You're new here...otherwise you wouldn't have to ask that question... :p These guys have MM sheets and drapes in their bedrooms... :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy
You're new here...otherwise you wouldn't have to ask that question... :p These guys have MM sheets and drapes in their bedrooms... :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy
You have the right to use your money as you see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy
However, in the interests of our country people need to provide for their retirement. Why? Because otherwise millions of elderly would be homeless and sick. Crime and disease would be rampant.
Since no one knows how long they will live and given the average earnings of people in this country it is impossible for individuals to provide for their own retirement.
Why? Say you save 100,000 for retirement. At age 67 you retire. How much can you take out a year? If your average life expectancy is 10 more years than its 10,000 a year. What if you live longer than average? HALF the people do. You will have no money to live. You will be burden on society and cause the disruptions I mentioned previously.(the 100,000 is way low but I could have picked any number. I just picked one easily dividable by 10)(and yes if you have 10 million in your retirement account then you can reasonably be expected to not need any SS)
That is why the government started a plan to provide a MINIMUM income for seniors with the idea that individuals would save the additional money to live in the type of retirement lifestyle they wanted.
As to the title of this thread the quotes are from President Bush. Since they contain so many outright statements of fact that are not true they are either lies or stupidity. Is there any other option?
Dude, techs, the guy shows himself rather plain in his post. It is full of nothing but I and me. Living in a society, understanding it beyond the point of what can I get, is beyond the thinking capacity of people such as this. Thank god there are people like us in the world to keep some balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Balance...yeah...that's what I'd call it...:grin:
You are a facist baby killer :flame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
I only kill what I can eat... :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Statements are open to interpretations, and I am sure you pull your quotes form sites like moveon.org...(which always manage to misquote, quite well if I might add)
..As far as people being unable to provide for themselves, and the "rampant disease" crap, you are failing to take several things into consideration.
#1 It would not be mandatory for people to invest their money in private institutions (libs fail to mention that the privatization plan is not mandatory)
#2. If people are that bad at managing their money in the first place it is more than likely that SSI is going to help them much anyways, as they will still be running around screaming for goverment help whether they have SSI or not.
#3. If people were aware that they were responsible, or had the opportunity to be responsible it is more likely than not that people WOULD take the initiative to manage their own accounts.
As I said before, though, libs seem to have the idea that people are too stupid to manage their own money & that they must have the goverment do it for them. There is nothing like being babysat when you are 50 because ppl in the goverment thing you are not mature enough to manage your financial security.
Besides, libs want to raise taxes on us so we can provide for those poor ppl that can't manage to keep themselves above water, anyways. So if my taxes are going to pay for those ppl, so they can sustain their lifestyle, I'll be damned if I want the goverment managing my retirement fund (which really isn't a retirement fund)
I am only 24, but I have the sense to put back a litle each month in order to make sure that I am not a welfare retiree...I'm sure that blows a libs mind, knowing that some ppl are actually capable of saving for themselves, instead of vhaving the goverment do it for them...
From SolApathy:
#1 It would not be mandatory for people to invest their money in private institutions (libs fail to mention that the privatization plan is not mandatory)
Outside of private institutions there is only government institutions like t-bills. Which the govt is already investing in. Since the only way this Bush plan makes sense (or at least how they justifiy it) is that to still get an amount equal to what SS would pay and to make up for the SS deficit they would HAVE to get a return greater than t-bills. Otherwise it is a benefits cut.
#2. If people are that bad at managing their money in the first place it is more than likely that SSI is going to help them much anyways, as they will still be running around screaming for goverment help whether they have SSI or not.
I think you mean SSA instead of SSI (which is another program). SSA is the Social Security retirement plan (which will henceforth refer to as SS). SS provides a retirement benefit regardless of how badly you handle your money because it is invested in the what is considered world wide to be the safest from of investment-US t-bills. And the purpose of SS is to provide a MINIMUM retirement stipend to prevent massive amounts of destitute seniors. And despite this tens of millions save not one penny towards their retirement. Due to SS tens of millions of people who already have mismanaged their money, or thu no fault of their own have no private retirement to live out their lives with a roof over their head and food in tummies.
3. If people were aware that they were responsible, or had the opportunity to be responsible it is more likely than not that people WOULD take the initiative to manage their own accounts.
People have had the opportunity to set up retirement funds for years. See above. And most have nothing or next to nothing saved. And quite frankly most people don't have any idea what a P/E is or what are the different types of stocks etc. Anyway you slice it there will be tens of millions whose investments fall way behind. Plus the people who live longer than average will all have run out of money.
I understand your premise but it it isn't supported by what people have already done and pre-supposes that tens of millions are capable of managing their retirement funds. Just look at the large companies that have messed up their plans. Plus nothing in your premise makes any mention of how to manage a fixed amount of retirement money spread out over a variable retirement time period.
Personally, I don't count on SS as my full retirement income. The government has provided for ways for me to put some of my income in tax deferred accounts that I currently manage to supplement my retirement income. I have a sibling with an MBA in Finance who has done very well with my money in the stock market. Getting out before the Bush recession and getting back in after the mild recovery. It could have been the other way around and for many it was.
Until you make people responsible for their own future you will continue to force people to be dependent on the goverment for everything.
SSA was never meant as a permanent solution. It was a temporary measure to assist people after the depression. Unfortunately the program continued on and people became dependant on it.
SSA is a drug that the american people need to be weaned off of.
We need less dependence on the goverment within our personal lives. It should be each persons responsibility to provide for their own retirement without the intereference of the goverment.
Just because some people are not disiplined enough to manage their own money, does not mean they need a babysitter.
Perhaps it would be a painful transition at first, but in time people would realize, that unless they had a serious medical condition that inhibited them from sasving money to take care of their personal finances & maintain a retirement fund, they would be required to provide for themselves.
THe goverment, in my opinion should not be involved in managing my personal finances unless I want them involved.
In bold, two mistakes. First of all, it wasn't Bush's recession, we've covered this a MILLION times here, the recession was a result of an out of control economy, the Dot Com bust, the financial pinch of 911 fallout, and the massive corporate scandals, Enron like collapses. Add to the mix shipping of jobs overseas, innovations in all technologies to where less people can do the same job it took many only a few years ago. Most if not all of this occurred or began at the end of Clinton's Error (or is that Era... :p).Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
The recovery has been steady building, mild is an understatement. The recovery has occurred in a very short time period considering all that we have overcome…less time then the recession took, and we are still building. No credit from you for Bush on that one, right, it's just coincidence... :thumbs:
It's amazing how people seem to forget that the ecomomy was already in a recession prior to Mr. Bush taking office, a recession that was quickly amplified by the attacks on September 11th, as well as the other points the previous poster presented. None of which where within Mr. Bush's capability to prevent.
It really is cute how you slide your mis-information into your posts...Perhaps you should look for a job at CBS, I do believe they are hiring.
VP Cheney's comments on Social Security reform.
from bugmenot (just in case):
[email protected]
spumco
Hey Sol, you are still only concerned with yourself, there are other people in this country.
OK, then in the interests of the "Cleetus/techs fairness doctrine" :p , let's do it this way:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Let thse who want to invest in themselves do so.
Let those who want to support everyone else do so.
Why is it when someone wants to take personal responsibility, or wants to rely less on the government, that they are considered selfish, or greedy, with no regard to others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
So just because I want to keep more of my earned income, not just in my pocket, but away from the government, that automatically means I don't want to help others? Not the case. Not at all. But I understand that's the easiest argument to make.
On another note. 14% of my $70+k/yr and my wife's 80+k/yr, is quite a chunk of change, of which, if I'm lucky, I'll see 2% of that. Whereas, if I had that 14% in my pocket, I could invest HALF of it, get a better return and still have 7% to give to charities and whatnot.
But, that's just me. Maybe I'm just part of the "evil rich".