Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[FA_Q2]

Privatizing Social Security is a vote losing proposition and, more importantly, is completely unnecessary. Jeb seems confused -- or is he deliberately confusing?

The old age pension part of SS is by far the largest program. Its actuarial problems are small to modest. Simply removing the cap on taxing earnings ($117,000 in 2014) would solve the funding shortfall. The last I looked SS old age pensions are also incredibly popular among both Democratic and Republican voters.

The disability insurance program is more of a challenge, despite its being far smaller in budgetary terms. More workers have been applying for DI benefits in recent years due to a weak economy. The problem would ease if labor force participation picks up. Will it ever pick up is the question?

Medicare (linked to but not an integral part of Social Security) and Medicaid (federal-state funding under public assistance) have both been plagued by rising costs under a broken health care system. Obamacare has made some inroads towards reining in costs -- and would have done much more if a single payer program had been passed instead of the hodgepodge that we have now.

But don't Republicans -- Jeb included -- want to kill Obamacare? Doing so would return us to the status quo which was largely responsible for the problem to begin with. Of course, there is always Paul Ryan's voucher plan, which would last about 10 minutes of careful scrutiny in terms of its impact on older citizens.

This is madness! It is also rank stupidity! I can't believe that there are Republican policy advisers out there counseling Jeb (and Chris Christie) on Social Security and Medicare. Hillary or any other Democratic candidate would tear Jeb or Christie to pieces in a debate, making them look as ignorant as they apparently are.

So, again, you are ignoring the proven numbers from an actual real world retirement plan that FAR outstrips SS by leaps and bounds.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't fear responsibility. Quite the opposite. I fear irresponsibility.

You can't make that claim and support the politics you do.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

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.

SS is guaranteed to default – they are going to change the benefits or the tax collections to meet future requirements.

That is a default on the original agreement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you copy things from another website, it is customary to also post a link.
Otherwise, you're dishonestly passing this off as you own thoughts.

Is that a backhanded "compliment"? If so, thank you.

No.
Its a description of your plagiarism.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hm. That sounds statutory.
Where does the constitution say that as the price of being a citizen of this country, I am responsible for the poor decisions of others?

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices....

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

Sarcasm aside, YES, they are just as "lucky" as the professional GAMBLER who plays the odds...sometimes it works and most of the time it does not.....NO casino ever went broke from "succesful" gamblers.

Sigh, again with the gambling reference that shows you are utterly ignorant of what investing is.

Investing is not gambling by any measure whatsoever.

 

[The Rabbi]

PratchettFan
In that you are a citizen of this country and take advantage of the benefits of this country. You don't get that for free.

Hm. That sounds statutory.
Where does the constitution say that as the price of being a citizen of this country, I am responsible for the poor decisions of others?

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices, especially when it involves people who are not professional investors.

Wow. That's almost sig worthy it's so stupid. Successful investing clearly involves making the right choices.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hm. That sounds statutory.
Where does the constitution say that as the price of being a citizen of this country, I am responsible for the poor decisions of others?

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices....

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

For the most part, and even more so for non-professionals . The fact that you think otherwise is part of why I favor you being forced to contribute to SS.

The fact that you believe this indicates a low level of knowledge.

 

[The Rabbi]

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

For the most part, and even more so for non-professionals

I see.
I have no issue with you lying to yourself like this -- but do you lie to your kids in a similar manner?

Here's a quiz for you - Suppose you received in the mail a letter from a man who claims to be able to predict the market, asking you to invest with him, and he makes a prediction in the letter that the S&P 500 will go up over the next week. He turns out to be correct in his prediction. Do you invest with him? Of course not, it was one week, one prediction. But suppose he kept sending you letters, week after week - and each week he successfully predicts which way the market moves. How many weeks until you are convinced to invest with him?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the fact that you 're lying to yourself.
Neither are you.

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

I seriously feel much better knowing you have some guaranteed SS income coming even if your investment turn bad. Naive idiots like yourself are the precise reason the market booms and busts so hard in the first place.

As I recall M14 is a very successful business owner with multiple businesses at least under his belt. I would trust his ability to make choices for himself over the government's choices, much less yours.

 

[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.

SS is guaranteed to default – they are going to change the benefits or the tax collections to meet future requirements.

That is a default on the original agreement.

No it isn't. Everyone has understood since the start and for the last 80 years adjustments and changes would and have taken place to grow and adapt to changing times.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the most part, and even more so for non-professionals

I see.
I have no issue with you lying to yourself like this -- but do you lie to your kids in a similar manner?

Here's a quiz for you - Suppose you received in the mail a letter from a man who claims to be able to predict the market, asking you to invest with him, and he makes a prediction in the letter that the S&P 500 will go up over the next week. He turns out to be correct in his prediction. Do you invest with him? Of course not, it was one week, one prediction. But suppose he kept sending you letters, week after week - and each week he successfully predicts which way the market moves. How many weeks until you are convinced to invest with him?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the fact that you 're lying to yourself.
Neither are you.

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

I seriously feel much better knowing you have some guaranteed SS income coming even if your investment turn bad. Naive idiots like yourself are the precise reason the market booms and busts so hard in the first place.

As I recall M14 is a very successful business owner with multiple businesses at least under his belt. I would trust his ability to make choices for himself over the government's choices, much less yours.

I'll bet he did it while complying with all applicable government laws, rules, and regulations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

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.

SS is guaranteed to default – they are going to change the benefits or the tax collections to meet future requirements.

That is a default on the original agreement.

SS was one year from insolvency in 1983,

when Reagan and the Democrats saved it.

 

[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

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.

If you weren't such a fucking imbecile you might have read what I responded to:

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

Get it now?

 

[Camp]

For the most part, and even more so for non-professionals

I see.
I have no issue with you lying to yourself like this -- but do you lie to your kids in a similar manner?

Here's a quiz for you - Suppose you received in the mail a letter from a man who claims to be able to predict the market, asking you to invest with him, and he makes a prediction in the letter that the S&P 500 will go up over the next week. He turns out to be correct in his prediction. Do you invest with him? Of course not, it was one week, one prediction. But suppose he kept sending you letters, week after week - and each week he successfully predicts which way the market moves. How many weeks until you are convinced to invest with him?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the fact that you 're lying to yourself.
Neither are you.

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

I seriously feel much better knowing you have some guaranteed SS income coming even if your investment turn bad. Naive idiots like yourself are the precise reason the market booms and busts so hard in the first place.

As I recall M14 is a very successful business owner with multiple businesses at least under his belt. I would trust his ability to make choices for himself over the government's choices, much less yours.

SS was never meant to be a personal investment portfolio. You guys just keep going in circles.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

For the most part, and even more so for non-professionals

I see.
I have no issue with you lying to yourself like this -- but do you lie to your kids in a similar manner?

Here's a quiz for you - Suppose you received in the mail a letter from a man who claims to be able to predict the market, asking you to invest with him, and he makes a prediction in the letter that the S&P 500 will go up over the next week. He turns out to be correct in his prediction. Do you invest with him? Of course not, it was one week, one prediction. But suppose he kept sending you letters, week after week - and each week he successfully predicts which way the market moves. How many weeks until you are convinced to invest with him?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the fact that you 're lying to yourself.
Neither are you.

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

I seriously feel much better knowing you have some guaranteed SS income coming even if your investment turn bad. Naive idiots like yourself are the precise reason the market booms and busts so hard in the first place.

I'm one of the naive idiots. It's always been my opinion that the major reason for market booms and busts is the greedy bastards running the show doing stupid shit they have no idea will work or not or for how long. Didn't know it was my fault. Sorry.
Of course that's why I put my money into long term, stable, slow growth funds. Seem to be doing okay. Not great, just okay. But what do I know?
Also, of course, I'll never see a penny of SS benefits as I'm way to young to retire and enjoy the fruits of my labor that the government and it's geniuses deem fit to steal from my paycheck. Dumb me. I'm aging too slowly.
Hey, what if I die tomorrow, can my loved ones get that cash that the government took?

 

[initforme]

Hands OFF my SS...I have been collecting it for 15 years now... think of the millions of people who depend on it to stay afloat as retirees. The greatest thing we ever did in this nation legislative wise is SS.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

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.

SS is guaranteed to default – they are going to change the benefits or the tax collections to meet future requirements.

That is a default on the original agreement.

No it isn't. Everyone has understood since the start and for the last 80 years adjustments and changes would and have taken place to grow and adapt to changing times.

What changes have been made in the last 20 years to account for people living longer and insure the solvency of the fund?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Enron and Google better investments than SSN? Absolutely. Of course you only want to focus solely on companies that went out of business in the most extreme manner while ignoring anything else.

And since such an investment ‘strategy’ is simply not going to be the case you have nothing at all.

So you are saying just don't invest in companies that will fail. Brilliant strategy. Can I borrow your time machine?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't fear responsibility. Quite the opposite. I fear irresponsibility.

You can't make that claim and support the politics you do.

I just did. So you are wrong.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

PratchettFan
In that you are a citizen of this country and take advantage of the benefits of this country. You don't get that for free.

Hm. That sounds statutory.
Where does the constitution say that as the price of being a citizen of this country, I am responsible for the poor decisions of others?

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices, especially when it involves people who are not professional investors.

Wow. That's almost sig worthy it's so stupid. Successful investing clearly involves making the right choices.

Investment choices are only known to be right after the fact. Especially in today's market.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices....

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

For the most part, and even more so for non-professionals . The fact that you think otherwise is part of why I favor you being forced to contribute to SS.

The fact that you believe this indicates a low level of knowledge.

It's nothing to do with my beleifs, its just a fact. If it were possible to predict which way the market will go, that information would already be in the price and the gain no longer possible. The rapid pace of price discovery in today's market makes gaining an edge nearly impossible.