Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[OohPooPahDoo]

All I have said is that people who invest in the stock market with no other information other than assumption it will continue to act like it has over the past 100 years - are stupid.

As long as the economy grows, stocks almost certainly will outperform over the next 100 years compared to government bonds. About the only scenarios where stocks would underperform is in a deflationary spiral or if America reverts to communism.

The reasons are twofold. First, on a risk-adjusted basis, government bonds are more overvalued than stocks. Second, stocks represent ownership of the stock of wealth in the country. As the economy grows, the stock of wealth will also grow. The differential between government bond yields and the earnings of American corporations are not wide enough for Treasuries to outperform over 100 years.

So you're a professional investor - and you're telling me government bonds are a better bet than social security. Do you have any idea who guarantees social security? Here's a hint - its the same people that guarantee the bonds and the U.S. dollar.

I never said that government bonds are a better bet than social security, though that is probably true. The reason is because the government can change the terms of social security easier than they can for Treasuries. If the government changed the terms of social security, the markets would probably go up. If the government changed the terms of Treasury bonds, i.e. a default, it would risk a cataclysmic depression.

Ahh, so in other words - as long as the conditions are right for stock prices to increase - stock prices will increase. That's brilliant. (I can't believe you actually get paid to give people investment advice.)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, and you, kaz, and skull finish win, place, and show.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.

Wrong again. If Congress were to decide to default on the US 's debt obligations, everyone who holds US debt would be potentially affected. That is not just SS, that is everyone who holds a US security.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


SO STFU.



.

The Trust Fund is composed of US securities. Do you even know what that means?

OK DINGLE BERRY,


EXPLAIN - WHY CONGRESS INVESTED THE 2.6 TRILLION IN US SECURITIES INSTEAD OF COMMON STOCK?

.

Because they aren't stupid. The money has to be there regardless of economic conditions.

 

[Contumacious]

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.

Wrong again. If Congress were to decide to default on the US 's debt obligations, everyone who holds US debt would be potentially affected. That is not just SS, that is everyone who holds a US security.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


SO STFU.



.

The Trust Fund is composed of US securities. Do you even know what that means?

OK DINGLE BERRY,


EXPLAIN - WHY CONGRESS INVESTED THE 2.6 TRILLION IN US SECURITIES INSTEAD OF COMMON STOCK?

.

Because they aren't stupid. The money has to be there regardless of economic conditions.

HUH?


My Retirement is invested in Vanguard securities.


It may not be there in certain economic conditions?


Listen Dingle Berry, the US already declared bankruptcy in 1935 when there were more US Dollars in circulation that gold in Fort Knox. But you still trust the motherfuckers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."

Farcical statements like this are so typical of the "Government can handle it just fine" crowd.

The SS "Trust Fund" doesn't have a dime in it. All the money was taken out as quickly as it was put in from SS "contributions", and there's nothing left in there but IOUs from the government.

A large part of the National Debt is owed to the Social Security "Trust Fund". The only way the SS Fund could "pay for" Social Security payments, is for the government to pay off that large portion of the National Debt, thus putting the money back into the SS "Trust Fund" so it can be paid out to people.

Have you heard any plans from any Congressman or other government person, for paying back such a large portion of the National Debt?

Neither have I.

Social Security is broke. Flat. Empty. Insolvent.

And the only way it will ever pay what it owes to SS recipients, is for us to get rid of the liberals (in both parties) in government who keep pretending the govt can go on borrowing without ever paying back what it borrowed yesterday. Or last year. Or last generation.

 

[Toro]

BTW, the risk of any saving scheme - a pension fund, SS or whatever - is NOT just that whatever you invest in will go down. It is that the liabilities that have been promised won't be paid. That means that the contributions made by savers has not been enough or the return has not been high enough to pay future promises. If savers need their savings to grow at 6% and government bonds only return 4%, then the saving scheme has failed, even if government bonds never go down in price.

That's ultimately the problem with social security. It will not be able to pay what has been promised how it is currently configured. Thus, either taxes will have to go up or returns will have to go up, which means investing in other things other than government liabilities.

This 'promise' thing you people harp on is bogus.

In 1983, when Reagan saved SS for 50 years, SS was ONE YEAR away from insolvency. I'm sure by your 'logic' Reagan broke some 'promises' too.

SS is a promise to pay an amount in the future.

Reagan kept that promise by raising taxes. If Americans agree to raise their taxes, SS will remain solvent.

 

[Contumacious]

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."

Farcical statements like this are so typical of the "Government can handle it just fine" crowd.

The SS "Trust Fund" doesn't have a dime in it. All the money was taken out as quickly as it was put in from SS "contributions", and there's nothing left in there but IOUs from the government.

A large part of the National Debt is owed to the Social Security "Trust Fund". The only way the SS Fund could "pay for" Social Security payments, is for the government to pay off that large portion of the National Debt, thus putting the money back into the SS "Trust Fund" so it can be paid out to people.

Have you heard any plans from any Congressman or other government person, for paying back such a large portion of the National Debt?

Neither have I.

Social Security is broke. Flat. Empty. Insolvent.

And the only way it will ever pay what it owes to SS recipients, is for us to get rid of the liberals (in both parties) in government who keep pretending the govt can go on borrowing without ever paying back what it borrowed yesterday. Or last year. Or last generation.

BUT

 

[nat4900]

What I think is that you are a deflecting liberal troll of low intelligence.

Well, kind of suspected that "thinking" was not your strong suit.

 

[nat4900]

Reagan kept that promise by raising taxes. If Americans agree to raise their taxes, SS will remain solvent.

The very, very simple solution is to remove the [bribers'/lobbyists-inspired] CAP on stopping the social security contribution at $118K......which means that a billionaire pay in SS the same as the average husband-wife workers.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Privatize Social Security ? Jeb ! has to be on drugs...

 

[Toro]

Ahh, so in other words - as long as the conditions are right for stock prices to increase - stock prices will increase. That's brilliant. (I can't believe you actually get paid to give people investment advice.)

I don't get paid to give people advice. I get paid to manage pools of assets.

The condition for rising wealth - including, but not only stocks - is rising nominal economic growth. That's not necessarily true over a year or even a decade or two. But over long periods of time, it is. It's simple math.

The only way that doesn't happen is if the government overwhelms the private economy or human behavior radically changes.

 

[Toro]

Reagan kept that promise by raising taxes. If Americans agree to raise their taxes, SS will remain solvent.

The very, very simple solution is to remove the [bribers'/lobbyists-inspired] CAP on stopping the social security contribution at $118K......which means that a billionaire pay in SS the same as the average husband-wife workers.

The reason why the billionaire pays the same amount of SS taxes as the guy who makes $118k is because the billionaire will receive the same amount of SS as the guy who makes $118k, all else being equal.

SS is structured as a pension plan that invests solely in government bonds. In a pension plan, one receives what one pays in over time plus some formula based on expected returns. If people do not receive what they pay in, it becomes a wealth transfer, i.e. welfare scheme.

 

[Toro]

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."

Farcical statements like this are so typical of the "Government can handle it just fine" crowd.

The SS "Trust Fund" doesn't have a dime in it. All the money was taken out as quickly as it was put in from SS "contributions", and there's nothing left in there but IOUs from the government.

A large part of the National Debt is owed to the Social Security "Trust Fund". The only way the SS Fund could "pay for" Social Security payments, is for the government to pay off that large portion of the National Debt, thus putting the money back into the SS "Trust Fund" so it can be paid out to people.

Have you heard any plans from any Congressman or other government person, for paying back such a large portion of the National Debt?

Neither have I.

Social Security is broke. Flat. Empty. Insolvent.

And the only way it will ever pay what it owes to SS recipients, is for us to get rid of the liberals (in both parties) in government who keep pretending the govt can go on borrowing without ever paying back what it borrowed yesterday. Or last year. Or last generation.

SS is neither broke nor insolvent. However, it may be in the future if it is not changed by changing its investment portfolio, the payments people receive, or how much people contribute to it.

 

[Political Junky]

Folks, listen to Jeb. He's telling you he'll be just like W.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Folks, listen to Jeb. He's telling you he'll be just like W.

Word to The Wise is sufficient as Sister Rosetta Stone use to say in sixth grade ...

 

[Political Junky]

Folks, listen to Jeb. He's telling you he'll be just like W.

Word to The Wise is sufficient as Sister Rosetta Stone use to say in sixth grade ...

Sister Rosetta Stone .. love it.

 

[nat4900]

The reason why the billionaire pays the same amount of SS taxes as the guy who makes $118k is because the billionaire will receive the same amount of SS as the guy who makes $118k, all else being equal.

SS is structured as a pension plan that invests solely in government bonds. In a pension plan, one receives what one pays in over time plus some formula based on expected returns. If people do not receive what they pay in, it becomes a wealth transfer, i.e. welfare scheme.

partially correct.....

Some people face a much higher Social Security tax rate than others. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), the Social Security tax is applied as a straight percentage of income; it's levied at a rate of 12.4 percent of income (minus employer-provided healthcare and life insurance), split evenly between employees and employers, up to the cap. If you earn anything up to $118,500 per year, your rate is 6.2 percent of total income. But if you earn $250,000, it's just 2.9 percent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW, the risk of any saving scheme - a pension fund, SS or whatever - is NOT just that whatever you invest in will go down. It is that the liabilities that have been promised won't be paid. That means that the contributions made by savers has not been enough or the return has not been high enough to pay future promises. If savers need their savings to grow at 6% and government bonds only return 4%, then the saving scheme has failed, even if government bonds never go down in price.

That's ultimately the problem with social security. It will not be able to pay what has been promised how it is currently configured. Thus, either taxes will have to go up or returns will have to go up, which means investing in other things other than government liabilities.

This 'promise' thing you people harp on is bogus.

In 1983, when Reagan saved SS for 50 years, SS was ONE YEAR away from insolvency. I'm sure by your 'logic' Reagan broke some 'promises' too.

SS is a promise to pay an amount in the future.

Reagan kept that promise by raising taxes. If Americans agree to raise their taxes, SS will remain solvent.

There were increases in the eligibility age in the 1983 reforms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, and you, kaz, and skull finish win, place, and show.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.

Wrong again. If Congress were to decide to default on the US 's debt obligations, everyone who holds US debt would be potentially affected. That is not just SS, that is everyone who holds a US security.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


SO STFU.



.

The Trust Fund is composed of US securities. Do you even know what that means?

OK DINGLE BERRY,


EXPLAIN - WHY CONGRESS INVESTED THE 2.6 TRILLION IN US SECURITIES INSTEAD OF COMMON STOCK?

.

That is what the law originally mandated and no Congress since has amended the law.

 

[Toro]

There were increases in the eligibility age in the 1983 reforms.

Yes. SS can be reformed by either 1. increasing taxes, 2. changing the return, and/or 3. decreasing payouts. Increasing the eligibility age is an example of #3.

 

[HUGGY]

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..

He just lost the entire elderly vote...that is the ones that depend on that SSI check every month.