Seniors join Occupy Chicago rally to protest cuts

UtahBill said:

My SS checks keep coming in, it hasn't defaulted yet......

Click to expand...

It's in the red now, without borrowing it WOULD stop coming in.

MrVicchio said:

Life is risky, you cannot MAKE it unrisky. Gov't handling SS, and what happens? It's going broke.

Click to expand...

As an Actuary (or aspiring Actuary), and I offended by your statement. :2wave:

You can not remove risk, but you can hedge it.

UtahBill said:

I have always maintained that even the handicapped can serve, and that there are ways other than the military. If you think I hve changed my views, prove it. Just because I agree with Heinlein doesn"t mean I think it will happen.

Click to expand...

Okay:

UtahBill said:

I often blast conservatives for stupid remarks, but yours is the first from a liberal. Public education isn't paid in full on just your parents property taxes. Freedom from oppression isn't paid in full just because your tax dollars paid for the soldiers and their weapons.
I guess it is alright to let others do the dangerous stuff in your behalf as long as you have a job and pay taxes.
Veterans Day is Friday.....buy a poppy, that'll do it...

Click to expand...

Aside from the BS and condescension, you also imply in the bold part that if someone hasn't "done the dangerous stuff" they haven't "paid in full" or served. Why does it matter if someone hasn't done the "dangerous stuff" aka serve in the military if they can serve in other ways?

And again, your rationale for making people serve before voting doesn't make much sense. This country is not just built on people who "serve" whatever that really means.

MrVicchio said:

Social Security Privatization: Experiences Abroad

Read it and weep

Click to expand...

from your link....

Fifth, the regulation of pension funds is important. Countries with less regulation tend to offer a larger variety of portfolios to pensioners; meanwhile, their pension industry could be more prone to fraud with large losses for investors. Clearly, countries with less developed capital markets tend to choose a more restrictive environment for their pension funds than countries with more developed capital markets.

REGULATION OF PENSION FUNDS

The five countries discussed in this paper use basically two types of pension fund regulation. The United Kingdom and Australia have left investment choices largely unregulated, relying simply on the prudent-man rule. By contrast, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico have imposed fairly strict regulatory requirements on their pension industry. The strictness of the regulation seems to be related to the maturity of the respective countries' capital markets.

Of the countries studied, the United Kingdom is the country with the least regulatory interference. Workers are free to choose their pension fund from a large variety of investment firms, banks, and other pension providers. The firms' managers must give their customers reliable advice and diversify investments, but no specific limits are placed on certain investment instruments. Because the U.K. system allows workers to opt out, it was originally prone to overzealous sales practices. Moreover, the lack of a uniform fee structure causes a potentially confusing variety of pension fund fees and commissions. U.K. investments are much more broadly diversified than those held by Latin American pension funds, however, leading to a broader supply of funds with differing risk and return properties.

Australian regulators also interfere little in investment choices, only restricting investment of funds in the company of the sponsoring employer. Because most workers cannot choose their investment fund, however, Australia has not had a problem with high-pressure sales practices as has the United Kingdom. Moreover, with the growing importance of the superannuation sector, the government has increased its supervisory efforts to prevent unwise investment practices and fraud. Because investment funds cannot compete for individual workers, however, the funds' portfolios may not coincide with a worker's risk preferences. In fact, some consider the Australian investment practices too conservative.

Chile and Argentina heavily regulate their pension funds. In both countries, funds face minimum return requirements, investment limits, and strict oversight by a supervisory authority. In addition, each fund may offer only a single portfolio. As a result, investment firms tend to have similar portfolios, basing competition more on services offered than on portfolio choices and investment performance. Moreover, firms may charge commissions and fees only on new contributions--not on assets. On the one hand, such a regulation improves the transparency of the fee structure and reduces costs for low-income workers with less steady employment and inactive accounts; on the other hand, it substantially reduces the net investment returns of new contributions and forces active contributors to subsidize the accounts of noncontributing account holders.

Mexico also heavily restricts pension funds: they must meet stringent requirements and are controlled by a supervisory commission. According to the current plan, however, Mexico's system will eventually allow workers more choices than the Argentine or Chilean system. In Mexico, each pension fund will offer a variety of investment portfolios, allowing workers to allocate their accounts among several mutual funds. Moreover, the Mexican system permits a variety of commissions and fees, including a charge on assets. END OF QUOTED PART OF THE LINK>>>>

I highlighted a few spots...
The USA has a much larger economy, and more crooks per square mile than all the other countries combined.
If we switch, I hope our govt puts SEVERE criminal penalties for fund managers who try to screw over the public...

MrVicchio said:

It's in the red now, without borrowing it WOULD stop coming in.

Click to expand...

no, it is not....it is an insurance program, not a retirement program, and the govt will fund it come hell or high water. Of course, they can also modify it, and probably will, to make us less dependent on it.

theplaydrive said:

Okay:

Aside from the BS and condescension, you also imply in the bold part that if someone hasn't "done the dangerous stuff" they haven't "paid in full" or served. Why does it matter if someone hasn't done the "dangerous stuff" aka serve in the military if they can serve in other ways?

And again, your rationale for making people serve before voting doesn't make much sense. This country is not just built on people who "serve" whatever that really means.

Click to expand...

aside from your cherry picking my words, and attempting to make them say something they don't, you don't have squat...do I have to use 1000 words in every post to repeat what I have said in other posts?
This country owes its existence to men and women who were willing to go up against those who would keep us as subjects to a King, to those who beleived that keeping the country in one peice is worth fighting for, to those who helped put out the fires of 2 world wars. Those that didn't fight stayed home and worked in the factories and collected scrap metal and rationed gas and went without certain foods, all for a great cause.
Many of our citizens living today have no concept of personal sacrifice, and that is a shame.
I am sorry that you don't know what "serve" means. DOes this help? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. Matt chap 25....
At times in our lives we should be able to help others in need, share a burden, join in a righteous cause. Occupy (name your place) is a good cause. It is being demonized by Fox News because it is the wealthy that benefits mostly from the efforts of others. Sharing the wealth within our borders is denigrated by the wealthy while our young, and not wealthy, sons and daughters fight and die on foreign soil so the rest of us can have a wonderful lifestyle here at home.
I object to having them die for access to Arab oil, but it will continue because people here at home won't use less fuel so we can at least stop buying oil from our enemies in the Middle East...
I fully realize that requiring service to vote will never happen, but I fully EXPECT that someday service will be considered an honor and a show of gratitude for the freedom and opportunites we enjoy.
Wall Street, the bankers, Madison Ave., the insurance industries....all are self serving, they exist to exploit the middle class. That's you and me, pal, like it or not.

iliveonramen said:

I was basing those figure off this CBO report
Social Security Privatization: Experiences Abroad

The relevant portion

Click to expand...

thanks for the link, it is a good read...

American said:

I see, so letting Congress spend your SS dollars is better? Boy have they done a bang up job.

Click to expand...

don't worry about me, I get SS, USN retirement, a small amount from the VA for agent orange expouser, and a couple small checks from private pensions. My wife gets SS and has a NICE retirement for her 28 years teaching.
We have over $200K in savings, and 2 paid for houses. Our cars are old, tho, 12 and 10 years old. We would buy a new one, but would rather spend the money on cruises. Not bad for starting out with nothing in 1964....
It didn't take me long to see that we can't depend on any ONE source of retirement funds..

lpast said:

I have no response for crap like this thats civil...so ill just pass

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply as I have have been sidetracked by the abortion rape thread, but what exactly are you annoyed with? The whole thing? According to libs college is great and something all should have and need. The problem is they created the need for everyone to have it, and they ruined it at the same time as they lack to understand what is it actually for and good at. Think about it like this, if everyone has a college education more aren't going to move forward. Instead all that will happen is the requirements will just get higher and higher and with the increased demand for college it will cause it to get more expensive. With all of that, the education at the college will lower as the people going will be less qualified so the schools have lowered their standards and teaching practices only speeding up the process of debt and horrible workers. The libs now want college to be paid completely by taxpayer money to rid themselves of the debt problem of the students but they still aren't understanding why it's so bad. All they are doing really is just another entitlement program to cover up their mistakes, like they did with Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. They **** up an entire system and then when no one can afford it they want to offer it. Seems almost to convenient if you ask me.

UtahBill said:

people who are not willing to serve their country should not be allowed to vote....according to Robt. Heinlein....and I agree.
Getting an education and paying taxes is NOT serving...

Click to expand...

Seems like an odd requirement to me. Not saying I'm against serving now, just that I really don't understand your reasoning is all.

SS is INSURANCE,

Click to expand...

No. There is very little relationship between how much you put in to how much you get out. Its not insurance.

This is bad news for the GOP. The only demographic they carried in the last presidential election was seniors. If the GOP turns the seniors against them, they are sunk.

Catawba said:

This is bad news for the GOP. The only demographic they carried in the last presidential election was seniors. If the GOP turns the seniors against them, they are sunk.

Click to expand...

The AARP has been throwing around threats at the GOP for months now. Don't take my freebies away or I will rage. Let them rage. They're just ****ers anyway.

Catawba said:

This is bad news for the GOP. The only demographic they carried in the last presidential election was seniors. If the GOP turns the seniors against them, they are sunk.

Click to expand...

AARP =/= Seniors

I think we'll do okay.

Wall Street, the bankers, Madison Ave., the insurance industries....all are self serving, they exist to exploit the middle class. That's you and me, pal, like it or not.

Click to expand...

Yes, their sole purpose is to make the middle class life living hell... That's their whole purpose in life... Self serving? Do insurance industries not provide you with a service? Is it unfair for them to ask you for some of your money? If they provide you service... you pay. That's how things work, no?

Free For All said:

Yes, their sole purpose is to make the middle class life living hell... That's their whole purpose in life... Self serving? Do insurance industries not provide you with a service? Is it unfair for them to ask you for some of your money? If they provide you service... you pay. That's how things work, no?

Click to expand...

so, you have never filed a claim? If not, be prepared for being ripped off. There is a lot of fine print in those policies.

Free For All said:

Yes, their sole purpose is to make the middle class life living hell... That's their whole purpose in life... Self serving? Do insurance industries not provide you with a service? Is it unfair for them to ask you for some of your money? If they provide you service... you pay. That's how things work, no?

Click to expand...

The middle class are more likely to be well insured. Ever ask your insurance company to find ways to lower your payments? They won't bring it up, you have to ask them. We change insurance companies about every 3 years as they get you in the door and then start jacking up the premiums.
And why is it that insurance companies get a substantial discount when paying your covered medical bills, but you don't get a discount when paying your 20% ?

UtahBill said:

I am sorry that you don't know what "serve" means. DOes this help? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. Matt chap 25....
At times in our lives we should be able to help others in need, share a burden, join in a righteous cause. Occupy (name your place) is a good cause. It is being demonized by Fox News because it is the wealthy that benefits mostly from the efforts of others. Sharing the wealth within our borders is denigrated by the wealthy while our young, and not wealthy, sons and daughters fight and die on foreign soil so the rest of us can have a wonderful lifestyle here at home.
I object to having them die for access to Arab oil, but it will continue because people here at home won't use less fuel so we can at least stop buying oil from our enemies in the Middle East...
I fully realize that requiring service to vote will never happen, but I fully EXPECT that someday service will be considered an honor and a show of gratitude for the freedom and opportunites we enjoy.
Wall Street, the bankers, Madison Ave., the insurance industries....all are self serving, they exist to exploit the middle class. That's you and me, pal, like it or not.

Click to expand...

While your condescension is noted and your assumption that I'm trying to distort your words rather than genuinely thinking you meant what I thought you did is also noted, I generally agree with the rest of your post.

I know what "serve" means to me, but I was asking what it meant to you since you pretty much told me that "not doing the dangerous stuff" somehow made someone inferior.

I agree that the Wall St., et al. are very self-serving, that Occupy is a good cause, that the current wars are not worth the blood of American soldiers and that certain people are exploiting the middle class. I also agree that "service" (what it means to me, since I'm still not clear on what it is to you) is valuable and should be a part of everyone's life though I do not believe it should be required for voting. But I do not agree with the way it appeared you were denigrating those who do not serve in the military and acting as if they (including me) are not capable of valuable service. If you didn't mean that, great. But the way you wrote certainly made it look that way.

theplaydrive said:

While your condescension is noted and your assumption that I'm trying to distort your words rather than genuinely thinking you meant what I thought you did is also noted, I generally agree with the rest of your post.

I know what "serve" means to me, but I was asking what it meant to you since you pretty much told me that "not doing the dangerous stuff" somehow made someone inferior.

I agree that the Wall St., et al. are very self-serving, that Occupy is a good cause, that the current wars are not worth the blood of American soldiers and that certain people are exploiting the middle class. I also agree that "service" (what it means to me, since I'm still not clear on what it is to you) is valuable and should be a part of everyone's life though I do not believe it should be required for voting. But I do not agree with the way it appeared you were denigrating those who do not serve in the military and acting as if they (including me) are not capable of valuable service. If you didn't mean that, great. But the way you wrote certainly made it look that way.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you misread? We all have our own "filters", a built in bias that tends to make us read/say things that reflect on our own experiences.
To me, serving is working for our country for either no pay, or substantially lower pay than what the work would usually pay. Serving is giving up some of our time to do things for others.
Everybody is capable of valuable service, even the handicapped. I see people with Downs syndrome working while my brother refuses to get a job, living off the govt and our parents. Our older and frail sister helps him fiancially, or used to, until he refused to do some simple chores for her, and said it is time for her to go into assisted living. He wants people to serve him, but he does not reciprocate.
Serving is a selfless act, one that benefits the community at large.
There are very few of us who are unable to serve, but many who are unwilling...
Hope that clears it up....
One more tidbit, there is a man near my Utah home who has a very lucrative contract with the govt, and as soon as the troops come home from the middle east, he will be unemployed. There are lots like him out there. They get rich off the sacrifices of other. I hope we can all find that objectionable. War profiteers will always be with us, I suppose.

UtahBill said:

I have always maintained that even the handicapped can serve, and that there are ways other than the military. If you think I hve changed my views, prove it. Just because I agree with Heinlein doesn"t mean I think it will happen.

Click to expand...

Heinlein himself in later life modified the premise of service for citizenship to include ANY service to the society as a whole.

The term and concept of "pay it forward" also originates with Heinlein.

UtahBill said:

The middle class are more likely to be well insured. Ever ask your insurance company to find ways to lower your payments? They won't bring it up, you have to ask them. We change insurance companies about every 3 years as they get you in the door and then start jacking up the premiums.
And why is it that insurance companies get a substantial discount when paying your covered medical bills, but you don't get a discount when paying your 20% ?

Click to expand...

You don't have to use their service. The problem is they are actually DOING you a favor if you like how it is being done or not and you know it or you wouldn't use them. What you are mostly mad about is the cost of care and that to the most part comes from 100 plus years of bad government policy directed at medical school, hospitals, doctors, medicine, and care.

cue Howard.......

Damn socialist hippies!

UtahBill said:

no, it is not....it is an insurance program, not a retirement program, and the govt will fund it come hell or high water. Of course, they can also modify it, and probably will, to make us less dependent on it.

Click to expand...

It's in the RED.

Social Security in the red this year

Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program’s actuary.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/

Click to expand...

It's not an insurance program, it's a PONZI SCHEME.

The deficit will last through 2011, then an improving economy will put it back into balance for three years, then it will dip back into the red in 2015, the actuary said. The program has enough money in its trust fund to cover the annual deficit for two decades beyond that.

Click to expand...

OOPS.

MrVicchio said:

It's in the RED.



It's not an insurance program, it's a PONZI SCHEME.



OOPS.

Click to expand...

whatever it is, it will still be around when you and I are moldering in our graves....
It might be modifed, perhaps even substantially, but it will be here....
Once a govt program has gotten big, it is there for eternity....

Gray power! Senior sit-in: