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

[haissem123]

What you say this is the land of the free home of the brave steady? Please. we've lost everything and if you wanna fight physically say were when and by what means? I know you would sneak up and stab in the back. I've said all and worse and put my name on it as my God's word. So, yes you are a pussy. It take no bravery to kill others or beat others for their beliefs and ideas, contrary to American belief. This has become the land of the fee and the home of the naive.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Did Dubya ignore FBI warnings that started in 2004 about the problems in the subprime crisis? Did he fight ALL 50 states who wanted to regulate them? Did he gut white collare crimes division of the FBI by 1,800+ agents? Nah, Dubya 'believes in' markets self regulating, and didn't need no stinking Gov't men to watch out for the kings of the universe!

 

[Dad2three]

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.

So you actually CAN'T refute a gawwwdamn thing in the post. Got it (NOT a right winger)...

 

[haissem123]

just watch "inside Job" and recommend it to any who wanna know what how we were all screwed and are gonna be again soon.

 

[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.

Really? lol

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

That's ironic because false premises, distortions and lies are what Social Security is built on.

 

[Dad2three]

What you say this is the land of the free home of the brave steady? Please. we've lost everything and if you wanna fight physically say were when and by what means? I know you would sneak up and stab in the back. I've said all and worse and put my name on it as my God's word. So, yes you are a pussy. It take no bravery to kill others or beat others for their beliefs and ideas, contrary to American belief. This has become the land of the fee and the home of the naive.

The republican party is the Alzheimer's party, They can never remember what they stood for an hour ago so they keep voting for these guys. I am starting to believe that if you are not a millionaire and vote Republican then you have a mental disorder.

As long as the conservative psychopath's keep getting elected, they're never going to stop either.

 

[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

That's ironic because false premises, distortions and lies are what Social Security is built on.

Sure, much like Germany's that has been around for 125+ years, US's has only been here 75....

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about??? lol

 

[Toro]

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.

So you actually CAN'T refute a gawwwdamn thing in the post. Got it (NOT a right winger)...

I just did.

You just don't understand it.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

So you actually CAN'T refute a gawwwdamn thing in the post. Got it (NOT a right winger)...

I just did.

You just don't understand it.

No, you posited something NOT in the post. Thanks for trying NOT a right winger Bubba

 

[Toro]

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.

So you actually CAN'T refute a gawwwdamn thing in the post. Got it (NOT a right winger)...

I just did.

You just don't understand it.

No, you posited something NOT in the post. Thanks for trying NOT a right winger Bubba

I explained the flaw in the argument perfectly clear but you simply don't understand it. You cannot make a direct comparison to other pension funds because it assumes that all risk/reward parameters are constant amongst the funds, which isn't the case.

I will give you an example. By your posting style, I assume you're a teenager. At some point, you will get a job and start saving money. If you decide to take finance when you get to college, you will learn that there is generally a trade-off between risk and return. The more risk you take, the more compensation you should receive and the higher expected return should be. If you don't need your money for a long time, then you should take on more risk because over time, your return will be higher and you can withstand volatility in the market. But if you need the money soon, you should take less risk because you might lose money in the near term and won't be able to make it back later. Thus, young people should take on more risk in their savings and old people should take on less risk. So when you have a job in 10 years or so, you should be earning a higher return on your savings than your grandmother. Your grandmother will earn less of a return than you, but there is no "cost" to your grandmother simply because she has a lower return than you will. That just reflects different risk profiles.

Pension plans are similar. Because populations in the Northeast are older than in the South, plans in the Northeast should have less risky investments than in the South. Thus, without adjusting for the risk of the plans, it is specious to compare plans solely based on returns. Thus, there is no "cost" simply because one plan underperforms another.

There are several other reasons why comparing pension plans to each other is not proper policy, and there are other ways to measure "cost," but that's probably enough for you today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Take the 12.4% of lifetime income they currently pay to the government and put in into a cheap, diversified index type fund. As they get closer to retirement age, rotate the holdings into a more bond heavy fund.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Why not, current "contributions" to Al Gore's lockbox are mandatory.

 

[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?

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*

Who says you have to give your retirement to a banker?

If you want you can buy nothing but US Treasury bonds and guarantee yourself the same level of poverty you would have had under the current system.

The problem with you sheep is that you truly believe you are utterly incapable of taking care of yourselves

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

You wold not have to invest in private companies. You would own the account you would decide where the money goes. You would be free to buy nothing but US treasury bonds if you wanted to.

What on earth is so hard to understand about that?

 

[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.

Really? lol

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

That's ironic because false premises, distortions and lies are what Social Security is built on.

Sure, much like Germany's that has been around for 125+ years, US's has only been here 75....

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about??? lol

Niether one have been around in their original form for the periods you mentioned. Social Security has seen numerous tax increases and benefit reductions. The German system was wiped out by the inflation of 1923, and also again by WW II. Both systems have already defaulted on their promises numerous times.

 

[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.

You wold not have to invest in private companies. You would own the account you would decide where the money goes. You would be free to buy nothing but US treasury bonds if you wanted to.

What on earth is so hard to understand about that?

Oh, I see, being forced to invest and buy US Treasury bonds is different than being forced to buy investments from private companies. But if that is the case we can throw away all these proposals based on rates of returns people would make from private investments and comparisons to what one can expect to receive after contributing into Social Security. All calculations would have to be based on investments in nothing other than treasury bonds.
You guys are funny. Mandates for health insurance are unconstitutional and and unfair but a mandate on retirement insurance is OK.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

You wold not have to invest in private companies. You would own the account you would decide where the money goes. You would be free to buy nothing but US treasury bonds if you wanted to.

What on earth is so hard to understand about that?

Oh, I see, being forced to invest and buy US Treasury bonds is different than being forced to buy investments from private companies. But if that is the case we can throw away all these proposals based on rates of returns people would make from private investments and comparisons to what one can expect to receive after contributing into Social Security. All calculations would have to be based on investments in nothing other than treasury bonds.
You guys are funny. Mandates for health insurance are unconstitutional and and unfair but a mandate on retirement insurance is OK.

You are not being forced to buy anything. You can leave your entire retirement savings in a cash position if you want to. The point is that you and you alone would control where the money goes. How is that worse than the government choosing for you?

But you do know that the so called Social Security Trust fund is filled with nothing but US treasury IOUs don't you?

You can't compare the forced purchase of private insurance to people owning their own retirement accounts.

One forces you to part with money you may not want to spend on coverage that you don't need like drug and alcohol counseling or for coverage for kids you will never have the other allows you to control money that you have earned.

 

[Camp]

What you have back peddled to is the concept that a person not be required to prepare for retirement at all. Let me keep my money in cash if I want. But even if that were the case, you would be forcing me to do something with my money that I may not want to do. I would have to prove to the government that I was putting my money somewhere as a set aside for my retirement. A mandate is a mandate. A portion of my money would be mandated to be set aside, even if in a foolish and stupid way as to not acquire a single digit of interest and to lose value over the years through inflation. I would invest my funds in cash and coins and after forty or so years open the box and the $100 bill I put in the box 40 years ago would still be worth $100.
You are attempting to say a mandate to invest for ones retirement is not a mandate. Social Security is a mandate. The country mandates that you prepare for retirement so that when you reach the age of retirement you will lessen or not become a burden on society. The country demands that each citizen make minimum preparations for an occurrence or situation that has a great probability of taking place.

So I have mentioned two topics in this thread and yet to have gotten a realistic response to either. How is privatization of Social Security not a government mandate on the same scale as the ACA and how does a private investment portfolio provide the disability and death insurance provided for in Social Security. What happens to the calculations when you include the additional cost required to replace those insurance benefits when the switch is made from SS to privatization? Someone tried to answer the question but the math was way off. They claimed most Americans had this kind of coverage through their work. When I checked I discovered that very few Americans actually have the kind of insurance provided by SS.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

So you actually CAN'T refute a gawwwdamn thing in the post. Got it (NOT a right winger)...

I just did.

You just don't understand it.

No, you posited something NOT in the post. Thanks for trying NOT a right winger Bubba

I explained the flaw in the argument perfectly clear but you simply don't understand it. You cannot make a direct comparison to other pension funds because it assumes that all risk/reward parameters are constant amongst the funds, which isn't the case.

I will give you an example. By your posting style, I assume you're a teenager. At some point, you will get a job and start saving money. If you decide to take finance when you get to college, you will learn that there is generally a trade-off between risk and return. The more risk you take, the more compensation you should receive and the higher expected return should be. If you don't need your money for a long time, then you should take on more risk because over time, your return will be higher and you can withstand volatility in the market. But if you need the money soon, you should take less risk because you might lose money in the near term and won't be able to make it back later. Thus, young people should take on more risk in their savings and old people should take on less risk. So when you have a job in 10 years or so, you should be earning a higher return on your savings than your grandmother. Your grandmother will earn less of a return than you, but there is no "cost" to your grandmother simply because she has a lower return than you will. That just reflects different risk profiles.

Pension plans are similar. Because populations in the Northeast are older than in the South, plans in the Northeast should have less risky investments than in the South. Thus, without adjusting for the risk of the plans, it is specious to compare plans solely based on returns. Thus, there is no "cost" simply because one plan underperforms another.

There are several other reasons why comparing pension plans to each other is not proper policy, and there are other ways to measure "cost," but that's probably enough for you today.

Great explanation. Sadly, most on the internet want to pretend like they know as much as someone who, like here, is CLEARLY more educated on a topic than them.

 

[haissem123]

yeah, like a lawyer on the law. Have you seen your laws lately? a few thousand pages of mobo jumbo lies and dishonesty. I should show you a few examples from my local government lawyers offices. You can derivate your way into any lie you want, it's all a matter of bullshit to me and all those that know. banking was never meant to be a cash cow, unless you are a fool liar or crook. now our monies are gambled away by those that make the markets a corrupt house of ill repute. grow up and stop with the p.h.ds in b.s. i know enough about the markets to know when some one sells me shit and bets against same shit he shouldn't rake in millions destroy the world's economy no matter how god damned, and yes God will and has damned these people, smart they think they are. evil crooks are evil crooks no matter how you lie to yourselves