Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[M14 Shooter]

No.
They fear the loss of government power and control.

True, but the drones seek total power in the hands of rulers because they seek to escape all responsibility for their own fate.
The elite aristocracy of the left blindly lusts for power, but what is the motivation of the dull-witted sheep like Camp to support them?
Escape from responsibility.

Indeed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?

"
WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

The future of Social Security has become one of the most hotly contested issues in national politics, and both parties have accused the other of threatening its survival. Republicans argue that Democrats’ refusal to change the program will lead to its bankruptcy. Democrats sayprivatization would kill the program and leave elderly Americans at the mercy of the stock market. Plus, any discussion of changing the system often creates fear in older Americans beyond or nearing the age of retirement, who also tend to vote in the greatest numbers.

Republicans have split on the answer to fix the program, which could begin to pay out more than it takes in as more baby boomers retire and younger generations aren’t able to pay enough into the system to keep it going. Understanding the fear privatization proposals create, some Republicans have argued that the retirement age should be increased or means-testing established instead. Many Democrats advocate raising the ceiling for the tax that funds it.
"

Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..

Maybe the fact that he is 1000% right! The US MUST follow the Chilean model. It has nearly single handedly made Chile a 1st world nation. The model requires each employee to invest 10-20% of their income into the private social security system. At retirement age it goes into an annuity. In the meantime the money is invested and grows. The money is invested in Chile and the earnings go back to the individual. The money Americans currently pay to social security isn't invested and there is no growth. In fact we lose 15-75% (depending on the income bracket) of the money we put in to the system. In Chile they see a 7-10% growth.

These are the positive effects:

Chilean Model of Social Security FreedomWorks
• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years

It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!

The SS trust fund earned 94 billion dollars in interest last year.

There is no money on the so called social security trust because the government has burrowed it all and now must pay Ss recipients from the general fund

The idea that the SS trust is kept in a lock box and is totally self funding is a fairy tale

The general fund borrowed it; the general fund has to pay it back. Do you think your money in the markets is cash in a 'lockbox' somewhere?

Jesus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?

"
WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

The future of Social Security has become one of the most hotly contested issues in national politics, and both parties have accused the other of threatening its survival. Republicans argue that Democrats’ refusal to change the program will lead to its bankruptcy. Democrats sayprivatization would kill the program and leave elderly Americans at the mercy of the stock market. Plus, any discussion of changing the system often creates fear in older Americans beyond or nearing the age of retirement, who also tend to vote in the greatest numbers.

Republicans have split on the answer to fix the program, which could begin to pay out more than it takes in as more baby boomers retire and younger generations aren’t able to pay enough into the system to keep it going. Understanding the fear privatization proposals create, some Republicans have argued that the retirement age should be increased or means-testing established instead. Many Democrats advocate raising the ceiling for the tax that funds it.
"

Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..

Maybe the fact that he is 1000% right! The US MUST follow the Chilean model. It has nearly single handedly made Chile a 1st world nation. The model requires each employee to invest 10-20% of their income into the private social security system. At retirement age it goes into an annuity. In the meantime the money is invested and grows. The money is invested in Chile and the earnings go back to the individual. The money Americans currently pay to social security isn't invested and there is no growth. In fact we lose 15-75% (depending on the income bracket) of the money we put in to the system. In Chile they see a 7-10% growth.

These are the positive effects:

Chilean Model of Social Security FreedomWorks
• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years

It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!

The SS trust fund earned 94 billion dollars in interest last year.

There is no money on the so called social security trust because the government has burrowed it all and now must pay Ss recipients from the general fund

The idea that the SS trust is kept in a lock box and is totally self funding is a fairy tale

The so-called lock box is currently composed of US treasury securities, the safest investment in the world.

 

[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...

Wrong. A dollar invested in the SP500 in 2000 was worth 1.85 at the end of 2014.

BUT, if you had half of it in Enron or pets.com, you lost it all, which means you only had 50 cents invested in the SP500,

which by the end of Dec 2014 would be 93 cents. Less than the dollar you put in, after 15 years.

 

[nat4900]

Questions:

Is the FDIC a form of "communism"???
Is Workmen's Comp. a form of "communism"???
Is Unemployment Insurance a form of "communism"???

How many right wingers would say, "no. thanks, feds....I don't want those insurances, since they smack of communism"

 

[Skull Pilot]

.

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?

Who is saying retired people need to keep their retirement savings in the stock market? You really dont get this do you?

Because the sheep don't understand the concept of choice.

They are all so afraid of the stock market they don't realize they could save their money in other places

My response was to blather about the wonderful return of investments in the stock market. The DOW was specifically mentioned, hence, the limited return on the 30 best or most popular stocks.
When other, safer investments are made the returns are reduced, invalidating much of the argument about the wonderful world of investing. Sure, savvy investors go for the higher risk bigger return investments when young and earning and transfer to safer investments with age and as retirement comes closer. The problem is that the average person does not have the knowledge and savvy to be a competent investor and needs to trust in an investment broker.
More significantly, than investment skills and trusting a broker or "expert", the people who need SS the most are the ones who will measure the return on how long and how much they collect when they retire. The length of life after the retirement age will be the determining factor, not data sheets and charts. You live 20 years after retirement instead of 10 and you collect double the amount. SS goes on until you die. People trust the government more than they trust the investment broker, investment banks and Wall Street. And as someone previously stated, if SS defaults you can be certain the guys holding your private investments will already have defaulted, gone broke, absconded and your investments will be gone.

You don't need an investment broker.

And anyone with a high school education can learn the basics of investing

BTW I never mentioned the DOW.

Why limit yourself to 30 companies when there are literally tens of thousands to invest in

 

[Skull Pilot]

Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?

"
WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

The future of Social Security has become one of the most hotly contested issues in national politics, and both parties have accused the other of threatening its survival. Republicans argue that Democrats’ refusal to change the program will lead to its bankruptcy. Democrats sayprivatization would kill the program and leave elderly Americans at the mercy of the stock market. Plus, any discussion of changing the system often creates fear in older Americans beyond or nearing the age of retirement, who also tend to vote in the greatest numbers.

Republicans have split on the answer to fix the program, which could begin to pay out more than it takes in as more baby boomers retire and younger generations aren’t able to pay enough into the system to keep it going. Understanding the fear privatization proposals create, some Republicans have argued that the retirement age should be increased or means-testing established instead. Many Democrats advocate raising the ceiling for the tax that funds it.
"

Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..

Maybe the fact that he is 1000% right! The US MUST follow the Chilean model. It has nearly single handedly made Chile a 1st world nation. The model requires each employee to invest 10-20% of their income into the private social security system. At retirement age it goes into an annuity. In the meantime the money is invested and grows. The money is invested in Chile and the earnings go back to the individual. The money Americans currently pay to social security isn't invested and there is no growth. In fact we lose 15-75% (depending on the income bracket) of the money we put in to the system. In Chile they see a 7-10% growth.

These are the positive effects:

Chilean Model of Social Security FreedomWorks
• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years

It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!

The SS trust fund earned 94 billion dollars in interest last year.

There is no money on the so called social security trust because the government has burrowed it all and now must pay Ss recipients from the general fund

The idea that the SS trust is kept in a lock box and is totally self funding is a fairy tale

The general fund borrowed it; the general fund has to pay it back. Do you think your money in the markets is cash in a 'lockbox' somewhere?

Jesus.

There is no SS trust fund.

And show me where the general fund is paying back the SS trust fund. You can't because ALL your FICA taxes get put into the general fund not some trust

 

[Skull Pilot]

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...

Wrong. A dollar invested in the SP500 in 2000 was worth 1.85 at the end of 2014.

BUT, if you had half of it in Enron or pets.com, you lost it all, which means you only had 50 cents invested in the SP500,

which by the end of Dec 2014 would be 93 cents. Less than the dollar you put in, after 15 years.

um if you invested in an S&P 500 index then it would be impossible for you to have half of your money in one company.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?

"
WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

The future of Social Security has become one of the most hotly contested issues in national politics, and both parties have accused the other of threatening its survival. Republicans argue that Democrats’ refusal to change the program will lead to its bankruptcy. Democrats sayprivatization would kill the program and leave elderly Americans at the mercy of the stock market. Plus, any discussion of changing the system often creates fear in older Americans beyond or nearing the age of retirement, who also tend to vote in the greatest numbers.

Republicans have split on the answer to fix the program, which could begin to pay out more than it takes in as more baby boomers retire and younger generations aren’t able to pay enough into the system to keep it going. Understanding the fear privatization proposals create, some Republicans have argued that the retirement age should be increased or means-testing established instead. Many Democrats advocate raising the ceiling for the tax that funds it.
"

Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..

Maybe the fact that he is 1000% right! The US MUST follow the Chilean model. It has nearly single handedly made Chile a 1st world nation. The model requires each employee to invest 10-20% of their income into the private social security system. At retirement age it goes into an annuity. In the meantime the money is invested and grows. The money is invested in Chile and the earnings go back to the individual. The money Americans currently pay to social security isn't invested and there is no growth. In fact we lose 15-75% (depending on the income bracket) of the money we put in to the system. In Chile they see a 7-10% growth.

These are the positive effects:

Chilean Model of Social Security FreedomWorks
• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years

It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!

The SS trust fund earned 94 billion dollars in interest last year.

There is no money on the so called social security trust because the government has burrowed it all and now must pay Ss recipients from the general fund

The idea that the SS trust is kept in a lock box and is totally self funding is a fairy tale

The so-called lock box is currently composed of US treasury securities, the safest investment in the world.

With the lowest rate of return

 

[Camp]

.

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?

Who is saying retired people need to keep their retirement savings in the stock market? You really dont get this do you?

Because the sheep don't understand the concept of choice.

They are all so afraid of the stock market they don't realize they could save their money in other places

My response was to blather about the wonderful return of investments in the stock market. The DOW was specifically mentioned, hence, the limited return on the 30 best or most popular stocks.
When other, safer investments are made the returns are reduced, invalidating much of the argument about the wonderful world of investing. Sure, savvy investors go for the higher risk bigger return investments when young and earning and transfer to safer investments with age and as retirement comes closer. The problem is that the average person does not have the knowledge and savvy to be a competent investor and needs to trust in an investment broker.
More significantly, than investment skills and trusting a broker or "expert", the people who need SS the most are the ones who will measure the return on how long and how much they collect when they retire. The length of life after the retirement age will be the determining factor, not data sheets and charts. You live 20 years after retirement instead of 10 and you collect double the amount. SS goes on until you die. People trust the government more than they trust the investment broker, investment banks and Wall Street. And as someone previously stated, if SS defaults you can be certain the guys holding your private investments will already have defaulted, gone broke, absconded and your investments will be gone.

You don't need an investment broker.

And anyone with a high school education can learn the basics of investing

BTW I never mentioned the DOW.

Why limit yourself to 30 companies when there are literally tens of thousands to invest in

The debate isn't about whether inventing ones money is good, bad, easy or difficult, it is about replacing SS with a privatized system which entails greater risks to the investor not matter how great the privatized system is. The people who went broke with their investments are still able to collect SS in retirement if they put into it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

.

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?

Who is saying retired people need to keep their retirement savings in the stock market? You really dont get this do you?

Because the sheep don't understand the concept of choice.

They are all so afraid of the stock market they don't realize they could save their money in other places

My response was to blather about the wonderful return of investments in the stock market. The DOW was specifically mentioned, hence, the limited return on the 30 best or most popular stocks.
When other, safer investments are made the returns are reduced, invalidating much of the argument about the wonderful world of investing. Sure, savvy investors go for the higher risk bigger return investments when young and earning and transfer to safer investments with age and as retirement comes closer.
More significantly, than investment skills and trusting a broker or "expert", the people who need SS the most are the ones who will measure the return on how long and how much they collect when they retire. The length of life after the retirement age will be the determining factor, not data sheets and charts. You live 20 years after retirement instead of 10 and you collect double the amount. SS goes on until you die. People trust the government more than they trust the investment broker, investment banks and Wall Street. And as someone previously stated, if SS defaults you can be certain the guys holding your private investments will already have defaulted, gone broke, absconded and your investments will be gone.

You don't need an investment broker.

And anyone with a high school education can learn the basics of investing

BTW I never mentioned the DOW.

Why limit yourself to 30 companies when there are literally tens of thousands to invest in

The debate isn't about whether inventing ones money is good, bad, easy or difficult, it is about replacing SS with a privatized system which entails greater risks to the investor not matter how great the privatized system is. The people who went broke with their investments are still able to collect SS in retirement if they put into it.

If it wasn't about the difficulty or ease of investing then why did you mention that "average " people can't understand investing?

and I quote

The problem is that the average person does not have the knowledge and savvy to be a competent investor and needs to trust in an investment broker.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The debate isn't about whether inventing ones money is good, bad, easy or difficult, it is about replacing SS with a privatized system....

Bzzzt.
Arguing from ignorance...

 

[regent]

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

SS was only meant to supplement one's retirement not provide a total retirement income.
But that is an idea.

 

[Camp]

The debate isn't about whether inventing ones money is good, bad, easy or difficult, it is about replacing SS with a privatized system....

Bzzzt.
Arguing from ignorance...

Arguing the OP title instead of the deflections the privatizing side always have to fall back on to attempt to keep the debate going.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The debate isn't about whether inventing ones money is good, bad, easy or difficult, it is about replacing SS with a privatized system....

Bzzzt.
Arguing from ignorance...

Arguing the OP title instead of the deflections the privatizing side always have to fall back on to attempt to keep the debate going.

You're not sure what you mean by this.

 

[nat4900]

Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?
Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..

Maybe the fact that he is 1000% right! The US MUST follow the Chilean model. It has nearly single handedly made Chile a 1st world nation. The model requires each employee to invest 10-20% of their income into the private social security system. At retirement age it goes into an annuity. In the meantime the money is invested and grows. The money is invested in Chile and the earnings go back to the individual. The money Americans currently pay to social security isn't invested and there is no growth. In fact we lose 15-75% (depending on the income bracket) of the money we put in to the system. In Chile they see a 7-10% growth.

These are the positive effects:

Chilean Model of Social Security FreedomWorks
• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years

It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!

The SS trust fund earned 94 billion dollars in interest last year.

There is no money on the so called social security trust because the government has burrowed it all and now must pay Ss recipients from the general fund

The idea that the SS trust is kept in a lock box and is totally self funding is a fairy tale

The general fund borrowed it; the general fund has to pay it back. Do you think your money in the markets is cash in a 'lockbox' somewhere?

Jesus.

There is no SS trust fund.

And show me where the general fund is paying back the SS trust fund. You can't because ALL your FICA taxes get put into the general fund not some trust

Ahhhh, an Al Gore supporter?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Who invests their savings in one stock? Your argument is invalid.

I have an MBA and trying to explain Finance and Economics to you people is like addressing a class of preschoolers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who invests their savings in one stock? Your argument is invalid.

I have an MBA and trying to explain Finance and Economics to you people is like addressing a class of preschoolers.

Or you could say it's like trying to explain law to Jillian....

 

[The Rabbi]

Questions:

Is the FDIC a form of "communism"???
Is Workmen's Comp. a form of "communism"???
Is Unemployment Insurance a form of "communism"???

How many right wingers would say, "no. thanks, feds....I don't want those insurances, since they smack of communism"

Yes
Yes
Yes
Get rid of all of it

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Because the sheep don't understand the concept of choice.

They are all so afraid of the stock market they don't realize they could save their money in other places

It isn't the stock market they fear, it's responsibility.

Leftist drones will suffer any indignity, including death, just so they never have to take blame for the outcomes that affect them. Camp yearns for a dictator to rule over him simply because then his fate will never be his fault.

I don't fear responsibility. Quite the opposite. I fear irresponsibility. In this context, I fear the irresponsibility of the dollar averaged moron Warren Buffet wanna be investors.