# Good thing they're not in charge of Social Security



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2012)

Ina Drew, JPMorgan Chase CIO, Retires Amid Huge Trading Loss

If the R's get their way, the average investor could lose every cent while the ultra wealthy hardly notice. Even though Drew is retiring in shame, this will not affect her lifestyle in any appreciable way.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 14, 2012)

how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing



Consider someone who has averaged a 50K/year salary for 40 years and has saved 10%. (about the current total contribution to Social Security)
He would currently, using a conservative rate of return of 5%, have roughly $660,000 saved. He could withdraw $31,000/year and never touch the principal.
Now look at the poor schlep who stayed in the government controlled plan. He will pull down a bit under $20K/year and have no principal to leave his heirs and no savings for an emergency.
Sure, the market goes up and down, but the long term trend is always up.


----------



## Toro (May 14, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Ina Drew, JPMorgan Chase CIO, Retires Amid Huge Trading Loss
> 
> If the R's get their way, the average investor could lose every cent while the ultra wealthy hardly notice. Even though Drew is retiring in shame, this will not affect her lifestyle in any appreciable way.



This is ridiculous.


----------



## Toro (May 14, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing



Because the *performance* - the performance, not the funding - of almost every single pension fund has been better than SS over long periods of time.

Why? 

Because over long periods of time, stocks do better than bonds.

$100 million invested in bonds earning 4% is $460 million after 50 years.  $100 million invested in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds earning 8% is $4.6 billion in 50 years.

You will do much, much better investing in stocks over the next 10, 20, 50 years than investing in government bonds, which is what SS does.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Many GOP are not for privatization of any part of SS.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

SocSecurity is already broke, Obama admitted it in August


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

No, he did not.  But your brain is broke, Frank.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

Broke is when the government has to borrow to pay current obligations to SS, there are no assets in the Trust Fund to sell.

That's how broke it is


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

It is so broke that all the government has to do, beginning right now, is deposit the SS taxes into the fund, and the problem is resolved.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 14, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing
> ...



http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
^Privatized SS in Chile and UK resulted in administration cost increasing by 13-20 times.

You&#8217;re in good hands with Social Security: But Privatization Proposals Would Unravel Its Ability to Insure Against Loss of Income, Disability, and Death | Economic Policy Institute
^SS keeps 39% of the elderly out of poverty
^SS returns are 26% higher than private alternatives

Yes the longterm ternd is always up but if we privitized SS it would result in the amount of benifits being around 20% less


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Well, you just drove the privatizers off the board.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Well, you just drove the privatizers off the board.



Like a fart in a crowded room.
Here's their mission:


> EPI believes every working person deserves a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, and retirement security.


IOW we're dealing with the progressive agenda.
In any case, who cares what admin costs are?  The result is net returns.  And net returns for private sector investment are far greater than social security provides.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 15, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Ina Drew, JPMorgan Chase CIO, Retires Amid Huge Trading Loss
> 
> If the R's get their way, the average investor could lose every cent while the ultra wealthy hardly notice. Even though Drew is retiring in shame, this will not affect her lifestyle in any appreciable way.



It already happened kiddo.
It is called 401k.
Also - it will happen again junior - Social Security *WILL* run out of money in less than 20 years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> It is so broke that all the government has to do, beginning right now, is deposit the SS taxes into the fund, and the problem is resolved.



We have a current annual deficit of $1.3 Trillion.  You're so busy pretending to be a Republican you forgot to keep up on current events

And Obama is accelerating the collapse by *CUTTING* FICA


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 15, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowQENh5qho]In 1936, FDR warned the country about Republican chicaneries (restored) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> In 1936, FDR warned the country about Republican chicaneries (restored) - YouTube



LOL FDR

LOL

FDR Responsible for the worst economy in human history, worse that the 7 Biblical lean years. The only thing that rescued the US economy from FDR was Hitler.

FDR

LOL


----------



## Mr Natural (May 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > In 1936, FDR warned the country about Republican chicaneries (restored) - YouTube
> ...



Yeah, Hitler and the massive government spending program that followed.


----------



## editec (May 15, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> And net returns for private sector investment are far greater than social security provides.


  Do you have historical contexts for that statement?  If so, post them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Yes, Hitler and not the New Deal finally ended the FDR Depression


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

WWII ended the global economic depression.

Rearmaments by the fascists and the militarists put their countrymen to full employment before the West.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > In 1936, FDR warned the country about Republican chicaneries (restored) - YouTube
> ...



TheUS experienced the largest amout fo Economic growth uneerr FDR so like always youer  cluess


----------



## uscitizen (May 15, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Ina Drew, JPMorgan Chase CIO, Retires Amid Huge Trading Loss
> 
> If the R's get their way, the average investor could lose every cent while the ultra wealthy hardly notice. Even though Drew is retiring in shame, this will not affect her lifestyle in any appreciable way.



Yep the stats say that statistically the market gains XX% consistently.
However everyone playing the market does not gain XX%.
So if SS was invested in the market...


----------



## uscitizen (May 15, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing
> ...



so everyone who invests in the market wins?
A key word here is trend...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> WWII ended the global economic depression.
> 
> Rearmaments by the fascists and the militarists put their countrymen to full employment before the West.



Right.

That's what I've been saying

FDR + New Deal = Epic Fail


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Unemployment never dipped below 14% and averaged 20% from 1933 until Hitler conquered France in 1940.

In 1933, the Fed put back the money they stole from the US economy


----------



## Mr Natural (May 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Massive government spending nonetheless.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > WWII ended the global economic depression.  Rearmaments by the fascists and the militarists put their countrymen to full employment before the West.
> ...


  Global economy + country governments = fail.  Same under Hoover.

However, system reform = B

However, relief = B+


----------



## The Rabbi (May 15, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...


Well, that and drafting half the workforce really reduced unemployment.  You want to try that again?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

The New Deal was not successful as far as the economy went.  But none of the programs anywhere by governments re industry and agriculture were successful.  WWII ended the Great Depression.


----------



## Mr Natural (May 15, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Yep, making half the workforce government employees did in fact reduce unemployment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Really?  

Then what happened after WWII when the "massive government spending" stopped?

What happened after WWI when Harding, Mellon and Coolidge stopped the massive government spending?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The New Deal was not successful as far as the economy went.  But none of the programs anywhere by governments re industry and agriculture were successful.  WWII ended the Great Depression.



Government programs made the Depression worse


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

Frank, no, government programs did not make the GD worse.  You have no factual evidence to support that.

Massive government spending continued (in comparison to pre-war years) and all that pent up consumer demand with all those savings jack rocketed the economy.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 15, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



And what happened to the deficit during that time?
Hint: It ballooned.
FDR's programs were terrible, prolonging and deepening the Depression.  Everything was the exact opposite of what should have been done.
And Obama's policies are not much better.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 15, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



How can FDRs polices deepen the depression when a year after he was president the economy was growing at a 10% rate


----------



## The Rabbi (May 15, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Imports from Japan were much lower.
Do you understand the concept of "relevance"?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 15, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Oh I see so according to you imports from Japan being lower means a 10% growth in GDP is actually a decline in GDP.... how stupid are you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You don't, The Rabbi.


----------



## hjmick (May 15, 2012)

Wasn't Obama just praising JP Morgan a day ago?


----------



## uscitizen (May 15, 2012)

hjmick said:


> Wasn't Obama just praising JP Morgan a day ago?



Prolly he is a corporatist like Bush was.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 15, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Not nearly as stupid as you, obviously.
Do you understand the concept of "relevance"?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 15, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't Obama just praising JP Morgan a day ago?
> ...



It's because he has up to $1M at JP Morgan.  Mr.99%.  Yeah, sure.
You lefties have been played big time.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 15, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



ROTFL amazing. According to you the economy growing by 10% and lower imports from Japan means that the econoym is shrinking.
Come back later you fat ugly retard


----------



## uscitizen (May 15, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > hjmick said:
> ...



you righties eagerly play along 

I call Obama a corporatist and you call me a leftie?
You are just not too bright are you?


----------



## whitehall (May 15, 2012)

Thank God the people who run social security aren't in charge of Wall Street. By the way when are they going to get around to indicting former democrat governor Jon Corzine?


----------



## uscitizen (May 15, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Thank God the people who run social security aren't in charge of Wall Street. By the way when are they going to get around to indicting former democrat governor Jon Corzine?



Yes the people who run Wall Street are in charge of the people who run Social Security.


----------



## whitehall (May 15, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God the people who run social security aren't in charge of Wall Street. By the way when are they going to get around to indicting former democrat governor Jon Corzine?
> ...



You have it bass-ackward pussy. In the greatest Country on the globe we are in charge of the people who steal from social security and they make the regulations that Wall Street has to follow. The hypocrites on the left seem to love Wall Street whenever the DOW spikes during the Hussein administration but they pretend to hate it when it's convenient to hate capitalism.


----------



## uscitizen (May 15, 2012)

whitehall said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



I have it far more correct than you do.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 16, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



You're the one who voted for him in '08.
Tell me how not bright I am.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

brightness does not make you correct or Obama a socialist.


----------



## uscitizen (May 16, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I rapidly saw and admitted my mistake.
Did you vote for Bush twice? Mr. 1 lumen?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 16, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Yes.  And I was right both times.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

No, you weren't, and neither was I the first time.  The neo-cons and theocratic righties, in consort with the corporatists, screwed America over.  And over.  And over.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 16, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Right int hat you voted for an idiot


----------



## The Rabbi (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> the rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



stfu


----------



## whitehall (May 16, 2012)

The fact is that the politicians are the absolute worst people to hold up as an icon of fiscal responsibility. How would you like politicians to run Wall Street the way they ran Social Security? They stole every dime but kept it a secret until LBJ made it official that FICA taxes go into the general slush fund to be spent. The fact that ignorant lefties think government can do it better makes me shudder.


----------

