Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[Uncensored2008]

Of course I'm stating PRECISLEY that......

Thank you for owning u to it - most would be far too embarassed.

There would be NO need for me to have a savings account at my local bank IF I was "guaranteed" a much better return through the stock market.

Does the stock market guarantee my much better return?
YES....or NO ????

Statistically, those who lost 70% of their wealth in the 2008 crash and the 2009 dive, have not only recovered losses, but realized 20% or greater growth. Savings account yield about a half of one percent, The government bonds SS is supposedly invested in yield 3%.

I know you want a daddy to rule you so that you never have to take responsibility for your own decisions, this is the pathology of leftist drones. But the market returns vastly more on investment than does government bond.

Oh, and can you GUARANTEE that an 18 year old worker today will get ANY return from social security? In fact, his odds of a return at all are thousands of times higher in the stock market.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? How would that happen?

You're asking someone who doesn't grasp the difference between banks and the stock market.

The irony of the Soros hate drones spewing venom at the concept of retirement investment at a time when the market is at historic highs is beyond the pale.

 

[Camp]

People on retirement pensions, investment returns, Social Security, etc., live on their month to month checks. They can not afford to take large cuts during recessions and slow downs and wait years for things to get better. A person dependent on stock market returns can not tell the electric company, landlord, bank or whoever to wait about three of four years until the market rebounds.
The gamble is that if a recession hits anytime during you retirement, and you depend on a stock portfolio for income, you may have absolutely no income and be forced to sell your holdings at great losses just to survive. When the market rebounds you will have a shrunken portfolio and hence, a reduced retirement income.

 

[The Rabbi]

People on retirement pensions, investment returns, Social Security, etc., live on their month to month checks. They can not afford to take large cuts during recessions and slow downs and wait years for things to get better. A person dependent on stock market returns can not tell the electric company, landlord, bank or whoever to wait about three of four years until the market rebounds.

Who is talking about limiting retirees to stock market returns? No one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

People on retirement pensions, investment returns, Social Security, etc., live on their month to month checks. They can not afford to take large cuts during recessions and slow downs and wait years for things to get better. A person dependent on stock market returns can not tell the electric company, landlord, bank or whoever to wait about three of four years until the market rebounds.
The gamble is that if a recession hits anytime during you retirement, and you depend on a stock portfolio for income, you may have absolutely no income and be forced to sell your holdings at great losses just to survive. When the market rebounds you will have a shrunken portfolio and hence, a reduced retirement income.

What a steaming pile.

Leftism is truly based on ignorance and bigotry. People who retire move money into various sources. Money market, bond, secured equities. Your bullshit myth about retirees having all their funds in stock for Solyndra is a complete fabrication.

The VAST majority of people investing in IRA and 401K use brokerage funds which diversify by nature. for an 18 year old - the most unstable, fly by night stock is vastly more secure than Social Security. IF the USA exists in 50 years, Social Security sure won't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People on retirement pensions, investment returns, Social Security, etc., live on their month to month checks. They can not afford to take large cuts during recessions and slow downs and wait years for things to get better. A person dependent on stock market returns can not tell the electric company, landlord, bank or whoever to wait about three of four years until the market rebounds.
The gamble is that if a recession hits anytime during you retirement, and you depend on a stock portfolio for income, you may have absolutely no income and be forced to sell your holdings at great losses just to survive. When the market rebounds you will have a shrunken portfolio and hence, a reduced retirement income.

What a steaming pile.

Leftism is truly based on ignorance and bigotry. People who retire move money into various sources. Money market, bond, secured equities. Your bullshit myth about retirees having all their funds in stock for Solyndra is a complete fabrication.

The VAST majority of people investing in IRA and 401K use brokerage funds which diversify by nature. for an 18 year old - the most unstable, fly by night stock is vastly more secure than Social Security. IF the USA exists in 50 years, Social Security sure won't.

Enron was a better investment than Social Security? pets.com? lol

 

[GHook93]

Nonsense...The Chilean model is basically a 401K plan......

You have to get a basic understanding of pension systems. There are essentially two main categories (without countless variations). You have collective pensions, which are always under-funded, get raided easily when there is a cashflow shortage (that is a HUGE problem with the SS) and nearly always produce low return on invest. Then you have the individual pension plan. Yes this is similar to your 401K and IRA plans. Look at the performance of these plans in the US over a 30 year period and you will see a 7-10% growth. That is much better than a -50% growth with SSN.

speaking of "socialism," the Chilean government demands that workers kick in 10% of their salary toward the [basically] government's plan.....

So if you believe that forcing people to invest for their retirement is wrong, then you are against Social Security? Yet you are arguing for me the failed US SS model. You are a confused soul.

Yes it forces people to invest, but individuals have to do that now in the form of payroll taxes (split between the individual and employer). But you once again make a incorrect generalization. It's not invested in a government plan. It is invested in "safe" private funds (and yes there are many safe funds), so glup your money will actually grow and be invested in the country and community you live in!

The problem is that Chile has many...if not most....very low-wages' workers and 10% of very little is....well, VERY LITTLE and, ultimately, the Chilean government will have to kick in a hefty amount or risk having retirees starving.

You know little of what you speak about, the first retirees have retired and they have seen a much higher return on their investment than the public pension. The government isn't having to bail them out. They are actually living better then than previous generations have on the public pension. Do your research before you put your foot in your mouth!

It is one of Chile's biggest exports!

Chile s Next Generation Pension Reform
In 1981, Chile introduced a new system of privately managed individual accounts, also called capitalization, replacing its public pay-as-you-go pension system (PAYG). Since 1990, 10 other countries in the region have adopted some form of what has become known as the "Chilean model": Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

 

[Camp]

People on retirement pensions, investment returns, Social Security, etc., live on their month to month checks. They can not afford to take large cuts during recessions and slow downs and wait years for things to get better. A person dependent on stock market returns can not tell the electric company, landlord, bank or whoever to wait about three of four years until the market rebounds.
The gamble is that if a recession hits anytime during you retirement, and you depend on a stock portfolio for income, you may have absolutely no income and be forced to sell your holdings at great losses just to survive. When the market rebounds you will have a shrunken portfolio and hence, a reduced retirement income.

What a steaming pile.

Leftism is truly based on ignorance and bigotry. People who retire move money into various sources. Money market, bond, secured equities. Your bullshit myth about retirees having all their funds in stock for Solyndra is a complete fabrication.

The VAST majority of people investing in IRA and 401K use brokerage funds which diversify by nature. for an 18 year old - the most unstable, fly by night stock is vastly more secure than Social Security. IF the USA exists in 50 years, Social Security sure won't.

You were the one who noted a 70% loss of wealth in 2008 and 2009. The folks depending on investment returns saw a loss of returns until their investments gained back the losses. Are you saying that the retired folks who lost 70% of their wealth continued to collect their investment returns as if the recession and dive never happened?

 

[GHook93]

It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!

Nonsense...The Chilean model is basically a 401K plan......and speaking of "socialism," the Chilean government demands that workers kick in 10% of their salary toward the [basically] government's plan.....

The problem is that Chile has many...if not most....very low-wages' workers and 10% of very little is....well, VERY LITTLE and, ultimately, the Chilean government will have to kick in a hefty amount or risk having retirees starving.

Again please do your research. The Chilean model is the best model in the world second to none.

Yes Chile s Private Pension Model Works Big Time - Investors.com
"In Chile, a major study shows the nation's private retirement accounts provide workers pensions worth 87% of their salaries, 73% of that from profits on savings. So much for the canard about the perils of markets.

The study of 28,000 households by Dictuc, a consultancy affiliated with the Catholic University of Chile, showed that male workers who contributed just 10% of their salaries to their retirements for 40 years or more on average earned retirement checks worth about 87% of their top salaries. No 401(k) account needed.

The Dictuc study shows Chile's private pensions over three decades have yielded returns six times higher than what workers got under Chile's old social security system — which, by the way, was similar to ours."

So what does the Chilean Model Do?

1. Produces 6x the return at retirement.
2. Is self-funded, so the government doesn't have to contribute anything and wouldn't eat up 20% of the budget as the US SS plan does.
3. Generates a ton of money that is invested in the country. SS sits and is never invested or put back into the community. Just like mutual fund capital is invested so in the money in the Chilean model

It makes too much sense and that is probably why liberals are against it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course I'm stating PRECISLEY that......

Thank you for owning u to it - most would be far too embarassed.

There would be NO need for me to have a savings account at my local bank IF I was "guaranteed" a much better return through the stock market.

Does the stock market guarantee my much better return?
YES....or NO ????

Statistically, those who lost 70% of their wealth in the 2008 crash and the 2009 dive, have not only recovered losses, but realized 20% or greater growth. Savings account yield about a half of one percent, The government bonds SS is supposedly invested in yield 3%.

I know you want a daddy to rule you so that you never have to take responsibility for your own decisions, this is the pathology of leftist drones. But the market returns vastly more on investment than does government bond.

Oh, and can you GUARANTEE that an 18 year old worker today will get ANY return from social security? In fact, his odds of a return at all are thousands of times higher in the stock market.

You really think the stock market will roll merrily along if at the same time social security goes bankrupt and the government stops paying recipients?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Enron was a better investment than Social Security? pets.com? lol

Again, you are a leftist drone - third grade education and the emotional maturity of a 12 year old girl during her first menses.

Even those who foolishly had invested up to 50% of their retirement in Enron or pets.com would see a vastly higher return than if the same money were in social security.

The day Enron declared bankruptcy in 2001, the DOW was 10864.10

Today it is 18,092.45

That is a 60% return - EVEN WITH THE LOSSES OF 2009. Hey, SS brought back 4.5% in the same time period... Well, not really - but the defrauded books claim it did...

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!

Nonsense...The Chilean model is basically a 401K plan......and speaking of "socialism," the Chilean government demands that workers kick in 10% of their salary toward the [basically] government's plan.....

The problem is that Chile has many...if not most....very low-wages' workers and 10% of very little is....well, VERY LITTLE and, ultimately, the Chilean government will have to kick in a hefty amount or risk having retirees starving.

Again please do your research. The Chilean model is the best model in the world second to none.

Yes Chile s Private Pension Model Works Big Time - Investors.com
"In Chile, a major study shows the nation's private retirement accounts provide workers pensions worth 87% of their salaries, 73% of that from profits on savings. So much for the canard about the perils of markets.

The study of 28,000 households by Dictuc, a consultancy affiliated with the Catholic University of Chile, showed that male workers who contributed just 10% of their salaries to their retirements for 40 years or more on average earned retirement checks worth about 87% of their top salaries. No 401(k) account needed.

The Dictuc study shows Chile's private pensions over three decades have yielded returns six times higher than what workers got under Chile's old social security system — which, by the way, was similar to ours."

So what does the Chilean Model Do?

1. Produces 6x the return at retirement.
2. Is self-funded, so the government doesn't have to contribute anything and wouldn't eat up 20% of the budget as the US SS plan does.
3. Generates a ton of money that is invested in the country. SS sits and is never invested or put back into the community. Just like mutual fund capital is invested so in the money in the Chilean model

It makes too much sense and that is probably why liberals are against it.

Then put your after tax retirement investments in a Chilean type pension plan. You'll end up with that PLUS your Social Security, PLUS your Medicare.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You were the one who noted a 70% loss of wealth in 2008 and 2009. The folks depending on investment returns saw a loss of returns until their investments gained back the losses. Are you saying that the retired folks who lost 70% of their wealth continued to collect their investment returns as if the recession and dive never happened?

The losses were had mostly by those yet to retire - you fail to grasp basic concepts. I have my 401K and IRA in the market now. When I retire, I will cash some or most of it out and move it to secure funds - bonds, money market, etc.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then put your after tax retirement investments in a Chilean type pension plan. You'll end up with that PLUS your Social Security, PLUS your Medicare.

Anyone with a brain already does.

It's called a 401K. Rely on Social Security and you WILL be eating dog food in retirement.

Standard Disclaimer: I feed my dogs Blue Buffalo - you could eat steak for what that stuff costs...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Enron was a better investment than Social Security? pets.com? lol

Again, you are a leftist drone - third grade education and the emotional maturity of a 12 year old girl during her first menses.

Even those who foolishly had invested up to 50% of their retirement in Enron or pets.com would see a vastly higher return than if the same money were in social security.

The day Enron declared bankruptcy in 2001, the DOW was 10864.10

Today it is 18,092.45

That is a 60% return - EVEN WITH THE LOSSES OF 2009. Hey, SS brought back 4.5% in the same time period... Well, not really - but the defrauded books claim it did...

I guess someone other than you posted this?

for an 18 year old - the most unstable, fly by night stock is vastly more secure than Social Security.

Fuckwit cracker.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then put your after tax retirement investments in a Chilean type pension plan. You'll end up with that PLUS your Social Security, PLUS your Medicare.

Anyone with a brain already does.

It's called a 401K. Rely on Social Security and you WILL be eating dog food in retirement.

I have two pensions and Social Security. And savings.

401k's get ripped off on fees and expenses. Look it up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Social Security's average rate of return per year is around 1.5%. The stock market's average rate of return per year is around 11%.

....and the stock market broker does all this for FREE, why? well because you're such a nice person.....

.....and if the stock market takes a huge dip.....the stock broker will bring some groceries to your home every weekend, right?

Obama threatened to withhold Social Security cheks, Fidelity never once threatened that

 

[regent]

Have the conservatives finally accepted the fact that SS is not communism? That was their battle cry for some time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives have had about 80 years to convince the American People that Social Security is a bad deal.

Give it up already.

 

[hortysir]

if those getting ready to collect SS had put that money AWAY for themselves. they'd probably have a nice nest egg to live OFF OF. But since you gave it OVER to this Government, they now have to WORK until they are 90 because someone sure as hell can't RETIRE ON THE PIDDLE amount they are going to get back.

Pathetic, might as well tell all people living in poverty (More then half the world) that it is their fault, that they should have worked harder or invested in stocks.. Oh wait, idiots like you spew that garbage all the time.

Pathetic attempt at the all or nothing attempt.
Truth is, if allowed the OPTION to invest or save the same amount of money, citizens would see a better return on investment then being FORCED to hand that money over to an entity that overspends notoriously.
And those that CHOOSE not to set that money back will just spend it.
Both Chou rd serve to help the economy instead of the government.
I realize that goes against the grain of the Dembulbs around here,
but wygd