Is President Bush the Stupidest or the most Lying President ever?

...As I will state once again I want the OPTION to invest it my own way. I do not want to be FORCED to invest in that fund. I want it to be MY decision on whether I let the goverment take a small part of my check. I do not need the goverment telling me that I WILL invest in their retirement plan whether I like it or not. It is inherently wrong.

If somone feels they want to invest it in SS they should be allowed to, but on the same not I should be allowed to invest MY money as I please. After all it is MY money, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolApathy

...As I will state once again I want the OPTION to invest it my own way. I do not want to be FORCED to invest in that fund. I want it to be MY decision on whether I let the goverment take a small part of my check. I do not need the goverment telling me that I WILL invest in their retirement plan whether I like it or not. It is inherently wrong.

If somone feels they want to invest it in SS they should be allowed to, but on the same not I should be allowed to invest MY money as I please. After all it is MY money, right?

---

I wish I had Bill Gates money.
I am certainly not going to interfere with your dreams.

So if what you say is correct, Sol, and we are paying now for the people who are retired now, if we pull out 25% of the money going in now, would we not bankrupt the system now, and screw over the elderly now, just so you can have your money locked away somewhere else now?

At the base of your logic, you have no compassion at all. You want to screw over those that paid their dues and should be getting a return on their investment into their country and receiving their benefit of being a responsible citizen that supported their government become the greatest nation ever, all in the name of your own personal pocketbook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

So if what you say is correct, Sol, and we are paying now for the people who are retired now, if we pull out 25% of the money going in now, would we not bankrupt the system now, and screw over the elderly now, just so you can have your money locked away somewhere else now?

At the base of your logic, you have no compassion at all. You want to screw over those that paid their dues and should be getting a return on their investment into their country and receiving their benefit of being a responsible citizen that supported their government become the greatest nation ever, all in the name of your own personal pocketbook.

---

The system seems screwed up then, because by you and techs reasoning, nothing can be done to improve it without breaking it.

Well we take this "lock box" :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

The system seems screwed up then, because by you and techs reasoning, nothing can be done to improve it without breaking it.

---

Yes, you can improve it without breaking it. In fact it's been done. You can do thinks like 401k's and IRA's which allow individuals to save a tax free portion of their earnings. Since SS pays a minimal amount you can save the rest of your money needed to retire in anyway you like. You can invest it in the stock market, etc. And even if it goes belly up you will still have enough not to be homeless or penniless.
You already HAVE what Bush says he is trying to give you. The right to invest for your own retirement. Except Bushes plan would put everyone at risk of going belly up. Which would be a catastrophe for the country.

btw if Bushes plan goes thru stocks will surge and I will withdraw my money in the market and make a killing. When it bottoms out I will buy back in. There is a HUGE amount of money to be made if you already have stocks. It will be a large redistribution of money from the poor to the rich. I am not going to miss out.

...Ahh so the only way to make sure it stays "fixed" (or patched up) is to make sure that I never have the option to invest any of MY money in the manner I see fit that is going into the black hole of SS...

I will be forced to help maintain the sytem & unable to make my own financial decisions because that money (which is not really my money since, if I take it out SS will be completely ruined by your estimation) pays out for the current people retiring now...

Why to I feel like I am in a boat with a huge hole in the bottom, with only a teaspoon to bail the water...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolApathy

...Ahh so the only way to make sure it stays "fixed" (or patched up) is to make sure that I never have the option to invest any of MY money in the manner I see fit that is going into the black hole of SS...

I will be forced to help maintain the sytem & unable to make my own financial decisions because that money (which is not really my money since, if I take it out SS will be completely ruined by your estimation) pays out for the current people retiring now...

Why to I feel like I am in a boat with a huge hole in the bottom, with only a teaspoon to bail the water...

---

What black hole? It is going into a system that will pay you a retirement benefit.
Feel free to invest your money. In fact invest it TAX FREE in an IRA or 401K. In fact since its tax free just think of all the poor scnooks who can't afford to pay into an IRA. They are paying more to buy you roads, defend the country, etc.
So you can't say you can't invest any of your money. Invest it ALL. Just not the SS money.

btw how many illiterates in America? Functional illiterates? Mentally ill? Do you want to have to pay for their retirements as well as your own? Thats what you will do when 20 million people are wandering the streets stealing, passing on disease, etc. because they couldn't understand the need to invest or how to invest.
Not too mention you might join them if you happen to live long enough, since you will run out of your own private retirement fund.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

What black hole? It is going into a system that will pay you a retirement benefit.
Feel free to invest your money. In fact invest it TAX FREE in an IRA or 401K. In fact since its tax free just think of all the poor scnooks who can't afford to pay into an IRA. They are paying more to buy you roads, defend the country, etc.
So you can't say you can't invest any of your money. Invest it ALL. Just not the SS money.

btw how many illiterates in America? Functional illiterates? Mentally ill? Do you want to have to pay for their retirements as well as your own? Thats what you will do when 20 million people are wandering the streets stealing, passing on disease, etc. because they couldn't understand the need to invest or how to invest.
Not too mention you might join them if you happen to live long enough, since you will run out of your own private retirement fund.

---

...I am not planning on letting my retirement run out. That is why I am investing wisely & starting out early so I have plenty of time to gain the assets I need to live comfortably when I reach the ripe age of 105. Once again I will point out that you do not read my posts. I stated very early on that I don't believe SS should be a requirement for people that are in in good mental & physical shape. If you are mentally disabled, or have a physical disability there should be safeguards in place within the system to protect them.

I should have the option fo investing all of my own money if I please.

As long as people like you keep this attitude there will continue to be preople that rely solely on the goverment. They will not invest & SS will be all they have, because they are not mature enough to manage thier money.

Until we start making people responsible this circle will continue. Bush is offering a slow opportunity to wean people off the system by allowing them the OPTION to invest. It is NOT a requirement as you seem to be pushing people to believe.



I am sure a lot of people will keep all of their money in SS, I'm just not one of them. I have earned the right to manage my own money the way I see fit. What other people chose to to is entirely up to them.


....And by the way, you seem to feel that is is somehow my resonsibility to help the illiterate people out there.

It's not. They made a choice, and continue to do so by remaining illiterate. If they don't feel they need to take the time to better themselves I feel no motivation to assist them.

and just to make it clear, I am referring to people that are in perfect mental & physical health, that just don't chose to better themselves.

Bush is offering a slow opportunity to wean people off the system by allowing them the OPTION to invest. It is NOT a requirement as you seem to be pushing people to believe.

Which immediately bankrupts the system and US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Feel free to invest your money. In fact invest it TAX FREE in an IRA or 401K. In fact since its tax free just think of all the poor scnooks who can't afford to pay into an IRA.

---

It would be better to call traditional IRAs and 401Ks tax-deferred instead of tax free. It is true that you don't pay taxes on the money you initially invest, but you do pay taxes when you withdraw from those types of accounts.

Roth IRAs would be closer to tax free in my opion becuase while you do pay taxes on the money initially invested, that money grows tax free and is not taxed when it is withdrawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RIOT

It would be better to call traditional IRAs and 401Ks tax-deferred instead of tax free. It is true that you don't pay taxes on the money you initially invest, but you do pay taxes when you withdraw from those types of accounts.

Roth IRAs would be closer to tax free in my opion becuase while you do pay taxes on the money initially invested, that money grows tax free and is not taxed when it is withdrawn.

---

Of course you're right. But I didn't want to confuse the issue. The main advantage to using an IRA and 401k tax wise is that it is assumed you will have far lower income when you retire so you would be in a lower tax bracket.

btw I have decided I shouldn't have to pay any taxes for national defense. I feel I have earned the right to defend myself. When will the government let me control MY MONEY?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Bush is offering a slow opportunity to wean people off the system by allowing them the OPTION to invest. It is NOT a requirement as you seem to be pushing people to believe.

Which immediately bankrupts the system and US.

---

If it is that bad, that pulling out only a percentage of the money (MY MONEY) that is slated for SS will immediately bankrupt the system and cause this so-called total economy mentdown, the system is apparently in pretty rough shape.

If the system has absolutely no "give" there is a more serious issue at hand that needs to be resolved, as you are stating there is no margin of flexibility within the system...


Doesn't that just scream for help?

However, I don't think this is really the case, it's just another of doom & gloom politics...GWB was electec & so the world will burn in Hell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Of course you're right. But I didn't want to confuse the issue. The main advantage to using an IRA and 401k tax wise is that it is assumed you will have far lower income when you retire so you would be in a lower tax bracket.

btw I have decided I shouldn't have to pay any taxes for national defense. I feel I have earned the right to defend myself. When will the government let me control MY MONEY?

---

...Once again you are taking things out of context... You seem to have a really bad habit regarding this.

SS is money that you have earned while working that is being placed in a retirement fund for YOU.

National defense has noting to do with this, nor is it an applicable analogy. National defense is just that, national. It is for everyone, citizens & visitors to our counrty, there to ensure that everyone is safe from harm.


You are comparing that to a fund the goverment has setup for your benifit because they feel that you, as an individual are not capable of managing your own money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolApathy

...Once again you are taking things out of context... You seem to have a really bad habit regarding this.

SS is money that you have earned while working that is being placed in a retirement fund for YOU.

National defense has noting to do with this, nor is it an applicable analogy. National defense is just that, national. It is for everyone, citizens & visitors to our counrty, there to ensure that everyone is safe from harm.


You are comparing that to a fund the goverment has setup for your benifit because they feel that you, as an individual are not capable of managing your own money.

---

Social Security it just that, national. It is for everyone, citizens and workers to our country, there to ensure that everyone is safe from harm.
In your own words.

And yes SS is there because 97 percent of Americans are not capable of providing for their own retirement as I have proven.

Quote:

---

If it is that bad, that pulling out only a percentage of the money (MY MONEY) that is slated for SS will immediately bankrupt the system and cause this so-called total economy mentdown, the system is apparently in pretty rough shape.

---

And you are confusing apples and oranges. Because of the way SS is structured if you remove the funding it is bankrupt. And if I take out my money for national defense the US is immediately bankrupt. Oh wait, we already ARE. But in a blanced budget time for the US If even one dollar that is allocated for spending is not received by the government then it is bankrupt.
So lets talk about how Bush has bankrupted the country.
Oh wait. As long as you have people to loan you money your not bankrupt. So if SS borrowed trillions to pay for seniors it wouldn't be bankrupt? You can't have it only your way.
(exception to this is because of the upcoming baby boom SS has been saving some money to tide us through that period.)

NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY AND PUT IT YOU ARE SAYING YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ELDERLY AND BROKE.
SORRY, WE WILL NOT LET YOU.

97%? You have not PROVEN anything. All you use is supposition & scare tactics. If 97% of the people in the US were too stupid to provide for their own retirement then we have an even bigger problem.

the logic behind your 97% is flawed. Calculating that only 3% can manage their budgets accordingly is just ridiculous. I am young & have limited funds, with a limited amount I can put back every month while I am juggling between school & work. I am somehow going to manage though, even with my measly $370/month I put back. (Which will increase once I actually earn my degree & am capable of putting back a little more.

But lets see...Even if I only put back $370/month @ 7% that calculates to what, 1.2 million? And this is without me calculating the additional amounts I plan on putting into the fund once I am settled in a decent job. That will place me well over 2 million. Let's see...If I live to 100 I can pull out $44,000 a year


$44k/year...

no house payment
no car payment
no kids :)


If I lived to 20 years that is what...100k/year?

I think I can manage on that.

Sweet jeebus, how many people make enough and have enough arond them to where they can put away $370 a month and think they are making limited funds and live modestly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Sweet jeebus, how many people make enough and have enough arond them to where they can put away $370 a month and think they are making limited funds and live modestly?

---

Yeah, seems strange to me too.
Of course he is talking about earning 7 percent a year. Wonder where he got that figure. And he makes no account for how much prices will be in 80 years. And that his supposed 7 percent is eaten up by inflation each year (last year 3.3 percent).
A better way to figure it is if you live retired for 33 years and want to draw out an amount equal to 40 percent of your working salary you would need to figure
it like this:

In actual numbers:

Earn 300,00 a year for 46 years.
Want to get 40 percent of that each year for 33 years of retirement?
Than you need to have saved 396,000.
That's means you must put away 12,000 of your 30,000 a year income.
Minus some monies you would gain thru interest that exceeded the cost of living increases.
So if your investments earn you 2 percent more than cost of living you only need to put 11,200 per year into your retirement.
You are way behind already.

FORGET ABOUT THE B.S. INTEREST RATES YOU ARE QUOTING.
Your savings only increase by the difference between what your investment percent pays each year and the cost of living increase.
Please tell me how much the DJIA went up this year? The last 5 years.
I will tell you that has gone DOWN since 1999 when it was about 11,000 and its about 10,500 today.

Your very lack of knowledge about the stock market and investing in general shows what will happen to people who try to do this themselves.
It is only very risky investments that increase substantially over the cost of living.
So I guess you would need to buy lots of Enron stock.
Oops. Now you're wiped out.

I don't know this so I'm going to ask...

How much interest, if any, do T-bills make a year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RIOT

I don't know this so I'm going to ask...

How much interest, if any, do T-bills make a year?

---

They vary based on how long they are for. And they are auctioned on a weekly basis. Here is a a link:

http://wwws.publicdebt.treas.gov/AI/OFBills

As you can see these max out at 182 days. Most large investors just keep rolling over their bills so for them they rate is actually variable. T-bill rates are very influenced by the Prime rate which is set by the Federal Reserve board. Since the Federal Reserve board lowered rates to an unprecendented rate to try and help the bad Bush economy that rate is very low. It is now being increased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Yeah, seems strange to me too.
Of course he is talking about earning 7 percent a year. Wonder where he got that figure. And he makes no account for how much prices will be in 80 years. And that his supposed 7 percent is eaten up by inflation each year (last year 3.3 percent).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

They vary based on how long they are for. And they are auctioned on a weekly basis. Here is a a link:

http://wwws.publicdebt.treas.gov/AI/OFBills

As you can see these max out at 182 days. Most large investors just keep rolling over their bills so for them they rate is actually variable. T-bill rates are very influenced by the Prime rate which is set by the Federal Reserve board. Since the Federal Reserve board lowered rates to an unprecendented rate to try and help the bad Bush economy that rate is very low. It is now being increased.

---

From that website, the highest Investment Rate % (which I'm assuming is how much you make in interest) was 2.708%. If inflation is around 3% (3.3% last year), aren't we losing money by putting it in SS?

I do understand that Prime is usually set much higher when the economy is exploding like it was in the mid to late 90s. Here is a website I found that lists the prime rate per year all the way back to 1949. Click on Interest Rates on the left, then click on Prime Loan Rate. How much interest did the T-bills make those years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RIOT

From that website, the highest Investment Rate % (which I'm assuming is how much you make in interest) was 2.708%. If inflation is around 3% (3.3% last year), aren't we losing money by putting it in SS?

I do understand that Prime is usually set much higher when the economy is exploding like it was in the mid to late 90s. Here is a website I found that lists the prime rate per year all the way back to 1949. Click on Interest Rates on the left, then click on Prime Loan Rate. How much interest did the T-bills make those years?

---

When you talk about "losing" money you are only talking about that relatively small amount that is being put away to pay for the baby boomers.
Here is another thing from the treasury dept:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Stephen Meyerhardt
January 14, 2005 (202) 504-3792
TREASURY CALLS 10 PERCENT BONDS OF 2005-10
The Treasury today announced the call for redemption at par on May 15, 2005, of the 10% Treasury
Bonds of 2005-10, originally issued May 15, 1980, due May 15, 2010 (CUSIP No. 912810CP1).
There are $2,987 million of these bonds outstanding, of which $1,811 million are held by private
investors. Securities not redeemed on May 15, 2005 will stop earning interest.
These bonds are being called to reduce the cost of debt financing. The 10% interest rate is significantly
above the current cost of securing financing for the five years remaining to their maturity. In current
market conditions, Treasury estimates that interest savings from the call and refinancing will be about
$500 million.

Now those people were getting 10 percent. But notice the Treasury had the right to call them in early. If inflation were 20 percent they would force the holders to keep them and LOSE money.
And yes SS was making some of that 10 percent interest. In fact It is most of the non-private monies referred to.
The financial markets and instruments are the most complicated institutions created by man. It is mind boggling.
For example, what is the DOW? When you hear it went up 2 percent last year what does it mean?
A quick fyi the dow is a select group of companies ONLY. Its not the whole market. And the DOW companies change. In fact as large companies fade they are replaced by stronger earning ones. So AT and T is gone and Wal-mart is in. So how can you actually say the DOW went up 2 percent. How does that factor in the companies that left?
My sister has an MBA in finance from Columbia University. She has spent hours trying to explain to me how even simple things work in the stock market. It is unbelievable.
Perhaps it might be best to remember the actual stock market, the company, exists as place for parties to buy and sell stock. For companies it is a place to raise money.
So the stock market itself has a huge interest in appearing to be a good investment.

Assuming inflation stays around 3%, $2,000,000 today would equal about $550,000 in 40 years using this calculator. Put 2000000 in for amount invested, 2045 for the year, 0 for the interest rate, and 3.3 for the rate of inflation.

$550,000 divided by 20 years would be $27,500 per year. This isn't bad at all considering that's almost what I currently make per year. Again with no house payment, car payment, and grown kids.

$550,000 divided by 30 years would be $18,333.33. This still isn't bad considering no house payment, car payment, and no kids.

The main problem with trying to factor in the inflation rate is that while inflation goes up, salaries go up to compensate, and therefore, savings go up to compensate. While right now SolApathy is saving $370 per month, each year when salaries and pay are adjusted to match inflation and cost of living he'll be putting more into savings because he is making more.

Now if inflation/cost of living and salaries/wages don't always stay the same is another debate that I won't go into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RIOT

Assuming inflation stays around 3%, $2,000,000 today would equal about $550,000 in 40 years using this calculator. Put 2000000 in for amount invested, 2045 for the year, 0 for the interest rate, and 3.3 for the rate of inflation.

$550,000 divided by 20 years would be $27,500 per year. This isn't bad at all considering that's almost what I currently make per year. Again with no house payment, car payment, and grown kids.

$550,000 divided by 30 years would be $18,333.33. This still isn't bad considering no house payment, car payment, and no kids.

The main problem with trying to factor in the inflation rate is that while inflation goes up, salaries go up to compensate, and therefore, savings go up to compensate. While right now SolApathy is saving $370 per month, each year when salaries and pay are adjusted to match inflation and cost of living he'll be putting more into savings because he is making more.

Now if inflation/cost of living and salaries/wages don't always stay the same is another debate that I won't go into.

---

Actually you proved my point. You didn't have the 55,000 to invest all at once. Your last savings only had one year to accrue interest. While your first years savings, which were lowest as a 21 year old, did. And with the power of compound interest removed for a large portion. So 18,000 is more like 10,000.
And it comes with risk.

And if you are trying to say if you have 55,000 dollars today you will have enough to retire on 45 years from now, well that's just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

When you talk about "losing" money you are only talking about that relatively small amount that is being put away to pay for the baby boomers.

---

Actually when I was talking about losing money, I was meaning saving money in an investment that is generating 2.708% interest at best (at least recently) while inflation is at 3%. I was hoping that you would show me how much T-bills were making when Prime was set at about 8% so that I could see how much interest they were generating at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Here is another thing from the treasury dept:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Stephen Meyerhardt
January 14, 2005 (202) 504-3792
TREASURY CALLS 10 PERCENT BONDS OF 2005-10
The Treasury today announced the call for redemption at par on May 15, 2005, of the 10% Treasury
Bonds of 2005-10, originally issued May 15, 1980, due May 15, 2010 (CUSIP No. 912810CP1).
There are $2,987 million of these bonds outstanding, of which $1,811 million are held by private
investors. Securities not redeemed on May 15, 2005 will stop earning interest.
These bonds are being called to reduce the cost of debt financing. The 10% interest rate is significantly
above the current cost of securing financing for the five years remaining to their maturity. In current
market conditions, Treasury estimates that interest savings from the call and refinancing will be about
$500 million.

---

I'm sorry but could you dumb that down a little so I could understand it better? I'm not being rude in asking that, I just didn't understand it when I read through it quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

So the stock market itself has a huge interest in appearing to be a good investment.

---

Long term (i.e. more that 5 years), I believe the stock market is good investment. The best long term investment a person can make. CDs, annuities, life insurance, etc. are all lousey investements when compared to the stock market.

You people keep forgetting that old people get sick, break bones, have medications, move to florida, etc. There are tons of factors in there to where your set amount of money changes rapidly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Actually you proved my point. You didn't have the 55,000 to invest all at once. Your last savings only had one year to accrue interest. While your first years savings, which were lowest as a 21 year old, did. And with the power of compound interest removed for a large portion. So 18,000 is more like 10,000.
And it comes with risk.

And if you are trying to say if you have 55,000 dollars today you will have enough to retire on 45 years from now, well that's just silly.

---

No, I'm saying that if you had $2,000,000 today and put it in a jar to save (no interest at all being made), in 40 years you would essentially have $550,000, which would be enough to retire now. I used the calculator to see how much $2,000,000 today would be in 40 years, hence putting 0.0 in for the interest rate. I didn't go into how you would have $2,000,000 in 40 years.

BTW, what is your response to my arguement about increasing inflation/cost of living also increasing salaries/wages which also would increase savings?

If I don't post for awhile, it's because I needed to get back to work. I'll pick this up later today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolApathy

97%? You have not PROVEN anything. All you use is supposition & scare tactics. If 97% of the people in the US were too stupid to provide for their own retirement then we have an even bigger problem.

the logic behind your 97% is flawed. Calculating that only 3% can manage their budgets accordingly is just ridiculous. I am young & have limited funds, with a limited amount I can put back every month while I am juggling between school & work. I am somehow going to manage though, even with my measly $370/month I put back. (Which will increase once I actually earn my degree & am capable of putting back a little more.

But lets see...Even if I only put back $370/month @ 7% that calculates to what, 1.2 million? And this is without me calculating the additional amounts I plan on putting into the fund once I am settled in a decent job. That will place me well over 2 million. Let's see...If I live to 100 I can pull out $44,000 a year


$44k/year...

no house payment
no car payment
no kids :)


If I lived to 20 years that is what...100k/year?

I think I can manage on that.

---

You are not thinking in real terms.

The average wage in 1961 was approximately $150 per week, in 2001 it was approximately $750 per week. At that rate a person making $750 a week now would need to make $3,750 a week in 40 years. 52 weeks X $3,750 = $195,000 a year. 20 years x $195,000 = $3,900,000.00 without taking the extra 20 years of inflation into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jitBob

You are not thinking in real terms.

The average wage in 1961 was approximately $150 per week, in 2001 it was approximately $750 per week. At that rate a person making $750 a week now would need to make $3,750 a week in 40 years. 52 weeks X $3,750 = $195,000 a year. 20 years x $195,000 = $3,900,000.00 without taking the extra 20 years of inflation into account.

---

But you're not taking into account that as the salary/wages go up, the person's savings would also go up to commpensate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RIOT

But you're not taking into account that as the salary/wages go up, the person's savings would also go up to commpensate.

---

But you are not taking into account what I was replying to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RIOT

Actually when I was talking about losing money, I was meaning saving money in an investment that is generating 2.708% interest at best (at least recently) while inflation is at 3%. I was hoping that you would show me how much T-bills were making when Prime was set at about 8% so that I could see how much interest they were generating at that time.




I'm sorry but could you dumb that down a little so I could understand it better? I'm not being rude in asking that, I just didn't understand it when I read through it quickly.



Long term (i.e. more that 5 years), I believe the stock market is good investment. The best long term investment a person can make. CDs, annuities, life insurance, etc. are all lousey investements when compared to the stock market.

---

As you see in the post above in 1980 it was making 10 percent.

but yes, t-bills can and usually do pay at the inflation rate or slightly less than inflation ( It depends on how you buy them.) If you want to risk the least amount of money you just keep buying for the smallest time periods. The rate goes up and down according to inflation.

There is NO guaranteed investment that will pay greater than inflation. Think about it. Even your personal savings account in a bank is insured only up to, I think, 250,000. (it may have gone up to 400,000).

This whole thread is continuing because uninformed people keep quoting huge amounts their investments will pay off. They are completely erroneous and they have no idea what they are talking about.
I have proven time and time again that 97 percent of individuals cannot save enough to pay for a variable period of retirement, anywhere from 1 year to even over 33 years if they live that long.

It is only unbridled greed (they want the money now), lack of caring for the consequences (being old and penniliess) and an overbiding ego that they are going to "beat the market".
There's a sucker born every minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

As you see in the post above in 1980 it was making 10 percent.

---

What post above? If you are refering to the website I linked to showing the Prime interest rate, where on that website show the T-bill interest rate? T-bill interest rate does not equal Prime interest rate. If it did, the current T-bill rate would be about 5.25% which I believe is what Prime is currently set at.

Quote:

---

I have proven time and time again that 97 percent of individuals cannot save enough to pay for a variable period of retirement, anywhere from 1 year to even over 33 years if they live that long.

---

I couldn't find where you proved this. Regardless, if 97% of people couldn't save responsibly and therefore DID NOT participate in the OPTIONAL plan to personally invest a 1/3 of the money currently going to SS, that would leave 3% of the population to participate. If 3%, and only 3%, of the population starting saving 1/3 of the money they currently send to SS (not ALL just 1/3), would that bankrupt SS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

This whole thread is continuing because uninformed people keep quoting huge amounts their investments will pay off. They are completely erroneous and they have no idea what they are talking about.

---

I will always admit that I don't know everything (hence my asking you to dumb done the information you posted from the Treasury Dept.). However, you're not helping me to be informed by directly answering any of my questions. While currently I do believe that generally SS isn't working and that I could do better without it, I am open to hearing your arguement and even possibly changing my mind. To do that, however, I need honest and direct answers to my questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

You people keep forgetting that old people get sick, break bones, have medications, move to florida, etc. There are tons of factors in there to where your set amount of money changes rapidly.

---

I didn't realize that SS paid for medical needs. I thought Medicare did that which is a separate tax (at leat on my paycheck, it is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RIOT

I didn't realize that SS paid for medical needs. I thought Medicare did that which is a separate tax (at leat on my paycheck, it is).

---

Oops, I just meant that all sorts of expenses still pop up when you get old. Dealing with my grandfather and his decline we are watching everything he had saved his whole life dwindle as he needs more and more care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RIOT

I didn't realize that SS paid for medical needs. I thought Medicare did that which is a separate tax (at leat on my paycheck, it is).

---

Medicare is like health insurance. You still have co-pays, especially on meds...which will add up for old people. That's why there's a yearly cap on how much out of pocket expense seniors have to pay before Medicare pays 100%. However, because of the out of pocket expense until then, the fixed income does decrease.

Anyone remember what the max out of pocket for the year is for meds and visits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

Medicare is like health insurance. You still have co-pays, especially on meds...which will add up for old people. That's why there's a yearly cap on how much out of pocket expense seniors have to pay before Medicare pays 100%. However, because of the out of pocket expense until then, the fixed income does decrease.

Anyone remember what the max out of pocket for the year is for meds and visits?

---

Hold your horses.
Medicare is actually paid for by a separate fund. It is not part of your retirement fund. Some companies list it separately on their pay stubs and it goes into its own federal fund which is admistered by Medicare.(It is a part of the Social Security Administration)
Medicare still does not yet cover medications. That is until the new Medicare drug plan goes into effect. And then no one seems to know if you will even save any money at all.
Medicare does pay for certain medications like anti-cancer drugs that are administered in a hospital or doctors office.
I believe there is no limit beyond which the person then does not have to pay their 20 percent co-pay. I thought that this is why private companies sell Medicare Supplemental insurance plans for.
You have lifetime maximums under Medicare. I don't remember what it is currently is but it may be 180 lifetime hospital days. Then I think from between 181 to 365 you pay 50 percent. This has changed much in the last 10 years so I am certainly not giving the accurate numbers.
You are probably confusing it with private health insurance plans where the best ones do start paying at 100 percent after you reach a certain point.

The Medicare fund faces a real crisis with a looming deficit that far outweighs the Retirement fund.
You don't hear about it because President Stupid says he fixed it. His statement was so absolutely ludicrous no one even considers it the least bit useful.
But since Big Medicine is a BIG Bush supporter Bush is trying to hide the REAL problem.

Yeah techs, I don't know what I was smoking when I posted that. There was pretty much flaw in everything I said. Thanks for setting me straight without beating me up... :thumbs:

The number of replies in this thread by people who consider Bush to be either the stupidest or most lying President ever is amazing!
Where there's smoke there's fire.
I can only hope after Bushes SS plan crashes and burns he will become irrelevant and the Republican party will return to sanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

The number of replies in this thread by people who consider Bush to be either the stupidest or most lying President ever is amazing!
Where there's smoke there's fire.
I can only hope after Bushes SS plan crashes and burns he will become irrelevant and the Republican party will return to sanity.

---

Don't forget to attest how you hope and pray that all of our efforts in Iraq fail, just to prove Bush wrong... :rolleyes: