There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[Dad2three]

Most people won't plan and save responsibly if you give them back their SS payroll tax. Then what? If they end up old and poor, you will pay for their keep out of your tax dollars.

History, something the conservatives have zero memory of, shows this

 

[Skull Pilot]

Most people won't plan and save responsibly if you give them back their SS payroll tax. Then what? If they end up old and poor, you will pay for their keep out of your tax dollars.

Why do you think allowing people to own their own retirement accounts abolishes the mandatory contributions?

 

[haissem123]

that's a lovely child you have bripat. seems to be a good picture of most of us too. Governor christie, who wants to save the pensions of all types of workers, so he says, just lost another 3.8 billion of that money to carlyle group. when are you people gonna shut off the game or walking dead and get your head out of your arses and realize your very lives are being taken not just your money by our fearless leaders?

 

[Toro]

So you can't give even a couple examples?

I will later.

The first is the headline. It didn't "cost" $3.8 billion because the cost isn't the median fund return.

 

[Dad2three]

I will later.

The first is the headline. It didn't "cost" $3.8 billion because the cost isn't the median fund return.

It means, like those that are honest know, that IF it just kept up with median funds, there would be $3.8+ billion more in the funds. Weird you don't grasp that (NOT a right winger)

 

[Dad2three]

Most people won't plan and save responsibly if you give them back their SS payroll tax. Then what? If they end up old and poor, you will pay for their keep out of your tax dollars.

Why do you think allowing people to own their own retirement accounts abolishes the mandatory contributions?

First, how about giving ONE policy conservatives in the US have EVER supported that worked as promised? But yes, let's turn over our retirement fund to the Banksters who created a world wide credit bubble (ponzi scheme) to reward themselves *shaking head*

 

[haissem123]

it didn't cost who? the bankers or wall street? your "free market" will implode as the buildings did. It's only right it should. sorry but it's God's will.

 

[Camp]

The same people who claim it is unfair and unconstitutional to make health care mandatory have no problem with making investments into private companies mandatory.

 

[SteadyMercury]

A rate of return can easily be extrapolated using the contributions, the pay outs and the length of benefit

Yep, which certainly isn't the same as social security promising a rate of return. It isn't an investment, doesn't have an individual account balance, doesn't offer a rate of return on what you put it... it is a defined benefit plan.

 

[haissem123]

funny how all those on wall street raking in million in false profits and ill gotten gains that nearly brought down the world, are hired on to aid us in defending ourselves from the psychos of wall street. Christies guy worked for carlyle group. amazing you people allow this to continue. Wow. what a bunch of pussies. Not an American among us who stands against injustices done to all?

 

[bripat9643]

No risk? Tell that to New Jersey residents:

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street, Costing New Jersey Taxpayers $3.8 Billion
By David Sirota@davidsirota[email protected]
on August 25 2014 8:16 AM

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street Costing New Jersey Taxpayers 3.8 Billion

That is an incredibly misleading article on so many levels.

So you can't give even a couple examples?

For one thing, the headline makes it sound like the pension investments actually lost money rather than just earning slightly less than the ave. The decision actually cost New Jersey taxpayers a cent, just as my decision to invest in Ford rather than Apple doesn't cost my heirs a cent.

 

[bripat9643]

A rate of return can easily be extrapolated using the contributions, the pay outs and the length of benefit

Yep, which certainly isn't the same as social security promising a rate of return. It isn't an investment, doesn't have an individual account balance, doesn't offer a rate of return on what you put it... it is a defined benefit plan.

Nevertheless, the drones who make excuses for the Ponzi scheme are always claiming a certain rate of return.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No risk at all. Not like our whole economy is based on positive thinking and fairy dust or anything...I'm sure we can kick the can down the road staving off total economic collapse indefinitely. Gold standard to back up our currency? Bah, that was a horrible idea. So much better when it's backed up by group psychology, that never fails...

 

[bripat9643]

Most people won't plan and save responsibly if you give them back their SS payroll tax. Then what? If they end up old and poor, you will pay for their keep out of your tax dollars.

Proposals to privatize Social Security aren't even considering allowing people to do what they want with the money. They will still be forced to put the same percentage into some kind of retirement plan. The only difference is that they will have ownership over the assets and they will make the investment decisions.

 

[SteadyMercury]

what a bunch of pussies.

There is no bigger pussy than someone calling other people pussies on an anonymous message board.

 

[Dad2three]

For one thing, the headline makes it sound like the pension investments actually lost money rather than just earning slightly less than the ave. The decision actually cost New Jersey taxpayers a cent, just as my decision to invest in Ford rather than Apple doesn't cost my heirs a cent.

Weird, so the rate of return PROMISED doesn't matter either? Or the MUCH larger cost to run the fund?


AND when the fund is underfunded later, thanks to GOPers not funding it and costing more to run it, they'll blame the 'greedy Gov't workers for the shortfall. *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

A rate of return can easily be extrapolated using the contributions, the pay outs and the length of benefit

Yep, which certainly isn't the same as social security promising a rate of return. It isn't an investment, doesn't have an individual account balance, doesn't offer a rate of return on what you put it... it is a defined benefit plan.

Nevertheless, the drones who make excuses for the Ponzi scheme are always claiming a certain rate of return.

Really? lol

False premises, distortions and lies the ONLY thing conservatives EVER have

 

[bripat9643]

Ponzi schemes aren't legal unless Congress is the party running them.

I suppose you have evidence that the SEC under Bush knew Bernie Madoff's operation was breaking the law?

Feb 4, 2009 - A fraud investigator told Congress that he'd warned the agency about Madoff's Ponzi scheme years ago. But his efforts went nowhere.


A whistleblower who repeatedly warned the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard Madoff was perpetrating a massive investment fraud testified Wednesday that the regulatory agency that oversees financial markets is inept, "financially illiterate" and far too cozy with the financial titans it is supposed to be regulating.


"The SEC is also captive to the industry it regulates and it is afraid of bringing big cases against the largest most powerful firms," said Harry Markopolos, an independent financial fraud investigator. "Cleary the SEC was afraid of Mr. Madoff."

Markopolos began contacting the SEC at the beginning of the decade to warn that Madoff was a fraud. He sent detailed memos, listing dozens of red flags, laying out a road map of instructions for SEC investigators to follow, even listing contacts and phone numbers of Wall Street experts whom he said would confirm his findings. But, Markopolos' whistle-blowing effort got nowhere.

Madoff whistleblower blasts the SEC s failure - Feb. 4 2009

Markopolos first reported his suspicions to the SEC in 2000. That was during the Clinton administration, which also did nothing about it. If his claims are legitimate, then the problem is one of institutional incompetence, and it isn't peculiar to the Bush administration. It's obviously a longstanding problem with the SEC. Your attempt to pin all the blame is predictable from a sleazy leftwing propagandist such as yourself.

You mean ONE warning to SEC under Clinton, May 2000?

May: Submission to SEC Boston Regional Office’s Director of Enforcement with 12 Red Flags

2001
• January: Team Member Frank Casey recruits MAR Hedge investigative journalist Michael Ocrant onto the team during a chance meeting in Barcelona, Spain
• March: My 2nd SEC Submission on how I think Madoff is running the scheme and his investment process
• I offer to go undercover to assist the SEC
• Apr: Michael Ocrant interviews Madoff
• May: MAR Hedge publishes Madoff expose, “Madoff Tops Charts; skeptics ask how”; Barron’s publishes, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Bernie Madoff is so secretive, he even asks investors to keep mum”

2002
• Jun: Key trip to UK, France & Switzerland; met with 20 Fund of Funds & Private Client Banks: 14 have Madoff and report “special access to Madoff”; two have admitted Madoff losses – Dexia Asset Management and Fix Family Office; 12 have not admitted Madoff losses and all 12 were turned into SEC Chairwoman on Feb. 5, 2009; off-Shore funds attract three types of investors who won’t report losses or file SIPC claims with the US government

2003-2004
• E-mail records of investigation lost; attempting to recover data from non-functioning hard drives

2005
• Jun: Frank Casey discovers Madoff attempting to borrow money from European banks (first sign that Madoff scheme is in trouble)
• Oct: Boston SEC’s Ed Manion arranges for 3rd SEC Submission
• Oct: Meeting with Boston SEC Branch Chief Mike Garrity, who quickly investigates, finds irregularities, and forwards my submission to SEC’s New York Office
• Nov: Boston Whistleblower calls NYC Branch Chief Meaghen Cheung and reveals his identity
• Nov: 29 Red Flags submitted
• Dec: I doubt NYC SEC’s ability, fear for my life, and contact Wall Street Journal and go to local law enforcement for protection

2006
• Jan: Integral Partners’ $40 million derivatives Ponzi Scheme goes to trial five years and five months after discovery, causing us to further doubt SEC competence
• Sep: Chicago Board Options Exchange VP tells me that several OEX option traders also think Madoff is a fraudster; if SEC had called the CBOE’s marketing office, they would have cooperated

2007
• Feb 28: Neil Chelo obtains a Madoff portfolio which shows zero ability to earn a return
• Jun: Casey obtains Wickford Fund LP prospectus showing Madoff is short of cash and offering a 3:1 leverage via bank loans, another clear warning sign that Madoff is running short of cash
• Jul: Chelo obtains Fairfield Greenwich Sentry LP financial statements for 2004 – 2006 and discovers three year-end audits with three different auditors in three different countries!
• Aug: Chelo conducts a 45 minute telephone interview with Fairfield Greenwich’s head of risk management; hedge funds all lose money except for Madoff!

2008
• Apr 2: Undelivered e-mail to Sokobin, SEC’s Director of Risk Assessment, entitled, “$30 Billion Equity Derivatives Hedge Fund Fraud in New York”
• Dec 11: Madoff runs out of money, turns himself in
• Dec 12: SEC insider calls me and warns “watch your back, Operation Cover-up has begun.”


No One Would Listen A True Financial Thriller Harry Markopolos Scott Brick 9781455819133 Amazon.com Books


YEAH, WEIRD REGULATORS ARE CAPTURED BY INDUSTRY, AND CONS THINK 'MARKETS' WILL 'SELF REGULATE' LOL


SO YOU'LL NOW ACCEPT BUSH'S SEC KNEW, AS YOUR ORIGINAL POST DIDN'T ACCEPT THE PREMISE? lol

Those are the claims of Markopolos. What SEC documents detail is something else. I wouldn't object to claims that the SEC is incompetant, but that has problably been true since it was created. It's not something pexuliar to the Bush Administration. You can't actually believe that Bush gave an order to look the other way from bonafide Ponzi schemes.

 

[Dad2three]

Most people won't plan and save responsibly if you give them back their SS payroll tax. Then what? If they end up old and poor, you will pay for their keep out of your tax dollars.

Proposals to privatize Social Security aren't even considering allowing people to do what they want with the money. They will still be forced to put the same percentage into some kind of retirement plan. The only difference is that they will have ownership over the assets and they will make the investment decisions.

Camp Wrote:

"The same people who claim it is unfair and unconstitutional to make health care mandatory have no problem with making investments into private companies mandatory."

 

[Toro]

I will later.

The first is the headline. It didn't "cost" $3.8 billion because the cost isn't the median fund return.

It means, like those that are honest know, that IF it just kept up with median funds, there would be $3.8+ billion more in the funds. Weird you don't grasp that (NOT a right winger)

It's a misleading headline because it's a false equivalence. Funds have different risk/return characteristics for many reasons, and the comparable universe of funds are at different points in their life cycles.