[besson3c]

It looks like the opponents of Bush's plan to private social security are looking pretty good right now.

Can you imagine what things would be like if we did this, the market collapsed as it is doing now at the same time that medical costs are at an all time high?

Obviously the current social security structure is not adequate since it is not solvent, but it looks like tethering it to the stock market would have made things much worse.

[Big Mac]

Privatization does not necessarily mean throwing funds into the stock market.

What is a true failure is allowing the system to remain as it is as the biggest pyramid scheme in the world that is legally defrauding Americans in a coercive way with false promises that they will see benefits in the future from paying into it today.

[turtle777]

Big Mac, I couldn't agree more.

-t

[stumblinmike]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eeeeewwwww....PDA......Get a room!

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What is a true failure is allowing the system to remain as it is as the biggest pyramid scheme in the world that is legally defrauding Americans in a coerce way with false promises that they will see benefits in the future from paying into it today.

It's a perfectly valid argument to not agree with or like the way SS is funded, but it's not a pyramid scheme. It's a linear scheme. A pyramid scheme requires perpetual growth, while SS in itself simply requires a constant stream of funds.

Unless all young people die off or stop paying taxes, the stream will stay constant.

Of course, the government raiding the funds and using them for other purposes tends to derail the stream. That is why SS is in trouble, not because it's a 'pyramid scheme'.

[Wiskedjak]

Sure, but "linear scheme" doesn't have the same sound-bite quality.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

It's a perfectly valid argument to not agree with or like the way SS is funded, but it's not a pyramid scheme. It's a linear scheme. A pyramid scheme requires perpetual growth, while SS in itself simply requires a constant stream of funds.

Unless all young people die off or stop paying taxes, the stream will stay constant.

Of course, the government raiding the funds and using them for other purposes tends to derail the stream. That is why SS is in trouble, not because it's a 'pyramid scheme'.

The population is continually increasing, thus making it technically a pyramid scheme.

Either way its a scheme, and is the perfect example of what can happen when the government tried to run the finances of its citizens. The same will happen with healthcare if the public option is passed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Privatization does not necessarily mean throwing funds into the stock market.

Wasn't that what was proposed? Investments?

[ghporter]

Part of the funds would have been put into very stable investments, with other funds handled differently. The problem would certainly not have been with the concept, since at the time government holdings were static, while well-considered investments were making money hand over fist. The problem would instead have been WHO selects the investments and other instruments, and how good they were. Not all of the economy went down the tubes with mortgages and the auto makers, you know-some people are in a position to be sitting pretty even if the rest of the economy had stayed strong. But they're very rare becasue so many parts of the economy were invested with mortgage instruments.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eeeeewwwww....PDA......Get a room!

You get a brain / life / sense.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Unless all young people die off or stop paying taxes, the stream will stay constant.

It can easily turn into a pyramid scheme.

E.g. Germany. 4-5 tax payers support one retiree. The system is designed to f*** someone over.

-t

[besson3c]

So, what do you guys suggest as an alternative to social security?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, what do you guys suggest as an alternative to social security?

Personal responsibility, savings, not blowing your money on useless luxury in your peak earning years.

-t

[besson3c]

Turtle: I wish that were a practical solution. Being old is damn expensive.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle: I wish that were a practical solution. Being old is damn expensive.

And it's less expensive if the government makes someone else pay for it ?

Or do you still believe that money can just be created out of thin air ?

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It can easily turn into a pyramid scheme.

E.g. Germany. 4-5 tax payers support one retiree. The system is designed to f*** someone over.

-t

Your system sounds like it's still in good shape then compared to American version:

Originally Posted by SSA.GOV

People are living longer, the first baby boomers are nearing retirement, and the birth rate is lower than in the past. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16.5-to-1 in 1950 to 3.1-to-1 today. Within 20 years it will be 2.1-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

If you don't believe Social Security is in trouble, read the FAQ straight from the horse's mouth.

[turtle777]

worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16.5-to-1 in 1950 to 3.1-to-1 today

That's gotta be a different measure than mine.

It can not mean that it took 16.5 tax payers to support 1 retiree in 1950, and now it only takes 3.1.

-t

[besson3c]

Turtle: sorry, it was my fault to start this conversation with you. We've had this sort of conversation before, and I couldn't get you to acknowledge that having people that are unable to pay their own way is a drain on the entire system, and this affects all of us. I've never understood why you never seem to acknowledge that given that we seem to share a healthy sense of cynicism with people.

Perhaps it's just an unwillingness to accept the reality that no matter how much people *should* pay their own way, it just ain't going to happen. What do we do about it? Don't misdirect your response on this as insinuating that I'm in any way defending anybody, I'm just calling a spade a spade.

But again, we've had this conversation before, I don't really feel like rehashing this unless you have a new take on it.

[besson3c]

I think it was Big Mac that suggested that the government sort of run a private investment account for people? Whomever said this said this a long time ago, so I might not have my names straight. At any rate, this seems like a far more practical solution than just hold our breath and wait for people to take responsibility, especially given the costs of health care these days.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The population is continually increasing, thus making it technically a pyramid scheme.

Last time I checked, people are younger (and paying taxes into the system) before they are older (and drawing from it). So - a population spike would mean that a surplus would develop in the system before those folks drew on it. If we didn't elect morons that raid that surplus, this would not be an issue.

A pyramid scheme would be if old people dropped out of thin air and drew benefits before they paid anything in. It, by definition, REQUIRES an ever-increasing population buying into the system. That would never happen with the SS system, unless, as I said, all the young'uns died off. In which case we have bigger problems anyway.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It can easily turn into a pyramid scheme.

E.g. Germany. 4-5 tax payers support one retiree. The system is designed to f*** someone over.

-t

Nope. Still not a pyramid scheme. It can be mismanaged, by some morons looking for political gain by gaining favor from influential groups. But that's mismanagement, not a scheme that depends on perpetual growth for survival.

As far as how the management goes, well, we get the government we deserve. If we elect idiots who mismanage the system, it doesn't work well. If we choose to demand that something we like (and is sustainable) is properly managed, we might see better results.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's gotta be a different measure than mine.

It can not mean that it took 16.5 tax payers to support 1 retiree in 1950, and now it only takes 3.1.

-t

The ratio I quoted means that there were 16.5 workers to every retiree - many workers and comparatively few retirees back in 1950. With that proportion you've got a lot of people paying into a system that can afford to pay out to the much smaller portion drawing benefits.

Back when Social Security was first proposed it was only supposed to be for the poor and disabled. That's one thing - I still disagree about that being the proper role of government, but I can at least tolerate it. But soon enough they got the bright idea that everyone should draw from the system, and then we had the Baby Boomers, leading to the inevitable collapse of FDR's Socialist experiment.

By the way, for those who looked at the SSA FAQs, did you notice that one of the proposed solutions is for people to privately fund their Social Security benefits by putting extra money away in private accounts? The thing is, we could cut out the middleman (namely Congress) instead of him robbing us.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Perhaps it's just an unwillingness to accept the reality that no matter how much people *should* pay their own way, it just ain't going to happen. What do we do about it? Don't misdirect your response on this as insinuating that I'm in any way defending anybody, I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Pfff, the reality is, I can't afford a Ferrari, it just ain't going to happen. What do we do about it?

I'm sorry, but you are confusing / mixing Social Security with a retirement system.

I'm not against Social Security as a last resort for those that have nothing / lost everything.

But as a retirement system, it just plain blows donkey balls.

-t

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's gotta be a different measure than mine.

It can not mean that it took 16.5 tax payers to support 1 retiree in 1950, and now it only takes 3.1.

-t

It is different. It's a pure worker-to-beneficiary ratio. It's just demonstrating that the natural surplus has fallen. They don't say what ratio would be break-even (although I'd imagine one could find it somewhere). Sounds like it's something around or less than 2-to-1 though. Obviously, that's all in how you set the benefit formula and subsequent COLAs. That's part of the proper actuarial management of the system.

[Big Mac]

Now I see the confusion: That ratio has nothing to do with the number of workers it will take to actually support the system. The new government report says that Social Security will be broke within as few as two years. (So much for the "fix" back in the 1980s - President Reagan wasn't perfect.)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Last time I checked, people are younger (and paying taxes into the system) before they are older (and drawing from it). So - a population spike would mean that a surplus would develop in the system before those folks drew on it. If we didn't elect morons that raid that surplus, this would not be an issue.

A pyramid scheme would be if old people dropped out of thin air and drew benefits before they paid anything in. It, by definition, REQUIRES an ever-increasing population buying into the system. That would never happen with the SS system, unless, as I said, all the young'uns died off. In which case we have bigger problems anyway.

All pyramid schemes have people pay in before they take money out. That's where the money comes from, people paying in.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

All pyramid schemes have people pay in before they take money out. That's where the money comes from, people paying in.

Yes, but that does not mean that every scheme with that particular characteristic is a pyramid scheme. If you take out (on average, considering that some people die before they draw benefits and others live longer than expected) the equivalent of what you put in, it does not require perpetual growth.

Properly managed, the scheme is continuously analyzed from an actuarial perspective to balance projected income and benefits, with adjustments to either as necessary to keep in balance. This is based on acceptable assumptions and actual experience. This is just like private pension plans. The only difference is that with private pensions, the employer itself funds the benefits in advance (sometimes with partial contribution from plan participants).

As we've seen, mismanagement of these schemes is not unique to government. There have been many cases of pension mismanagement by greedy, clueless, or desperate companies.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

President Reagan wasn't perfect.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The new government report says that Social Security will be broke within as few as two years. (So much for the "fix" back in the 1980s - President Reagan wasn't perfect.)

This is a total fabrication. The SS system will not be "broke" in anywhere near 2 years. The system is scheduled to pay full benefits for the next 28 years if absolutely nothing is changed, and even then, it won't be "broke", it'll pay 75% benefits instead of 100% for the next 50 years after that.

And that's if we do absolutely nothing whatsoever. Some minor adjustments, similar to what Reagan & Tip O'Neill worked out back in the 80s, and the system will work fine for a very long time - as long as avoid politicians raiding the SS fund as Bush II did.

Whoever told you that Social Security will be broke anytime soon is either highly misinformed, or a liar.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday. Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.

The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.

Great, it won't go broke in 2 years.

But it will go broke sooner than a lot of people currently paying into it will ever see any return.

Now I realize, in Government Solution to Everything Land, that's called: a success.

Meanwhile back in reality... I'll take my private retirement savings, and stock earnings any freakin' day of the week.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

This is a total fabrication. The SS system will not be "broke" in anywhere near 2 years. The system is scheduled to pay full benefits for the next 28 years if absolutely nothing is changed, and even then, it won't be "broke", it'll pay 75% benefits instead of 100% for the next 50 years after that.

And that's if we do absolutely nothing whatsoever. Some minor adjustments, similar to what Reagan & Tip O'Neill worked out back in the 80s, and the system will work fine for a very long time - as long as avoid politicians raiding the SS fund as Bush II did.

Whoever told you that Social Security will be broke anytime soon is either highly misinformed, or a liar.

You're somewhat right, and the headlines I went with were wrong. According to a Republican Congressman, the system will start running deficits within two years, something we've known is coming for quite some time. That means Congress won't be able to raid it as easily, which also just means in turn that we'll just be racking up that much more in deficit spending.

Sure, Socialist Insecurity and Medicrap can continue paying out benefits indefinitely. The feds could hand out one hundred thousand dollar Obama Fun Notes as a grand stimulus. But the fact is that under the current spending plan we're going to run multi-trillion deficits every year until the whole economy collapses. Do you know anything about the debt service that's projected on Obama's trillions of planned deficits, Gee-Man? Did you know that under the current optimistic forecasts (that were just revised by 2 trillion in higher deficit spending over the weekend) we're going to be paying $800 billion a year in interest on the national debt alone? Are you prepared to shut your eyes to looming national bankruptcy and the destruction of the dollar?

[besson3c]

Guys, why do you insist on bludgeoning with your daily diatribes? Do you think you have not made it abundantly clear that you despise "Medicrap" and "Socialist Insecurity" to the extent in which you do? We get it, really!

I'm just trying to have a damn conversation, why do you have to be so freaking confrontational all the time? Control yourselves, please... Some of us would really appreciate a more civil conversation.

[CreepDogg]

If people don't even think SS should exist in the first place, you're going to have an awfully hard time having a civil conversation about its merits, particularly if you're monday morning quarterbacking on past decisions made (or, as the case is here, not made).

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Guys, why do you insist on bludgeoning with your daily diatribes? Do you think you have not made it abundantly clear that you despise "Medicrap" and "Socialist Insecurity" to the extent in which you do? We get it, really!

I'm waiting for Medicarp.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Guys, why do you insist on bludgeoning with your daily diatribes? Do you think you have not made it abundantly clear that you despise "Medicrap" and "Socialist Insecurity" to the extent in which you do? We get it, really!

I'm just trying to have a damn conversation, why do you have to be so freaking confrontational all the time? Control yourselves, please... Some of us would really appreciate a more civil conversation.

I hate the Entitlements, what else can I say. I hate the way they're destroying the greatest country on earth and eliminating our liberty. It seems to me that by the time common person on the street realizes there's a problem, it will be far too late to fix the cancer that the Socialists (namely FDR and LBJ at the executive level) cursed us with. I'll try to refrain from the qualifiers since they bother you, though.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: I honestly don't mind your viewpoints, really and sincerely. It's just the repetitiveness of them and their awful presentation. How can one have a civil conversation about something when you launch into that? The option is either to whack back at you or ignore, and I'm getting tired of ignoring because this happens so frequently.

There are lots of uncertainties in this world, but if there ever was anything that was certain since the dawn of mankind it is your dislike of the left and entitlements. We really do get it, you have been undeniable successful at making your opinions well known.

[besson3c]

Was Ackbar a carp?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Was Ackbar a carp?

Some sort of aquatic creature, anyway.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Great, it won't go broke in 2 years.

But it will go broke sooner than a lot of people currently paying into it will ever see any return.

No, that's not true either. Nobody's estimates go out far enough to figure if it'll "go broke", but we do know for certain that if absolutely nothing is done, benefits will be significantly reduced 78 years from now. That means today's 20-somethings will be in their 90s and 100s.

And that's still paying out the majority of benefits. And only if we do absolutely nothing for nearly 80 years, which is just comical to assume. Still nowhere near close to the apocalypse you are trying to claim will happen.

Now I realize, in Government Solution to Everything Land, that's called: a success.

Well, there is no "Government Solution to Everything Land", just people who like smart solutions to specific problems. Not all problems, just specific ones. Namely, how to establish a successful safety net for all Americans once they retire. Given that SS has already been around for nearly 75 years, and required only one relatively minor adjustment to keep it going for another 75 years, I'd say 150 years of SS, with few adjustments along the way, counts as an unqualified success.

We get it - you have a core philosophical problem with SS, of using taxpayer money to fund a universal safety net for retirees. Fine. That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. But don't try to convince us that a 100-year self-sustaining government program is somehow a massive failure, and expect to not get laughed at. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a failure.

Meanwhile back in reality... I'll take my private retirement savings, and stock earnings any freakin' day of the week.

I plan to have my private savings, 401k, stock earnings, and of course Social Security when I retire. These things are not mutually exclusive in any way whatsoever.

You guys don't seem to understand that Social Security is a safety net. It is there for everyone as a backup if something bad happens to them in their retirement years, so they don't end up losing all sources of income.

It is not, and never has been, designed to replace all other pensions, 401k's, and other retirement plans. Pitting it against savings or personal investments is useless straw-manning. That's like saying all public transportation should be eliminated, just because you happen to own a car.

From the Social Security FAQ:

Q: Should I count on Social Security for all my retirement income?
A: No. Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of income in retirement. It is often said that a comfortable retirement is based on a "three-legged stool" of Social Security, pensions, and savings. American workers should be saving for their retirement on a personal basis and through employer-sponsored or other retirement plans.

SS is a successful safety net. It needs some tinkering to keep it going, adjusting for an aging population and various other factors, but it is not, and never has been, anything like a "pyramid scheme".

[besson3c]

Gee-Man: where do you think we would be now if it were privatized?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

No, that's not true either. Nobody's estimates go out far enough to figure if it'll "go broke"

"Broke" means this:
"Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported."

That's as you said, 28 years. So then the benefits will be reduced as you say, to 75%- but that will have to be paid for directly by raising taxes and borrowing more money. The whole system is built on a foundation of worthless promises that have no real value.

Now, as I said, for the government, that's a glowing success. In any other walk of life, that's called exactly what I called it: "Broke."

Namely, how to establish a successful safety net for all Americans once they retire.

That was never a legitimate role of government.

But don't try to convince us that a 100-year self-sustaining government program is somehow a massive failure, and expect to not get laughed at. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a failure.

Relax, as I said, for the government to have a program that it projects will blow through all its cash and then cost more than it takes in by 2016, and completely depleted by 2037- this IS a success by government standards. Not in real world solutiuon standards, but by government standards. Haven't you ever heard the old phrase, "Good enough for government work." ?

The Soc. Sec system and Medicare are exactly that. Congrats.

You guys don't seem to understand that Social Security is a safety net. It is there for everyone as a backup if something bad happens to them in their retirement years, so they don't end up losing all sources of income.

That'd be fine, except too many people think it's a retirement plan. Besson3c just got through saying "Perhaps it's just an unwillingness to accept the reality that no matter how much people *should* pay their own way, it just ain't going to happen. What do we do about it?"


Personally I'm not saying let's get rid of Soc. Security, or even Medicare. I'd like to see both reformed. In fact, I've said over and over again, I'd like to see both reformed (for REAL, not will bullcrap) RIGHT NOW, TODAY, THIS INSTANT, with all the little govt. busybody bureaucrats working on it day and night until it is reformed... BEFORE we allow the government to bite off another big chunk it also can't chew.

Isn't government supposed to be so expert at reforming things? Well, let's let them get to it- starting with what's already on their plate. If it takes years- fine. Chances are an actual working solution isn't something to be crapped out overnight in a multi-thousand page bill no one has actually read, but something that is well thought out.

It is not, and never has been, designed to replace all other pensions, 401k's, and other retirement plans. Pitting it against savings or personal investments is useless straw-manning.

As usual, you're simply running with a misunderstanding. No one in their right mind thinks Soc. Security is an adequate replacement for savings or personal investments- but then, that's exactly the point. If those things are actually more intelligent than relying on Soc. Security, then why wouldn't you choose a more intelligent investment vehicle for Soc. Security itself? Basically the whole "point" of this thread was to poo-poo the idea of privatizing the earnings vehicle for Soc. Security- but by all accounts, even the SLIGHTEST, MOST MINISCULE, FRACTION of a return on investment in the worst dogshit investment vehicle ever concieved, would be better than the alternative which is that there simply IS NO INVESTMENT VEHICLE AT ALL. It's all merely money that will be going out the door as fast as it comes in, with ZERO return, and the actual pool of money depleted (oh, but don't call it 'broke') in 28 years.

You'd be hard pressed to find a private sector investment vehicle that couldn't beat that dismal track record in 28 years. You'd actually have to work at it- like investing in spaghetti farms or something.

So your side of the argument is a tad schitzo: on the one hand you're saying: "Oh posh! Everyone knows you don't just rely on Soc. Security! That'd be silly! Private investing and saving is what you should do, with Soc. Sec. as just a fallback."

Okay.

But then it's "Wouldn't it be silly to have to rely on some of the SAME investment vehicles for Soc. Sec. that we're all RELYING on with our personal retirements and investments? Sooo silly!!"

Really? Why is a system that's virtually guaranteed to make NO RETURN what-so-ever and rely mainly on taxes and borrowing to stay afloat so much better than relying on more of the same thing that even you say we're all supposed to rely on in the first place?

Having seen the return on my own investments over the years- even with hits due to the down-times (and made up for greatly by increased purchases that I wouldn't have made if the market had been in great shape- I made a small fortune after the downturn of 2001 alone, and currently am in 'buy' mode while things are once again cheap) it's pretty hard for me to go "Oh yeah, something similar done with a gigantic S-load of money that people are collectively thinking of as some sort of retirement account would just be sooooooooooooooooo silly in comparison to the dismal projections of Soc. Security coming from the government itself!"

[Big Mac]

Well said as usual, CH.

Btw, besson, there are examples of pooled privatized retirement systems in the United States. Public employees get to opt out of what everyone else is forced into. There was one particular community that got to opt out and fund their own plan, and then a law was made to prevent anyone else from doing that. Those systems work. They're real retirement systems that provide account holders with real returns. Social Security is a farce.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Those systems work. They're real retirement systems that provide account holders with real returns.

...until the market tanks 50%.

Look, this is just a disagreement about risk vs. reward. Saying to yourself, "I can tolerate massive swings in the value of my portfolio over a 30-40 year period" is fine, because you're not going to be tapping it immediately, but if the aim of Social Security is to provide people with a stable fixed income now then massive swings in the SS portfolio is a bad idea. The problem is that Social Security needs to maintain a stable value now and outsized returns in the future, which is not usually a realistic scenario.

[olePigeon]

I wouldn't mind if they made social security optional. Don't take it away from everyone, but don't make it mandatory.

[ebuddy]

I'd like to know how the government can expect to sustain current levels of spending and resolve the Social Security insolvency problem by 2017 and the fund for hospital bills in the Medicare program projected to dry up by 2019 without turning on the printing press. Even more ironic is how we're talking about "modest cuts" when in reality Medicare faces cuts in benefits THIS YEAR. (i.e. no COLA increase)

Knowing that our economy is being compared to the Great Depression, writing an increasing number of IOUs to China and having witnessed both 9-11 and Katrina in our lifetimes; how is it sensible to mention how much time we have to fix these national programs? (as if we can afford to wait another 30 years before acting on these failed government experiments) How is it not laughable to assume we'd have the only resource available to fix the programs when the only thing we've got is a printing press? We'd have no choice, but to drive the forces of inflation. Folks, we gotta pull our heads out of our partisan rear ends and realize that we are on very shaky ground financially.

This thread is attempting to illustrate how absurd it would be to advocate the privatization of these programs by citing a broken market. A market that has been tweaked to death by the Federal government. IMO, you can't really cite the failure of the free market without acknowledging the incredible contribution of the government. Not with a straight face anyway.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I'm not sure I understand your main point... That government should have provided better regulation of the market to prevent its collapse?

[kylef]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Folks, we gotta pull our heads out of our partisan rear ends and realize that we are on very shaky ground financially.

The great thing about being on shaky ground is that an earthquake is unlikely to hit again in the near future. If anything, over the next few years it will be the most stable ground we'll have seen in a long time. And it's going to kill the lower class, who can't afford a mortgage. That's more debt and more government spending vs. slow growth.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

...until the market tanks 50%.

Look, this is just a disagreement about risk vs. reward. Saying to yourself, "I can tolerate massive swings in the value of my portfolio over a 30-40 year period" is fine, because you're not going to be tapping it immediately, but if the aim of Social Security is to provide people with a stable fixed income now then massive swings in the SS portfolio is a bad idea. The problem is that Social Security needs to maintain a stable value now and outsized returns in the future, which is not usually a realistic scenario.

Once again you're using the classic, typical, dishonest Democratic straw man used to thwart true Social Security reform. Reform does not necessarily mean exposing retirement funds to market risk. Very safe, conservative investment options could be offered, including the option to be only invested in government backed, very low yield securities. But you apparently just want the status quo, which is utterly broken and going bust based on demographics and the ability of Congress to raid the system when its running a surplus so that they can cover up the full extent of government deficit spending. You libs fear monger much worse when it comes to Social Security reform (including scaring seniors by saying Republicans want to abolish the system) than anything Republicans are doing in response to Obama's health care initiatives.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Once again you're using the classic, typical, dishonest Democratic straw man used to thwart true Social Security reform. Reform does not necessarily mean exposing retirement funds to market risk. Very safe, conservative investment options could be offered, including the option to be only invested in government backed, very low yield securities. But you apparently just want the status quo, which is utterly broken and going bust based on demographics and the ability of Congress to raid the system when its running a surplus so that they can cover up the full extent of government deficit spending. You libs fear monger much worse when it comes to Social Security reform (including scaring seniors by saying Republicans want to abolish the system) than anything Republicans are doing in response to Obama's health care initiatives.

You said "real returns," by which I assume you meant that the returns need to significantly outpace inflation. It's hard to do that year after year after year without taking on market risk.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You said "real returns," by which I assume you meant that the returns need to significantly outpace inflation. It's hard to do that year after year after year without taking on market risk.

Welcome to the dark side?