[Orion27]

Who would trust most to protect your privately invested Social Security Fund?

1. Unions
2. Republican Party
3. Democrat Party
4. Socialists
5. Communists

[voodoo]

Aliens

[Logic]

No option for banks and myself?

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Aliens

pffffft! badgers.

-r.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
No option for banks and myself?

Agreed!

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Agreed!

Hey, I can't be pacifist commie all day

[voodoo]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
pffffft! badgers.

-r.

Ok buster, perpare to be beamed aboard. I'll discuss this matter better with you and your badger friends in orbit.

[Orion27]

Well, the poll makes the assumption you are managing your own portfolio.
Who will most likely do a better job managing the investment climate?

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Ok buster, perpare to be beamed aboard. I'll discuss this matter better with you and your badger friends in orbit.

"beamed aboard"? i would like to point out that badgers are real animals while you, sir, are a space cadet.

-r.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:


"beamed aboard"? i would like to point out that badgers are real animals while you, sir, are a space cadet.

-r.

Just remember to bring your helmet son - ain't much oxygen around these parts for badgers mind you

[chris v]

Bizzare choices, there. I don't think anyone would trust their money to a political party. A party organization is about policy platforms, organizing, and muckraking. Why would we put any of them in charge of keeping a trillion dollars? Unions sometimes maintain pension funds I suppose, but we've got a pretty hostile union environment right now, and I doubt they'd want the responsibility of handling the money for the 90% of the labor force that's not unionized.

I think if the U.S. govt. would stop borrowing from the Social Security fund, then it would probably be able to take care of itself.

I see the "privatization" scheme as basically naked agression form the big brokerages, who make money on trades, whether you win or lose. Think of all those fees!

Tha badger thing is officially last century, in internet years.

CV

[Orion27]

"I see the "privatization" scheme as basically naked agression form the big brokerages, who make money on trades, whether you win or lose. Think of all those fees!"

Long term investments not day trading. i'm open to discussion on the 'lock box"

[Spliffdaddy]

"Tha badger thing is officially last century, in internet years."


It wasn't even cool then.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Well, the poll makes the assumption you are managing your own portfolio.
Who will most likely do a better job managing the investment climate?

Well, according to data from the last 34 years, the stock market has generally done about twice as well under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. See the second graph for average monthly return under each party.Link

[Orion27]

I can read graphs and it clearly shows thee groundwork put down by Reagan created the
the conditons for the 90's boom. The 90's we're an abberation. Nobody argues bubbles are a good thing. What troubles me is now is the protectionist view Democrats are taking.
I think adjustments to the the reality of the world economy will come quicker without artificial supports. Nobody claims Nixon as a conservative on the economy, he went way left with his wage and price controls. I don't think you want to talk about Jimmy Carter.
Remember 17% interest rates and double digit inflation?

[ghost_flash]

I would trust the IRS to privatise the SS system, but only when they manage to BALANCE THEIR OWN FU(C)KING BOOKS!

Not holding my breath.

[lil'babykitten]

Kittens.

[TheWorldIsFlat]

IF politicians are trying to privatize everything then for obvious reasons we should pay no more tax. But my choice is:

White Elephants

[OldManMac]

Leave Social Security alone. There's nothing wrong with it. Excellent article from today's NYT.


By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 2, 2004

The traditional definition of chutzpah says it's when you murder your parents, then plead for clemency because you're an orphan. Alan Greenspan has chutzpah.

Last week Mr. Greenspan warned of the dangers posed by budget deficits. But even though the main cause of deficits is plunging revenue — the federal government's tax take is now at its lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950 — he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses. Instead, he supports the Bush administration's plan to make its tax cuts permanent, and calls for cuts in Social Security benefits.

Yet three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, warning that otherwise the federal government would run excessive surpluses. He assured Congress that those tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits. And last year he declined to stand in the way of another round of deficit-creating tax cuts.

But wait — it gets worse.

You see, although the rest of the government is running huge deficits — and never did run much of a surplus — the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest — a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.

And the reason Social Security is in fairly good shape is that during the 1980's the Greenspan commission persuaded Congress to increase the payroll tax, which supports the program.

The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, families near the middle of the income distribution pay almost twice as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes. Yet people were willing to accept a regressive tax increase to sustain Social Security.

Now the joke's on them. Mr. Greenspan pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used that surplus to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people, but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits.

The point, of course, is that if anyone had tried to sell this package honestly — "Let's raise taxes and cut benefits for working families so we can give big tax cuts to the rich!" — voters would have been outraged. So the class warriors of the right engaged in bait-and-switch.

There are three lessons in this tale.

First, "starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario — it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.

Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants. Social Security and Medicare are the targets because that's where the money is. We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization — the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security (from a nonexistent crisis), but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point.

Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system — the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical — continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.

The Bush White House has made it clear that it will destroy the careers of scientists, budget experts, intelligence operatives and even military officers who don't toe the line. But Mr. Greenspan should have been immune to such pressures, and he should have understood that the peculiarity of his position — as an unelected official who wields immense power — carries with it an obligation to stand above the fray. By using his office to promote a partisan agenda, he has betrayed his institution, and the nation.__

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Orion27:
I can read graphs and it clearly shows thee groundwork put down by Reagan created the
the conditons for the 90's boom. The 90's we're an abberation. Nobody argues bubbles are a good thing.

Really ? Reagan responsible for the economy a decade after he was in office ? If that's the case, I guess FDR's ultra-liberal "New Deal" must be what made the post WWII economy the juggernaut that it was. Did you happen to look at the third element of the second graph which gave each party a 2 year "lead time" factor out previous president's influence on the current president's economy? As far as the 90's being an aberration -- it was the longest continuous "aberration" of good economy since WW II. And, though the stock market did "bubble", all other indicators (employment, real wages, low inflation) were fantastic as well.

Originally posted by Orion27:

What troubles me is now is the protectionist view Democrats are taking.
I think adjustments to the the reality of the world economy will come quicker without artificial supports.

OK.

Originally posted by Orion27:

Nobody claims Nixon as a conservative on the economy, he went way left with his wage and price controls. I don't think you want to talk about Jimmy Carter.
Remember 17% interest rates and double digit inflation?

Yup (vaguely, I was pretty young then). But again, you're mixing up "fiscally conservative" with "Republican" (eg. your example that Nixon was"way left" on wage and price controls.) Your example plus Bush II's spending habits should illustrate that "fiscally conservative" and 'Repbulican' are not necessarily synonymous. Do Republicans cut taxes ? Yes. Do they actually "reduce government"? Nope. They just keep spending like Democrats except they do it on borrowed money rather than paying for it with actual revenues.

[Orion27]

There is a certain lag when it comes to reducing spending. Krugman was right. To reduce the deficits you are going to eventually cut spending. We can't afford more taxes now because it would stall the recovery. I'm not going to play Krugman's class warfare game.
The truth is, no one making $300,000 a year should be getting SS benefits. Guess what?
payroll is regressive. Start a business. Krugman is an inflammatory ideologue. If the middle class can't live on their current salaries, somethings gotta give. Reducing investment incentives by raising taxes is not the answer.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Orion27:
"I see the "privatization" scheme as basically naked agression form the big brokerages, who make money on trades, whether you win or lose. Think of all those fees!"

Long term investments not day trading. i'm open to discussion on the 'lock box"

Sorry, Kenny Boy, but I'm not going to have my investments stuck in your lock-box, while you pump and dump. Considering that America's worst criminals of the century have inhabited Wall Street, and that by and large, they've made off with the loot unpunished, I don't think I want to be locked in to anything there. When I see corporate criminals doing 50-life in Attica or Angola, alongside crack dealers and hold-up artists, I *might* re-think my position.

CV

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Logic:
No option for banks and myself?

Unless there are billions being hidden, or a mass extermination of people. I will pay SS for many years, but there will be nothing by the time I'm only 50 years old.

So I plan to save 100% on my own. Since I know that's what I'm going to be relying on.

Sorry. When it comes to something as important as my entire source of money during the last portion of my life. I don't trust politicians. Especially when the numbers tell me not to.

[Orion27]

i think the "lock box" was a concept to keep the Feds from borrowing from the SS "Trust Fund". Payroll goes went into the general treasury, SS is promise, not a "fund" per say.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by chris v:
I think if the U.S. govt. would stop borrowing from the Social Security fund, then it would probably be able to take care of itself.

I was under the impression that a "lock box" consisted mainly of buying US government bonds with the surplus money, which is exactly like the government borrowing from social security, with a promise to pay it back just like any other bond. The fact that the government is essentially borrowing from itself is neatly accounted for by the accountants. What else could you possibly do with all that cash, especially if you can't invest it?

Now, when the government raids the social security program directly, that's bad. And if the government ever decided to default on its interest payments, that will be really bad.

I see the "privatization" scheme as basically naked agression form the big brokerages, who make money on trades, whether you win or lose. Think of all those fees!

ditto.


Oh, and I used to like Paul Krugman's writing, but lately he has Bush-on-the-brain. Maybe that's all the Times lets him write about?

[saranwarp]

Democrats will "protect" it, but in a while there's going to be nothing to protect. Costs are going up (way up), recipients are increasing due to the influx of baby boomers and longer living ages, and the the number of young people financing the SS/Medicare income transfer is decreasing. We're going to need to rethink the entire system, and no sane politician will do anything of the sort until the day of reckoning is too close to ignore.

[BRussell]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the premise of this thread?

[chris v]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Am I the only one who doesn't understand the premise of this thread?

No. I haven't voted because I can't really get at it either. Are we to take "Privatization" as a foregone conclusion, then vote for which group of politicos we want massaging the economy?

Where do we vote against privatization?

CV

[Orion27]

If all or portions of your social security contract were privatized, whom do you think would
do a better job of protecting your investment? i.e, bank investments, real estate investments, stock market investments ect. Who would more likely produce and maintain a growth scenario to protect your investments? Clue: socialists would redistribute your excess capital gains. Communists would take it all.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by chris v:
Sorry, Kenny Boy, but I'm not going to have my investments stuck in your lock-box, while you pump and dump. Considering that America's worst criminals of the century have inhabited Wall Street, and that by and large, they've made off with the loot unpunished, I don't think I want to be locked in to anything there. When I see corporate criminals doing 50-life in Attica or Angola, alongside crack dealers and hold-up artists, I *might* re-think my position.

CV

As long as you're invested in diverse market areas (power company, publishing, technology, manufacturing, etc.) and ride things out for the long term, you'll see an average 11% profit per year. Nothing else on earth guarantees that high a rate. Sure, there have been bad times: losing 67% from 1929 to 1932, losing 45% from January 74 to December 1974, losing 26% in two days in 1987 -- but as long as you buy and hold on tenaciously, you'll profit in the end.


The point is patience.

Now, if people are concerned about doing that, I understand. There are other less profitable ways to invest.

Passbooks (ask someone older than you, they'll know) earn about 2%.

Statement Savings accounts earn about 2%.

Money Market accounts tend to earn about 2.5% but with careful shopping you can find some with double that rate of return. http://bankrate.com is a good place to begin that search.

Money Market funds get over 5%.

Certificates of Deposit earn different rates depending on the amount of money and how long you're willing to let it be tied up. Can be over 6%.

The truth is, the point of privitisation is two-fold. One is to keep the Government from stealing from the Social Security fund and using it for the General fund, and not calling it a debt. Where do you think Enron learned those accounting practices-- Congress, that's where.

Two, is that I can earn WAY more by using even something as simple as Certificates of Deposit. Why should I support a ponzi scheme run by Government monopoly when privatization will not only stop Congress' treating of the SocSec Trust Fund as a polite fiction, but will also increase the money available to us in retirement?

[Orion27]

ChrisV
Do you vote against Individual Retirement Accounts too? Should we not be allowed to shelter any inncome for retirement?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Orion27:
If all or portions of your social security contract were privatized, whom do you think would
do a better job of protecting your investment? i.e, bank investments, real estate investments, stock market investments ect. Who would more likely produce and maintain a growth scenario to protect your investments? Clue: socialists would redistribute your excess capital gains. Communists would take it all.

If people could re-distribute your capital gains or take it all, it wouldn't be private, would it? Why don't you just ask who is better for the stock market. Or the bond market. Or the economy. Why talk about privatization of social security? Most of us have retirement accounts, not to mention regular accounts anyway, so why bring social security into it at all? Why not just focus on the existing private accounts? I still just don't get what you're after here.

Anyway, about privatizing SS: I already have private accounts. Most of us do, at least if we have decent jobs and a decent head on our shoulders. SS simply provides a guarantee for those who don't have any money when they retire. Many old folks were in really bad shape before SS. I think basic living standards for retired people (and others covered by SS) should be a basic human right and I have no problem with the gov't guaranteeing it. General welfare and all that.

The other thing you have to remember about privatizing social security is that it will cost money. Right now, current workers are paying for current retired people's SS. If you started letting current workers take some money out of SS for their own accounts, you would be reducing the funds available for current retirees. So how do you pay for that? Especially when we have the baby boomers starting to retire, not to mention massive deficits as far as the eye can see.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by saranwarp:
Democrats will "protect" it, but in a while there's going to be nothing to protect. Costs are going up (way up), recipients are increasing due to the influx of baby boomers and longer living ages, and the the number of young people financing the SS/Medicare income transfer is decreasing. We're going to need to rethink the entire system, and no sane politician will do anything of the sort until the day of reckoning is too close to ignore.

I saw nader on tv recently and he claimed that we don't have to worry about anything until 2040 and thats assuming we only have a 1.7(something around there) growth rate. Maybe the money thing isn't in such a bad shape as people make it out to be?

[chris v]

Originally posted by vmarks:
As long as you're invested in diverse market areas (power company, publishing, technology, manufacturing, etc.) and ride things out for the long term, you'll see an average 11% profit per year. Nothing else on earth guarantees that high a rate. Sure, there have been bad times: losing 67% from 1929 to 1932, losing 45% from January 74 to December 1974, losing 26% in two days in 1987 -- but as long as you buy and hold on tenaciously, you'll profit in the end.


The point is patience.

Now, if people are concerned about doing that, I understand. There are other less profitable ways to invest.

Passbooks (ask someone older than you, they'll know) earn about 2%.

Statement Savings accounts earn about 2%.

Money Market accounts tend to earn about 2.5% but with careful shopping you can find some with double that rate of return. http://bankrate.com is a good place to begin that search.

Money Market funds get over 5%.

Certificates of Deposit earn different rates depending on the amount of money and how long you're willing to let it be tied up. Can be over 6%.

The truth is, the point of privitisation is two-fold. One is to keep the Government from stealing from the Social Security fund and using it for the General fund, and not calling it a debt. Where do you think Enron learned those accounting practices-- Congress, that's where.

Two, is that I can earn WAY more by using even something as simple as Certificates of Deposit. Why should I support a ponzi scheme run by Government monopoly when privatization will not only stop Congress' treating of the SocSec Trust Fund as a polite fiction, but will also increase the money available to us in retirement?

I understand the idea of investing, and do some myself. Made out like a bandit on Apple last year-- bought on the viacom rumor, and sold on the iTunes news. I also have some long-term money in Parnassus Equity Income fund. It's a socially responsible mutual fund (doesn't invest in weapons, alcohol, nukes, stuff like that) and it's been on a nice, steady rise. I like that fund because it's kind-of contrarian. They look for undervalued companies, and don't just follow the Whatever-500, like so many mutuals do. I keep a little cash around to play with, too, and have done okay betting against the pundits and advisors over the last three or four years.

I agree with you about Congress keeping their mitts off of Social Security, and that's where I really lie on this thing. There are people out there who don't know a damn thing about investing (lets say, for the sake of argument 100 million or so) and I don't have the least bit of a problem with the Govt. pulling a little out of payroll and setting it aside to be distributed at retirement. It's being mis-managed, and the return might not be as great as the theoretical maximum, but it can be fixed (it's really not too late) and I think there are a large number of people out there who would simple get taken advantage of, were we to all at once just turn over the whole ball game to a bunch of brokers.

No, Orion, I have no prob. with you starting an IRA. I think it's a fine idea. What I do have a problem with is any significant percentage of the woking stiffs in this country getting to retirement only to find out that some scam artist made off with their social security money long ago. And don't think it won't happen to millions of people.

The obvious root of the problem here is the federal defecit, and I lay that one squarely at the feet of the Bush administration. Period. We had it licked, but good ol' Dick "Defecits don't matter" Cheney kinda screwed that up.

CV

[vmarks]

Originally posted by chris v:
I understand the idea of investing, and do some myself. Made out like a bandit on Apple last year-- bought on the viacom rumor, and sold on the iTunes news. I also have some long-term money in Parnassus Equity Income fund. It's a socially responsible mutual fund (doesn't invest in weapons, alcohol, nukes, stuff like that) and it's been on a nice, steady rise. I like that fund because it's kind-of contrarian. They look for undervalued companies, and don't just follow the Whatever-500, like so many mutuals do. I keep a little cash around to play with, too, and have done okay betting against the pundits and advisors over the last three or four years.

I agree with you about Congress keeping their mitts off of Social Security, and that's where I really lie on this thing. There are people out there who don't know a damn thing about investing (lets say, for the sake of argument 100 million or so) and I don't have the least bit of a problem with the Govt. pulling a little out of payroll and setting it aside to be distributed at retirement. It's being mis-managed, and the return might not be as great as the theoretical maximum, but it can be fixed (it's really not too late) and I think there are a large number of people out there who would simple get taken advantage of, were we to all at once just turn over the whole ball game to a bunch of brokers.

No, Orion, I have no prob. with you starting an IRA. I think it's a fine idea. What I do have a problem with is any significant percentage of the woking stiffs in this country getting to retirement only to find out that some scam artist made off with their social security money long ago. And don't think it won't happen to millions of people.

The obvious root of the problem here is the federal defecit, and I lay that one squarely at the feet of the Bush administration. Period. We had it licked, but good ol' Dick "Defecits don't matter" Cheney kinda screwed that up.

CV

As long as Government can put money into an account, Congress can get their mitts on it. We've already seen that the accounting is worse than Enron's.

Cheney didn't screw up Social Security any worse than it was already. The truth is, only privatization will save it.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp8.html

In fact, in 20 years after the transition begins, the defecit would be paid off. Completely.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BRussell:
y when they retire. Many old folks were in really bad shape before SS. I think basic living standards for retired people (and others covered by SS) should be a basic human right and I have no problem with the gov't guaranteeing it. General welfare and all that.

That is not what the General Welfare clause means. If you want the constitution to say that, you're going to have to amend it.

Those words only apply to the specific powers in Article 1 Section 8 and not imaginary powers that you can make up like 'living standard for retired people.' I think I would have noticed if elderly people lay starving in the streets in the pictures in museums, state archives, and history books. Life didn't have all the conveniences it does today, but it wasn't really as bad as you would portray it.

If you change the Constitution to say something new without an amendment, that's akin to changing the rules of Poker so that to be "more fair" your two-pair beats my full-house from time to time when you feel like it.