail. I really, really want some, but my doctor told me that I should try to abstain for a few weeks and if I can hold out, my sex addiction should start to get cured.
but if not, well I'll seek Monica or Hillary out.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pmSocial Security may be an insurance policy, but it's a DAMN EXPENSIVE one since it takes 12.4% of your income over your entire life.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pmExcuse me, I am having a personal meltdown
Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
that much is obvious; maybe you should take some "quiet time", huh? No stimulus, no TV, no internet access... would do you a world of good.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pmTry again "Troll That Hates Its Online ID OF President Clinton", but I'll still be feeling your completely self-inflicted pain when a overly fawning GOP lackey like yourself signs it's points with the Slick Clinton label
And it's still all right for you to cry about that self-inflicted pain, really it is
Just a clue though, try thinking for yourself for a change. Really, unlike what your GOP economic superiors tell you otherwise, your head won't explode if you're able to come up with some (hopefully, but still not shown with any of your screeching) coherent arguments that aren't word for word GOP talking points, like the one Ken Starr himself debunked regarding Vince Foster's suicide-unless, in your twisted, reality-denying world, Starr is somehow a Clinton fan and tool as well
Now, your head may explode from your otherwise overwhelming sheer stupidity, but that's a different matter entirely, as after all, Slick Clinton managed to keep himself out of combat by using his own smarts when he got that Rhodes scholarship, unlike W's use of affirmative action in attending college as a legacy, and then using his daddy's influence to leapfrog over 500 more qualified applicants for that Air National Guard spot
But hey, you keep reaching for the stars there, lil' trooper, and who knows, maybe your GOP betters will actually reward your easily-debunked trolling with actual praise or something materially more than the crumbs and table scraps you currently beg them for
But probably not, more likely they're laughing at any of the 29% dead-enders still supporting The Glory Of All Things W
You "but.....but...Clinton" conservatards sure could make your own arguments less easily-debunked if you all actually tried to match his intelligence level as opposed to trotting him out every time your own party's self-inflicted shortcomings and flaws are brought to light
It must just bite your troll ass that the public was solidly with Slick Clinton when you GOP whiners and ChickenHawks did the whole impeachment thing
And an even worse little irony, the GOP's efforts to oust Clinton from office end up costing the GOP TWO House Speakers, while Slick lived up to his nickname and just laughed his ass off at political grand inquisitors
Oh yeah, Clinton left us a surplus in the coffers, while W blew through it all quicker than he did with the money for any of his failed businesses
But signing your posts as Clinton doesn't aggravate you in the least, huh?
SURE it doesn't
And maybe if you keep telling yourself that, you'll actually believe it at some point
June 7th, 2007 at 5:29 pmThey already are. 12% is the social security tax that individuals could be saving. Comment by m12 — June 7, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
And how much could those *poor* folks be saving on Car Insurance, by simply not paying it? BAHAHAHA, you're a st*pid little b!tch!!!
June 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pmThey already are. 12% is the social security tax that individuals could be saving.
Comment by m12
6% by the employer and 6% by the employee. So where does that money go to the employee to invest. Right somebody making 12,000 is going to invest that money instead of using it for food. And do you think employers are going to just willingly give their 6% to the employee to "invest". Or what, we give the 12% to the government and then tell them where to invest it. Well wouldn't that just be a paperwork fiasco. Do you people really think that people making under $30,000 a year would take any extra cash and invest it in their retiremen. Most people have $15,000 in credit card debt ahat they might pay off with extra cash but then still would have nothing for retirement. Privatizing SS will just increase the welfare rolls of the elderly.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pmI knew you couldn’t! You’re not smart enough.
Comment by michael — June 7, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Want to take a stab at explaining that dumb statement?
June 7th, 2007 at 5:34 pmExcuse me, I am having a personal meltdown
Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
that much is obvious; maybe you should take some “quiet timeâ€, huh? No stimulus, no TV, no internet access… would do you a world of good.
Comment by spit take — June 7, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
You know, Hillary suggest this, but I can't, I just can't, I have to be able to jerk off to my XXX movies, ok?!
When Monica and Hillary are gone, I have to be able to take care of myself.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:38 pmThey already are. 12% is the social security tax that individuals could be saving.
Comment by m12
6% by the employer and 6% by the employee. So where does that money go to the employee to invest. Right somebody making 12,000 is going to invest that money instead of using it for food. And do you think employers are going to just willingly give their 6% to the employee to “investâ€. Or what, we give the 12% to the government and then tell them where to invest it. Well wouldn’t that just be a paperwork fiasco. Do you people really think that people making under $30,000 a year would take any extra cash and invest it in their retiremen. Most people have $15,000 in credit card debt ahat they might pay off with extra cash but then still would have nothing for retirement. Privatizing SS will just increase the welfare rolls of the elderly.
Comment by shane — June 7, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Shane, she who thinks I am a god, your argument is empty and full of half-truths.
the fact is that anyone under 60 years old will never see the same amount of money that they put into Social Security when they retire.
So as of right now, that person that is earning 12,000 is better off getting all her money in her paycheck than the government taking Social Security, since that person will never see that 6% that she put in and the 6% that its employee put in will never be seen my any current employers.
your argument is false and dim witted, much like yourself.
don't you get it, that is the problem with Social Security that the money that we are putting in will never be seen by anyone. That is the problem. There will be no type of returns, not even a 1% return on your Social security when you retire!
so yes, that person earning 12,000 is either better off eating her money, or investing that 6% in the market.
c'mon, i know you my tools are stupid, but you sheeps can't be this dumb.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:43 pm6% by the employer and 6% by the employee. So where does that money go to the employee to invest. Right somebody making 12,000 is going to invest that money instead of using it for food. And do you think employers are going to just willingly give their 6% to the employee to “investâ€. Or what, we give the 12% to the government and then tell them where to invest it. Well wouldn’t that just be a paperwork fiasco. Do you people really think that people making under $30,000 a year would take any extra cash and invest it in their retiremen. Most people have $15,000 in credit card debt ahat they might pay off with extra cash but then still would have nothing for retirement.
It's up to the individual to choose what they do with their 12%.
If they're investing it in equities, that's great.
If they're paying off debt, that's also great. That paid debt isn't accumulating 20% interest.
If they decide not to save for retirement, well, that's their choice.
Employer compensation is compensation, whether it comes in the form of cash or benefits.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pmAnd how much could those *poor* folks be saving on Car Insurance, by simply not paying it? BAHAHAHA, you’re a st*pid little b!tch!!!
Not everyone needs car insurance. Why falsely assume everyone needs government "old age" insurance?
June 7th, 2007 at 5:45 pm6% by the employer and 6% by the employee. So where does that money go to the employee to invest. Right somebody making 12,000 is going to invest that money instead of using it for food. And do you think employers are going to just willingly give their 6% to the employee to “investâ€. Or what, we give the 12% to the government and then tell them where to invest it. Well wouldn’t that just be a paperwork fiasco. Do you people really think that people making under $30,000 a year would take any extra cash and invest it in their retiremen. Most people have $15,000 in credit card debt ahat they might pay off with extra cash but then still would have nothing for retirement.
It’s up to the individual to choose what they do with their 12%.
If they’re investing it in equities, that’s great.
If they’re paying off debt, that’s also great. That paid debt isn’t accumulating 20% interest.
If they decide not to save for retirement, well, that’s their choice.
Employer compensation is compensation, whether it comes in the form of cash or benefits.
Comment by m12 — June 7, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
m12, do you think that we are smart enough to get your smart talk? c'mon m12, you are speaking with individuals that voted for me for my looks and because like Hitler, Castro, Mao Tsung, etc I could communicate well.
You can't seriously believe that they will understand your deep thinking and over 120 IQ, right?
This are my sheeps, my tools, we on the left love them, you better stop educating them or they will no longer vote for us the Democratic politicians.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:47 pmAnd how much could those *poor* folks be saving on Car Insurance, by simply not paying it? BAHAHAHA, you’re a st*pid little b!tch!!!
Not everyone needs car insurance. Why falsely assume everyone needs government “old age†insurance?
Comment by m12 — June 7, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
and not to mention that forcing people to have insurance, which happened under my Presidency got a lot of the insurance companies to back me up!
yes, yes, yes!!! Love forcing people to buy things so that we Democrats can benefit.
do you know how much the insurance companies love us Democrats? they adore us, they worship us!
and trial lawyers?! oh man they are incredible in their donations to the Democratic politicians. I mean look at ambulance chaser John Edwards, he loved us so much, that he became one of us!!!
made his millions by ambulance chasing. America, the land of the free and of opportunities.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pmA big plus for the investment banking community, right Mittens?
June 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pmMy whole point isn't that if liberals are about freedom and liberty, why are so many in favor of such an abolition? If it works, social security is great. It's security. But why shouldn't people be trusted to take care of themselves if they want to? That seems to be the argument here, that people shouldn't be trusted to provide their own safety net, that the government necessarily must take care of us down the road.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pmPersonally, I agree with that statement, for the most part, but believe people should have the option to fall flat on their faces, if that is their decision.
I pay into social security and am investing in a 401k plan.
I just want the government to issue me a single check for all the money I gave into social security right now and Ill go setup my own account with them or their help. Wall Street is a giant scam bubble and should be taken apart and thrown into the Hudson.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:33 pmyes, yes, yes!!! Love forcing people to buy things so that we Democrats can benefit. Mr Pee.
George would agree, he is making people buy all this military equipment and bombs, armour, planes, trucks, billions for Halliburton, all for a war that not a single American citizien voted for!
Why Bush has you beat by a long shot. Plus he made us buy alot of stuff on war expenditures! And those Chinese loans!!
June 7th, 2007 at 6:39 pmBut why shouldn’t people be trusted to take care of themselves if they want to?
Theres no profit in that for anyone else.... Lets take cheap drugs as an example. People who want to take care of themselves can't becaise big brother sides with big pharma to stop people from gretting cheap drugs so they can help themselves.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:44 pmGive me back what I have paid in for the last 40 years with interest.
Gimme back my money!
June 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pmI just want the government to issue me a single check for all the money I gave into social security right now and Ill go setup my own account with them or their help. Wall Street is a giant scam bubble and should be taken apart and thrown into the Hudson. Comment by Stella Octangula — June 7, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Do you also want your insurance company to issue you a single check for all of the money you gave in care insurance, so you can go buy a new car? Social Security is a mandatory retirement insurance to ensure there's a baseline retirement. If you can't afford to have retirement benefits beyond social security, then you probably shouldn't be "investing" anything. If you can afford to set aside your own retirement - do so, and STFU - idiot.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:48 pmthe fact is that anyone under 60 years old will never see the same amount of money that they put into Social Security when they retire. Comment by The wingnut that idolizes President Clinton so much, she adopts the name — June 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
That's b*llsh*t. Chile was fed the same argument decades ago, and those that "invested" their money got *less* return than their social security did. You're a dope.
So as of right now, that person that is earning 12,000 is better off getting all her money in her paycheck than the government taking Social Security, since that person will never see that 6% that she put in and the 6% that its employee put in will never be seen my any current employers. Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
That employer would never give you that money - dum bass. They only contribute it because they *have* to.
your argument is false and dim witted, much like yourself. Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Pure projection, from the dimwit that *idolizes* Clinton so much and fears him so much more, that she takes on his name!
don’t you get it, that is the problem with Social Security that the money that we are putting in will never be seen by anyone. That is the problem. There will be no type of returns, not even a 1% return on your Social security when you retire! Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Social Security is *insurance* - dum bass.
so yes, that person earning 12,000 is either better off eating her money, or investing that 6% in the market. Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Then you can invest your 6%, or are you so bad with your money that you can't save any?
c’mon, i know you my tools are stupid, but you sheeps can’t be this dumb. Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Says the *sheeple* that's too st*pid to know what a *retirement-insurance* is!!! Dum bass!
June 7th, 2007 at 6:53 pmGive me back what I have paid in for the last 40 years with interest.
Gimme back my money!
Comment by Stella Octangula — June 7, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Another Jake*ss retireee NeoCon f*cking fool.
You paid into an *insurance* fund, you st*pid c*nt. When you ask for your health insurance, car insurance, life insurance and the rest of your *insurance* premiums back - oh wait, you're too much of a dum c*nt to know what an *insurance* policy is!
June 7th, 2007 at 6:54 pmTheres no profit in that for anyone else…. Lets take cheap drugs as an example. People who want to take care of themselves can’t becaise big brother sides with big pharma to stop people from gretting cheap drugs so they can help themselves.
There's plenty of cheap drugs. Walmart sells many pills for $4.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:13 pmOne way to take the risk out of privatizing accounts would be to create a target retirement fund.
With these funds, you choose a fund with a date that roughly corresponds to the year you plan to retire -- 2020, 2030 or whatever -- and you get a fund that invests in a mix of stocks and bonds appropriate for someone your age.
But here's the twist. With a target fund, that stock-bonds mix automatically becomes more conservative as you age, the idea being that when you get closer to retirement, you don't want to invest quite as aggressively as you do during your career. For more on how these funds work, click here.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pmYou should also check out Canada and what it has done with it's CPP (Canadian Pension Plan). They allowed their pension plan to invest in the market some years ago and are getting quite healthy returns. As good as any mutual fund. Arm's length independence helps
http://www.cppib.ca
June 7th, 2007 at 8:40 pm