- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,022
- Reaction score
- 14,519
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This is the cliche thinking that I addressed in the article. The Trustees reports say that Social Security isn't excellent or top-notch. They say it is in need of immediate reform. Do you think that they are liars? Do you have any data to support your claim? If you are going to criticize privatizing Social Security you need to elevate your reasoning.
You are repeating the worst and most tired of the cliches. #1 suggests that there is market risk. Well with all of the downs in the stock market the market has outperformed the investment policy of Social Security 50 to 1. The idea of talking about market risk, when the system has a 100% asset concentration in a single security is laughable.
I give you a hard time because the subject deserves more thought than this.
Lets interject some facts. Yep.. social security is in need of reform. that makes sense... tell me any other insurance program that can operate for 70 years without changes? the fact is that social security is solvent for decades at current levels. The reason to act now is that it will have less effect NOW than if we wait until there is a problem. The fact is that WITH NO CHANGES.. the trust fund lasts until 2033 and after that tax income alone will pay for 2/3 benefit until 2087!
After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year’s Trustees Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087.
Trustees Report Summary
That's the Trustees report. Are they liars? Do you have any data to support your claim? do you have any data to support the idea that if we privatize social security that everyone would do better than the current system?
You are repeating the worst and most tired of the cliches. #1 suggests that there is market risk. Well with all of the downs in the stock market the market has outperformed the investment policy of Social Security 50 to 1. The idea of talking about market risk, when the system has a 100% asset concentration in a single security is laughable.
Whats laughable is you claiming there is no market risk in the market. Talk about cliché...:doh " the market has outperformed social security"... of course it has... ON AVERAGE... Get it.. on average.... that doesn't mean that everyone who invested in the market has done that well. Many in the market took a bath. go ask the small folks who had retirement in the techmarket, or Enron, or a myriad of other defunct companies.
You are a perfect illustration of why privatizing social security is such an absolutely bad idea... because you don't have a clue how the market works and assume that because on average it does better than a T bill... that its great for everyone.
And your comment about social security versus the market and risk again illustrates a lack of understanding. The average guy.. does not have enough money invested (for a long, long time) to mitigate the risk of the market. That takes about a hundred thousand is about the minimum to mediate your risk in the stock market. However, buying a treasury bond is a way to alleviate that risk. Because its the most stable investment BAR NONE. What it lacks in volatility and (potential profit) it makes up in security. you know.. SOCIAL SECURITY.
Lets discuss what the idea of privatizing social security is really about. Its really about making more profit and more security for wall street. You think the banks were "too big to fail"... you wait until the market has control of social security and a downswing means millions can't buy groceries. You dang sure will see the propping up of Walls street.