Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
they pledged your Social Security benefits to Wall Street (or the Pentagon)
in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.
Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.
How much of that 15% would go to brokers' fees?in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.
Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.
dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!
Tell that to the schmucks who relied on their private retirement accounts during 2008.in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.
Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.
dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!
Tell that to the schmucks who relied on their private retirement accounts during 2008.Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.
dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!
“Private-defined benefit pensions — already a disappearing breed — buckled further under the stock market meltdown,” Bernstein says, “and the newly dominant 401(k)s plans lost, on average, a quarter of their value during the four years starting in 2008.
“But Social Security, not dependent on market performance, didn’t miss a beat as the principal source of retirement income. Indeed, with the faltering of private plans, it contributed an even larger share than ever to retirees and survivors.”
According to Bernstein, Social Security is on course to provide full benefits to its expected beneficiaries through 2036 due to its multi-trillion dollar trust fund.
Social Security more essential than ever, WUSTL expert says | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis
And you seem to fail to realize that only those with a lot of money, who probably don't rely on their retirement benefits, had accounts that were worth more. The majority were in deep trouble, but hey, Republicans don't much care about the middle-class and below, so why worry, right?Tell that to the schmucks who relied on their private retirement accounts during 2008.dear, even in the worst of the Obama years 15% of your income in private accounts would be worth triple what its worth in SS where it is all stolen and inflated down to dog food money!!
Private-defined benefit pensions already a disappearing breed buckled further under the stock market meltdown, Bernstein says, and the newly dominant 401(k)s plans lost, on average, a quarter of their value during the four years starting in 2008.
But Social Security, not dependent on market performance, didnt miss a beat as the principal source of retirement income. Indeed, with the faltering of private plans, it contributed an even larger share than ever to retirees and survivors.
According to Bernstein, Social Security is on course to provide full benefits to its expected beneficiaries through 2036 due to its multi-trillion dollar trust fund.
Social Security more essential than ever, WUSTL expert says | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis
You still seem to fail to realize that even with the loss of 50 percent, those retirement accounts WOULD STILL BE WORTH MORE. Further, SS creates no generational wealth, effectively keeping the poor, well, poor. Private holdings open people up to the market, give them real assets and creates real wealth. SS does not even give you enough to eat.
Add to that the fact that those accounts have now recovered (something you trumpet when the shit economy is brought up but are now ignoring) so those accounts recover that lost income. Essentially, it was akin to drawing double during the downturn.
You have to recognize the natural tendencies of people and meet them where they are.The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away. Savings sucks in this nation and we rely on a bullshit system to help us out of it.
The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away.
actually it is law!! You must contribute 15% to SS; the only problem is the money is promptly stolen by liberals and wasted on crippling welfare payments used primarily to buy votes, leaving the contributors dog food money if they live long enough to collect a penny.
The solution is Republican capitalist private accounts that would make every American rich!!
The Pentagon stole the money, eb.The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away.
actually it is law!! You must contribute 15% to SS; the only problem is the money is promptly stolen by liberals and wasted on crippling welfare payments used primarily to buy votes, leaving the contributors dog food money if they live long enough to collect a penny.
The solution is Republican capitalist private accounts that would make every American rich!!
When are the Republicans planning to get it back.
actually it is law!! You must contribute 15% to SS; the only problem is the money is promptly stolen by liberals and wasted on crippling welfare payments used primarily to buy votes, leaving the contributors dog food money if they live long enough to collect a penny.
The solution is Republican capitalist private accounts that would make every American rich!!
Your point? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, most notably because there is no reason whatsoever attached to the low retirement accounts.And you seem to fail to realize that only those with a lot of money, who probably don't rely on their retirement benefits, had accounts that were worth more. The majority were in deep trouble, but hey, Republicans don't much care about the middle-class and below, so why worry, right?Tell that to the schmucks who relied on their private retirement accounts during 2008.
Private-defined benefit pensions already a disappearing breed buckled further under the stock market meltdown, Bernstein says, and the newly dominant 401(k)s plans lost, on average, a quarter of their value during the four years starting in 2008.
But Social Security, not dependent on market performance, didnt miss a beat as the principal source of retirement income. Indeed, with the faltering of private plans, it contributed an even larger share than ever to retirees and survivors.
According to Bernstein, Social Security is on course to provide full benefits to its expected beneficiaries through 2036 due to its multi-trillion dollar trust fund.
Social Security more essential than ever, WUSTL expert says | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis
You still seem to fail to realize that even with the loss of 50 percent, those retirement accounts WOULD STILL BE WORTH MORE. Further, SS creates no generational wealth, effectively keeping the poor, well, poor. Private holdings open people up to the market, give them real assets and creates real wealth. SS does not even give you enough to eat.
That dire prediction, which I wrote two years ago, is already coming true. Our national demographics, coupled with indisputable glaringly insufficient retirement savings and human physiology, suggest that a catastrophic outcome for at least a significant percentage of our elderly population is inevitable. With the average 401(k) balance for 65 year olds estimated at $25,000 by independent experts $100,000 if you believe the retirement planning industry - the decades many elders will spend in forced or elected retirement will be grim. (Update: In response to readers questions about the lower number, Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research, estimates that 75% of Americans nearing retirement in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts.)
The Greatest Retirement Crisis In American History - Forbes
YES you do! Finally something that we can build upon. So what is the solution? We know that putting grandma on the street is a bad idea; we are going to have to foot that bill. We know that the proper solution, self-planning and family, tends to end up with too many cases of the first so where does that leave us? It leaves us with forced retirement. Now, are we be better off with SS where the government takes 15 percent of your income, spends it on bombs and then claims that there is a magical trust fund of IOUs and the government can change your benefits, payouts or retirement age at will and if you die early, oops, we dont have to give you shit? Or are we better off with controlled personal accounts where the government cant steal the money, change the benefits, gain actual real world returns (as well as something that can be passed down) and basic introductions to saving and retirement accounts. Part of the problem with taking the cash at the start is that no one even goes through the process of saving; they are never introduced to compounded interest or how to save for retirement. Instead, they sit there letting the government do it for them all the while getting some of the poorest returns possible. It is terrible.Add to that the fact that those accounts have now recovered (something you trumpet when the shit economy is brought up but are now ignoring) so those accounts recover that lost income. Essentially, it was akin to drawing double during the downturn.
Sure they are!
Corporate America and the financial wizards behind the past three decades of so-called retirement innovations, most notably titans of the pension benefits consulting and mutual fund 401(k) industries, are down-playing just how bad things are already and how much worse they are going to get.
The Greatest Retirement Crisis In American History - Forbes
You have to recognize the natural tendencies of people and meet them where they are.The problem with retirement accounts is that almost no one actually puts 15% of their total income away. Savings sucks in this nation and we rely on a bullshit system to help us out of it.
Is it fair to say the rich Democrats and rich Republicans serve the same 1% of US voters?
"The GrammLeachBliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (19992001).
"It repealed part of the GlassSteagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.
"With the passage of the GrammLeachBliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton."
Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The GrammLeachBliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (19992001). It repealed part of the GlassSteagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company."
Your saying that allowing the rich to collude in combinations of banks, securities companies, and insurance companies had no effect on Lehman Brothers?
Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Show me how much you know:"The GrammLeachBliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (19992001). It repealed part of the GlassSteagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company."
Your saying that allowing the rich to collude in combinations of banks, securities companies, and insurance companies had no effect on Lehman Brothers?
Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lehman Brothers was a pure investment bank which never step foot on the commercial side of banking. So, thanks for confirming the obvious. You really don't understand what you are saying.
Show me how much you know:
"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression. Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.[22]"
Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.
Why did rich people, including Republicans, create the Fed?"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.
But intelligent people know that the liberal Fed policy of printing money to inflate housing industry caused inflated housing industry to eventually burst. Do you think the money to inflate the bubble came from the Girl Scouts???
Who can say the facts aren't true except a pure idiot or a liberal????
Why did rich people, including Republicans, create the Fed?"Many believe that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.
But intelligent people know that the liberal Fed policy of printing money to inflate housing industry caused inflated housing industry to eventually burst. Do you think the money to inflate the bubble came from the Girl Scouts???
Who can say the facts aren't true except a pure idiot or a liberal????
Are they greedy?
Why did rich people, including Republicans, create the Fed?But intelligent people know that the liberal Fed policy of printing money to inflate housing industry caused inflated housing industry to eventually burst. Do you think the money to inflate the bubble came from the Girl Scouts???
Who can say the facts aren't true except a pure idiot or a liberal????
Are they greedy?
Dear, the Fed was created to control monetary policy. As a liberal you will lack the IQ to understand what monetary policy is. Sorry.
The problem started way back with the de-regulation of the banks. All pushed by Republicans who think companies will regulate themselves.
We know how well that worked out.
