Obama's economic plan - Soak The Rich

[BeAChooser]

I don't know that anyone has said it's an "investment".

Well it needs to be. And if you don't see that then your understanding of basic economics is minimal at best.

It's a safety net for those who weren't/aren't able to save for a retirement (their own fault or not).

That's not the way it was originally sold to those who had to contribute. Just ask your grandpa.

While it's inherently inefficient, it's what we have.

That's putting it mildly. If private insurance companies were that inefficient, they'd ALL be out of business. If they didn't invest, they'd ALL be out of business. And SS doesn't have to be the way it currently is ... I'm not so fatalistic ... or a democrat. The fix is easy. Just force folks to put some portion of their contributions into investment vehicles like the S&P 500 that they can't pull money out of except at retirement or death. Start weaning the baby from the bottle. Before it's simply to late to fix at all.

You can whine about how you could better invest your money, but you can't invest that 12%. It's a pay as you go system.

Then its nothing but a welfare program ... one that the public doesn't even have control of any more. So call it that and quite hiding the fact from the American public. Right now, it's taking 12 percent of everything you make. How will you feel when it's taking 20%? Or 30%? Because that's where things are headed.

It's a sad fact of life that you usually make the bed you must sleep in during one's life. If you are going to ROB ME of significant amounts of my assets to give people that REFUSED to plan for the future and wasted money hand and foot on things like lottery tickets, then you can count me out of supporting that program as long as you continue to allow those people to not plan for retirement and continue wasting money on things like lottery tickets and in casinos. What you are creating is nanny state where people won't have to be responsible for anything ... for any bad decision they make. And in the long run, that will destroy the very fiber of this nation. The only people getting rich off the social security system are the politicians and SSA employees. Everyone else is in the long run being hurt.

It's a political reality.

It doesn't have to be.

 

[BeAChooser]

Wankery from BAC.

You know, it's a waste of time debating you. So I won't.

 

[Pookster]

... When the first line of the SSA site says "A secure, comfortable retirement is every worker's dream", the government is selling it as an investment system. Therefore, my concern is not a strawman. By taking SS from me when I could invest it much better, the government is actually making it harder for me to have a "secure, comfortable retirement".

Those seem to be your words. It is a strawman. Here's the full quote from the page you quoted from ...

A secure, comfortable retirement is every worker's dream. And now because we're living longer, healthier lives, we can expect to spend more time in retirement than our parents and grandparents did. Achieving the dream of a secure, comfortable retirement is much easier when you plan your finances.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/

It's from the retirement planner page.

The SSA website clearly describes it as "retirement insurance". This is not the same as you want to seem to portray it as by calling it an "investment system".

 

[Pookster]

Well it needs to be. And if you don't see that then your understanding of basic economics is minimal at best.

This is your strawman. You can beat it to death all you want.

That's putting it mildly. If private insurance companies were that inefficient, they'd ALL be out of business. If they didn't invest, they'd ALL be out of business. And SS doesn't have to be the way it currently is ... I'm not so fatalistic ... or a democrat. The fix is easy. Just force folks to put some portion of their contributions into investment vehicles like the S&P 500 that they can't pull money out of except at retirement or death. Start weaning the baby from the bottle. Before it's simply to late to fix at all.

Sounds fine and dandy. But how do you pay for current and near-future retirees? They aren't going away anytime soon. Remember, this is a pay as you go system.

It's a sad fact of life that you usually make the bed you must sleep in during one's life. If you are going to ROB ME of significant amounts of my assets to give people that REFUSED to plan for the future and wasted money hand and foot on things like lottery tickets, then you can count me out of supporting that program as long as you continue to allow those people to not plan for retirement and continue wasting money on things like lottery tickets and in casinos. What you are creating is nanny state where people won't have to be responsible for anything ... for any bad decision they make. And in the long run, that will destroy the very fiber of this nation. The only people getting rich off the social security system are the politicians and SSA employees. Everyone else is in the long run being hurt.

Sorry, but the sad fact of life is the political reality we all have to live within. Whining about it like you are is just silly. The potential problem with social security may not even come to pass. Unless you're willing to pony up a replacement that doesn't hurt people that are already too dependent on the social security being there when they retire, then your whining is far from being productive.

It doesn't have to be.

But it is. Whining about it won't change it either.

 

[BeAChooser]

Achieving the dream of a secure, comfortable retirement is much easier when you plan your finances.

Don't you see the irony in the SSA website saying you should "plan your finances"? That implies you are investing ... not buying insurance.

The SSA website clearly describes it as "retirement insurance".

Let's take a look at some big "insurance" companies and see what they say about retirement plans.

http://www.transamerica.com/portal/about_us/default.asp "The companies of Transamerica offer a wide array of innovative financial services and products with a common purpose. Regardless of the distribution method, our mission is to help individuals, families, and businesses build, protect, and preserve their hard-earned assets."

http://www.prudential.com/view/page/12629?seg=7&name=productssolutions "We all need to save for retirement—that's a given. But the investment vehicles you choose should be tailored to match the retirement plans you've made. A retirement strategy represents a lifetime of work—and a lifetime of saving."

I have news for you. They ALL talk about "investment" when discussing retirement. So why is that word so terrifying to democrats?

 

[Fiona]

It is not terrifying: it is just wrong. It is a pay as you go system.

 

[Pookster]

Don't you see the irony in the SSA website saying you should "plan your finances"? That implies you are investing ... not buying insurance.

No, I don't see any irony. But, I do see cherry picking on your part. I also see you as being rather persistent with building this strawman. But a strawman it still is.

Let's take a look at some big "insurance" companies and see what they say about retirement plans. ...

... I have news for you. They ALL talk about "investment" when discussing retirement. ...

Sure they do. But the SSA site talks about retirement insurance. Quoting what other sites describe as their services is just silly.

 

[BeAChooser]

Sounds fine and dandy. But how do you pay for current and near-future retirees? They aren't going away anytime soon. Remember, this is a pay as you go system.

If that's true, then why does the SSA claim to have trust funds with over 2 trillion dollars in them? http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html Why don't they invest those assets in something that will do as well as the S&P 500? Why don't while they draw that trust fund down, allow (force) new subscribers to put their assets into assets like the S&P 500 so that we can eventually get out of the mess we are in?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
It's a sad fact of life that you usually make the bed you must sleep in during one's life. If you are going to ROB ME of significant amounts of my assets to give people that REFUSED to plan for the future and wasted money hand and foot on things like lottery tickets, then you can count me out of supporting that program as long as you continue to allow those people to not plan for retirement and continue wasting money on things like lottery tickets and in casinos. What you are creating is nanny state where people won't have to be responsible for anything ... for any bad decision they make. And in the long run, that will destroy the very fiber of this nation. The only people getting rich off the social security system are the politicians and SSA employees. Everyone else is in the long run being hurt.

Sorry, but the sad fact of life is the political reality we all have to live within. Whining about it like you are is just silly. The potential problem with social security may not even come to pass. Unless you're willing to pony up a replacement that doesn't hurt people that are already too dependent on the social security being there when they retire, then your whining is far from being productive.

I'll stand by my comments. You can stand by yours. And I think you are the one who is really whining. I just want some sound fiscal policy FOR ONCE. But I'm not holding my breath. I fully expect some posters on this thread to come to people like me later on with hands out whining about how unfair life was to them.

 

[BeAChooser]

But the SSA site talks about retirement insurance. Quoting what other sites describe as their services is just silly.

The government FORCES you to "buy" that SS "insurance". If you don't, you go to jail. Then they don't invest it wisely. The other companies don't force you to buy their retirement "insurance". They have to perform well to encourage you to buy their products. Unlike the private companies (and those companies in the S&P 500), the government is under no contraints to limit mismanagement. So it doesn't. As a result, the potential value of the contributions you put into the system are squandered. And liberals call that a good thing. They tell you that's just the way it is so accept it. That's always been the problem with liberals. They are unable to see the consequences of their own foolish actions. But they sure can find fault with others.

 

[Pookster]

If that's true, then why does the SSA claim to have trust funds with over 2 trillion dollars in them? http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html Why don't they invest those assets in something that will do as well as the S&P 500? Why don't while they draw that trust fund down, allow (force) new subscribers to put their assets into assets like the S&P 500 so that we can eventually get out of the mess we are in?

The trust fund holds the surplus that was built into social security during the 80's because of the concern over the looming baby boomer retirement. The money will be spent in the near future on those baby boomers. The number of contributers weren't going to be able to pay for the increase in baby boomer retirees as they retire. Therefore, the adjustments to get us over the hump was made.

Again, this is a pay as you go system. Current contributions will go toward paying current retirees. It's been this way since almost the very beginning.

I'll stand by my comments. You can stand by yours. And I think you are the one who is really whining. I just want some sound fiscal policy FOR ONCE. But I'm not holding my breath. I fully expect some posters on this thread to come to people like me later on with hands out whining about how unfair life was to them.

You want sound fiscal policy but offer no viable solutions. Well, you're the helpful one. You do make pretty strawmen though. I'm just pointing out political reality. If that means I'm whining, then so be it.

 

[Kestrel]

Sorry, but the sad fact of life is the political reality we all have to live within. Whining about it like you are is just silly. The potential problem with social security may not even come to pass. Unless you're willing to pony up a replacement that doesn't hurt people that are already too dependent on the social security being there when they retire, then your whining is far from being productive.

Social Security is run like an insurance system. It's more than just a retirement plan, it also provides benefits for disability and dependents.

The people who are drawing money from the system today paid for their benefits with payroll deductions. They are not robbing anyone any more than someone who submits an insurance claim after taking a loss. Calling them robbers, or welfare bums as is often done is dishonest in the extreme.

 

[Pookster]

The government FORCES you to "buy" that SS "insurance". If you don't, you go to jail. Then they don't invest it wisely. The other companies don't force you to buy their retirement "insurance". They have to perform well to encourage you to buy their products. Unlike the private companies (and those companies in the S&P 500), the government is under no contraints to limit mismanagement. So it doesn't. As a result, the potential value of the contributions you put into the system are squandered. And liberals call that a good thing. They tell you that's just the way it is so accept it. That's always been the problem with liberals. They are unable to see the consequences of their own foolish actions. But they sure can find fault with others.

All I see here is more whining and useless political rhetoric.

Look ... do you have a solution that doesn't leave current and near retirees out in the cold? If so, describe it. How do you pay for current and near-future retirees already too far committed to social security being there while at the same time doing away with social security withholdings for younger workers and letting them invest in their own retirement?

 

[Pookster]

Social Security is run like an insurance system. It's more than just a retirement plan, it also provides benefits for disability and dependents.

True. The focus of the discussion seemed to be more about retirement benefits though.

The people who are drawing money from the system today paid for their benefits with payroll deductions. They are not robbing anyone any more than someone who submits an insurance claim after taking a loss. Calling them robbers, or welfare bums as is often done is dishonest in the extreme.

I'm not claiming anyone is robbing anyone else. I'm not calling them welfare bums either. I'm not really sure why you're directing this toward me. People paid their dues and are owed what they paid for -- retirement or disability benefits. If I'd never married or have kids and die before I can retire, then I get nothing. It's clearly an insurance system. I think we're in agreement on this though.

 

[Kestrel]

True. The focus of the discussion seemed to be more about retirement benefits though.

Just pointing out that when comparing benefits, one must take all that Social Security offers into account.

I'm not claiming anyone is robbing anyone else. I'm not calling them welfare bums either. I'm not really sure why you're directing this toward me. People paid their dues and are owed what they paid for -- retirement or disability benefits. If I'd never married or have kids and die before I can retire, then I get nothing. It's clearly an insurance system. I think we're in agreement on this though.

Sorry about that, I didn't intend to imply that you were the one saying such things. My comments were intended to support of what you had been saying.

 

[gdnp]

Don't you see the irony in the SSA website saying you should "plan your finances"? That implies you are investing ... not buying insurance.

It implies nothing of the sort. It implies that you should "plan your finances." A life insurance company might tell you that you should "plan your finances" even if it were selling you term life insurance, which provides no income to you, only to your estate.

Expanding on the quote Pookster posted:

A secure, comfortable retirement is every worker's dream. And now because we're living longer, healthier lives, we can expect to spend more time in retirement than our parents and grandparents did. Achieving the dream of a secure, comfortable retirement is much easier when you plan your finances.
How the Social Security Retirement Planner can help you now

This planner provides detailed information about your Social Security retirement benefits under current law and points out things you may want to consider as you prepare for the future.

Now gee, why would the SSA put this on a retirement page? Could it be that people trying to plan their retirement might want to know what benefits they will be eligible for if they retire at different ages? So that they can combine this information with other information on their savings, assets, and debts, and expenses so that they can decide when to retire?

Social security is not an investment. If you die before you retire and have no dependents, your heirs collect nothing for all you paid in. If you retire at 65 and live to 115 you will continue to collect until you die: the benefit will never run out. It is an insurance system that provides a certain, minimal benefit so people don't starve. That is what it was designed to do.

The government has several tax deferred retirement investment plans: 401k's, 403b's, IRAs, Roth IRAs, etc. Social security is not one of them.

 

[Meadmaker]

Then its nothing but a welfare program ...

And that's bad...because?

The idea of "welfare" is that it provided for people who, through no fault of their own, were unable to work. The word got a bad reputation because a lot of people thought that many recipients were not unable to work, but were, instead, unwilling to work. Despite that, and regardless of whether or not it was true, the basic concept is quite sound.

If you want to say that people who are able bodied despite being in their 8th decade ought to be told to get a job because us young 'uns are tired of paying for those deadbeats, you can. I wouldn't recommend using it in your political ads, though.

 

[BeAChooser]

The trust fund holds the surplus that was built into social security during the 80's because of the concern over the looming baby boomer retirement. The money will be spent in the near future on those baby boomers.

FALSE. The tables on the SSA website (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html ) clearly show that in 2007 the assets in the fund were $2 trillion dollars. Expenditures in 2007 were about 500 billion, BUT 675 billion was added to the fund that year (of which 560 billion was NEW contributions). In other words, new contributions currently cover expenditures AND THEY HAVE FOR OVER A DECADE. The 2 trillion dollars in assets is NOT money that will be spent in the next few years. In just the past 3 years, contributions have exceeded expenditures by over 60 billion a year. So at least some of those assets could safely be invested in something more wise than obviously the SS trust managers have done the last 70 years.

If you look at those tables, you will see that in 1997 the value of the trust was about 700 billion dollars. Now it is 2 trillion. But a large portion of that growth (about 600 billion) is due to surplus contributions, not interest. Now if you look at the tables, you will see that whatever vehicle the fund assets were invested in returned about 85 billion dollars on assets of 1.84 trillion dollars between 2006 and 2007. That's a return of about 4.6% per year. In that same year (2006), the S&P 500 index funds rose 15.7%. It doesn't take a genius to see what we should do. But maybe it takes someone other than a liberal.

How sad it is that if the far sighted liberals who developed this awful system originally had put the resources into the S&P 500 all along, we wouldn't have to be taking ANY money from others to pay for the "retirement" of those people. In fact, people would still probably be putting in 3% of their income each year and getting just as much out of the system.

What is amazing is that democrats with 70 years of data staring them in the face still fight tooth and nail to prevent even the tiniest fraction of the contributions from being put into the stock market. All Bush wanted to do was allow (not even force) individuals to put 4% of their contributions up to a max of $1100 dollars (which actually limited it to 1% of those earning $100,000 or more) into personal retirement accounts that could be invested in stock funds. But no, the democrats couldn't allow that.

Here's the words of their illustrious (I would say notorious) Senate leader, Nancy Pelosi regarding the suggestion that WE be allowed even the tiniest control over our own destiny:

"Democrats cannot support that tax on our children's futures."

"Democrats believe any Social Security proposal must meet three key principles: It must not add to the deficit, it must not slash benefits and it must be fair"

"We will not be a part of any effort to steal money from this system."

As anyone can see from the tables I linked above, those statements are nothing but outright distortions and lies. But then lying is a cornerstone of modern day democrat leaders. And accepting those lies is necessary to be one of the party faithful.

Again, this is a pay as you go system. Current contributions will go toward paying current retirees.

False, as I just proved.

It's been this way since almost the very beginning.

Just because it's been that way from the beginning doesn't mean we have to keep throwing good money after bad.

You want sound fiscal policy but offer no viable solutions.

Well I just offered you one. Let's see what you do with it.

 

[BeAChooser]

The people who are drawing money from the system today paid for their benefits with payroll deductions.

Are you aware that the average recipient has put in fifteen cents for every dollar he or she takes out? That fact doesn't fit with your claim. There is an obvious reason by social security taxes have risen from 3% in 1951 to 12.4% now. And it doesn't take a genious to know what that is.

 

[BeAChooser]

It is an insurance system that provides a certain, minimal benefit so people don't starve.

At the cost of 12.4 percent of most people's income because it is so badly managed. But democrats don't want to fix it because they'd rather use it as a political issue. Sad but true.

 

[gdnp]

Then its nothing but a welfare program ... one that the public doesn't even have control of any more. So call it that and quite hiding the fact from the American public. Right now, it's taking 12 percent of everything you make. How will you feel when it's taking 20%? Or 30%? Because that's where things are headed.

Oh, I had forgotten about this one. Finding a particular piece of BS in BeAChooser's posts is like trying to find an individual sheet in a roll of toilet paper. Thanks, Meadmaker.

1) it is not a welfare program. Ones retirement income is dependent on the monies one paid in over ones lifetime. Those who pay in more are entitled to larger benefits. Those who do not participate in the system are not entitled to benefits. There is some progressivity built into the system, but it is by no means a welfare program.

2) Right now, since I am not self-employed, Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program takes 6.2% of the first 102,000 I make, not 12 percent of everything I make. Or do you believe that if this tax were eliminated that the company that employs me would automatically increase my salary by the 6.2% they save?

3) You should read up on the slippery slope fallacy. The OASDI rate has been 6.2% since 1990. The fact that it could be raised in the future is irrelevant. The system currently has a surplus, and depending on economic conditions this surplus may continue even without a raise in rates or changes in retirement ages. Obama's plan does not raise the rates, just alters the income cap. If you have a credible source that predicts a future rate of 20 or 30 percent (you did say "that's where things are headed") I would like to see it.