• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Privatized Social Security

JohnfrmClevelan said:
You don't get any of the company's assets unless they go under - and even then, common stockholders are last in line. And none of the money you will ever see, with the exception of dividends (which are becoming negligible), comes from that company.

Generally, if the company does OK, so does the stock, even if there is no solid connection between money that the company earns and the price of their stock. Same with baseball cards.

The analogy is fine.
Click to expand...
No even close, John. Again you insist on wandering off into the weeds. We're not talking about businesses failing. And by "the company doing well" is usually reflected in increasing stock prices or increased dividends. Strong earnings quarter after quarter will be reflected in stock prices.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Bullseye, the majority of couples sailing as passengers on those cruise ships, enjoyed higher incomes in their later years prior to their cruises. Many of those ships’ passengers were inheritors of wealth.
Click to expand...
Source? The passengers I've talked to on the cruises have taken are mostly folks that worked hard, saved and invested wisely and lived below their means. I don't recall ever meeting a trust fund baby.
I'm Supposn said:
Statistically this would be les-s the cases among a population of Walmart greeters.
Your post is an example of a sophistry and is far from a convincing example.
Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...
Well, not really. It's more like the greeters failed to plan, not that they didn't have the opportunity. As I said go talk to the cruisers. Few if any started out rich, or even well to do, but they learned to save and invest. Believe me or not, your choice. I cruise and don't even shop at Walmart let alone work there. Your mileage may vary.
 
dairyair said:
Bam, easy, done.
Yet Bush tried to do that and failed. Why? Not easy.
Click to expand...

Why? Because the public education system lead by the ideology of the left has produced people who are indoctrinated to believe in the program regardless of the math. They’ve all be led to believe the government is more reliable than them and their neighbors wanting things. [emoji849]
 
dairyair said:
It is one of the strongest programs the gov't has. It's been going for 80 yrs or so.
It needs to be tweaked to be made better. But it will not be going away.

Companies the run 401k's could go bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Length of time does not make it strong. There is no reason to continue a mistake just because we’ve been doing it a long time. I believe that’s call conservatism?

So what if companies that run the 401K go bankrupt? They only manage the money they don’t own it. It’s not in their account.

Tweaked? Have you looked at what’s coming. 2034 it’s over. It will be going away. Mark my words. Politicians are incapable of providing an equitable solution.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
secondary sales of stocks do nothing for the company),
Click to expand...

nonsense of course. Secondary sales reflect earnings which determine the fate of every company. If a company want to and can profitable produce more its stock price will change concomitantly.
 
Bullseye said:
So what? This is a discussion of alternatives to depending on Social Security for retirement. It has been and will continue to be one of the best choice people can make to ensure a comfort-ble retirement. Redirecting some/all of the SS portion of their FICA contribution could do more for the economic well-being of our citizens than any other idea on the table.
Click to expand...

The "so what?" is that you are promising more goods and services to retirees than the economy is presently delivering, and you aren't investing in the economy's ability to produce more. You are also promising more dollars to retirees than there will be dollars available.

One more time - the stock market does not generate dollars, it just moves existing dollars between players in the stock market; and the trading of shares on the secondary market does not funnel investment money to companies. You are promising big returns, in both dollars and consumption, to a much larger swath of people. That's not going to happen without devoting more money and resources to actual economic growth.

Bullseye said:
No even close, John. Again you insist on wandering off into the weeds. We're not talking about businesses failing. And by "the company doing well" is usually reflected in increasing stock prices or increased dividends. Strong earnings quarter after quarter will be reflected in stock prices.
Click to expand...

Then what was happening in the Dot.com era? People were investing like crazy in companies that weren't making a cent.
 
Aberration said:
Length of time does not make it strong. There is no reason to continue a mistake just because we’ve been doing it a long time. I believe that’s call conservatism?

So what if companies that run the 401K go bankrupt? They only manage the money they don’t own it. It’s not in their account.

Tweaked? Have you looked at what’s coming. 2034 it’s over. It will be going away. Mark my words. Politicians are incapable of providing an equitable solution.
Click to expand...

You bought the RW BS.
It's not over in 2034.
 
Aberration said:
Why? Because the public education system lead by the ideology of the left has produced people who are indoctrinated to believe in the program regardless of the math. They’ve all be led to believe the government is more reliable than them and their neighbors wanting things. [emoji849]
Click to expand...
Doubt the pubic education system played any role in the failure to get Bush's pvtized SS system a reality.


Having invested so much political capital in this issue, President Bush embarked on the first of what proved to be a long series of tours crammed with events at which he pitched his plan to the people. It soon became apparent that it would be a tough sell. Within weeks, observers noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent–between his State of the Union address and June.
Why the 2005 Social Security Initiative Failed, and What it Means for the Future

bush's private social security - Yahoo Search Results
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Then what was happening in the Dot.com era? People were investing like crazy in companies that weren't making a cent.
Click to expand...

and obviously there is the maximum incentive not to that since you lose your money under capitalist rules!!
 
dairyair said:
You bought the RW BS.
It's not over in 2034.
Click to expand...

What RW BS? That’s from the Social Security administration. Once the fund is depleted and it hits the deficit and then the debt... it’s over.
 
dairyair said:
Doubt the pubic education system played any role in the failure to get Bush's pvtized SS system a reality.


Having invested so much political capital in this issue, President Bush embarked on the first of what proved to be a long series of tours crammed with events at which he pitched his plan to the people. It soon became apparent that it would be a tough sell. Within weeks, observers noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent–between his State of the Union address and June.
Why the 2005 Social Security Initiative Failed, and What it Means for the Future

bush's private social security - Yahoo Search Results
Click to expand...

You can doubt it. Then again you have faith in the program despite the math so... [emoji2369]
 
dairyair said:
Doubt the pubic education system played any role in the failure to get Bush's pvtized SS system a reality.
Click to expand...

obviously played a huge role since the schools are liberal union cesspools opposed to the very idea of freedom no matter what manifestation.
 
Aberration said:
What RW BS? That’s from the Social Security administration. Once the fund is depleted and it hits the deficit and then the debt... it’s over.
Click to expand...

link?
 
Aberration said:
You can doubt it. Then again you have faith in the program despite the math so... [emoji2369]
Click to expand...

I have stated, I'd like to see better returns.
But I also don't want to see future retirees with little to no SS income if they fail to invest correctly.
If that were to happen, should those retirees go homeless and without basic necessities? Or will we raise taxes to give the some base income?
With the system now, they can't mess up their retirement. As long as the USA has a gov't.

I also see you have no come back to why Bush's plan failed.
It's not easy. Bam. Done.
And it's not on the public education system. All your claims, seem to be made up at this time.
 
dairyair said:
With the system now, they can't mess up their retirement. As long as the USA has a gov't.
Click to expand...

sure they can. by participating they get to retire on dog food money rather than the $1.4 million they deserve. Capitalism made us all rich; then liberalism wasted the money!!
 
dairyair said:
I have stated, I'd like to see better returns.
But I also don't want to see future retirees with little to no SS income if they fail to invest correctly.
If that were to happen, should those retirees go homeless and without basic necessities? Or will we raise taxes to give the some base income?
With the system now, they can't mess up their retirement. As long as the USA has a gov't.

I also see you have no come back to why Bush's plan failed.
It's not easy. Bam. Done.
And it's not on the public education system. All your claims, seem to be made up at this time.
Click to expand...

You can’t see better returns when there is no investment.

There are already protection to prevent such losses. No point it beating a dead horse because you refuse to acknowledge the protections.

Being compelled to contribute to an inadequate system is messing up retirement. Or feel free to show me the standard of living with just social security income.

Why would I have a come back for Bush? It is bam easy done. And it is the public education system. That’s why you can’t bring any factual argument, it’s just “nuh uh SS works you’re wrong”.

My claims may be made up, but they should be easier for you to argue then. [emoji2369]
 
I'm Supposn said:
Bullseye, the majority of couples sailing as passengers on those cruise ships, enjoyed higher incomes in their later years prior to their cruises. Many of those ships’ passengers were inheritors of wealth.

Statistically this would be less the cases among a population of Walmart greeters.
Your post is an example of a sophistry and is far from a convincing example. …
Click to expand...
Bullseye said:
Source? The passengers I've talked to on the cruises have taken are mostly folks that worked hard, saved and invested wisely and lived below their means. I don't recall ever meeting a trust fund baby.
Well, not really. It's more like the greeters failed to plan, not that they didn't have the opportunity. As I said go talk to the cruisers. Few if any started out rich, or even well to do, but they learned to save and invest. Believe me or not, your choice. I cruise and don't even shop at Walmart let alone work there. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...
Bullseye, what are you questioning? Do you believe most cruise ship passengers couldn’t afford the prices of their tickets, or do you believe that not many cruise ships passengers inherited wealth?
Is it logical that in their few years just prior to taking a cruise, the majority of passengers had not sufficient wealth and/or had not acquired sufficient wealth for the purchase of their tickets? Your description of the passengers you spoke to, is not contrary to my description of the ships' majority of passengers.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
I'm Supposn said:
Bullseye, what are you questioning? Do you believe most cruise ship passengers couldn’t afford the prices of their tickets, or do you believe that not many cruise ships passengers inherited wealth?
Click to expand...
I believe cruisers afford their tickets because of a lifetime of investing and saving; I DON'T believe most cruiser are trust fund babies.
I'm Supposn said:
Is it logical that in their few years just prior to taking a cruise, the majority of passengers had not sufficient wealth and/or had not acquired sufficient wealth for the purchase of their tickets? Your description of the passengers you spoke to, is not contrary to my description of the ships' majority of passengers.
Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...
You're twisted around. I believe the cruisers have acquired the wealth over a lifetime of savings and investments. Understand that not every passenger is a retiree; I've seen families, newlyweds, etc. My comment was directed to the retiree/old cruisers.
 
Aberration said:
I could be wrong, but I recall you arguing the stock market is a Ponzi scheme?
Click to expand...

It has most of the qualities of a Ponzi scheme, yes. But the argument I was referring to is that you won't get the increased production you need from people investing in the stock market. What are all of these wealthy (on paper) retirees going to consume, anyway?

"investing" in the stock market is completely different than "investment" in real production.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
It has most of the qualities of a Ponzi scheme, yes. But the argument I was referring to is that you won't get the increased production you need from people investing in the stock market. What are all of these wealthy (on paper) retirees going to consume, anyway?

"investing" in the stock market is completely different than "investment" in real production.
Click to expand...

Using your definition classifies all buying of products as a Ponzi scheme.

Who argued you get increased production by investing in the stock market? They’ll consume a lot of the things they do now.
 
Aberration said:
Using your definition classifies all buying of products as a Ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

Nope. I already explained that in a previous post.

Aberration said:
Who argued you get increased production by investing in the stock market? They’ll consume a lot of the things they do now.
Click to expand...

You guys are arguing that retirees can all retire fairly wealthy, able to spend far, far more than the SS payments they get today. Well, that requires the economy to increase production, if those retirees are planning on spending their money.

You are enamored with the big numbers being thrown around when you apply one's SS contributions to the stock market, based on past performance, but you gloss over the real-world problems with those projections when applied to all workers and retirees.

It's funny - for years, because of MMT, I've gotten the "why don't we just give everybody a million dollars, then?" argument, which we all seem to understand would result in inflation, because the economy wouldn't be able to meet the increased demand. But now, when privatization proponents claim that investors would have had $1.4 million each by the time they retired, suddenly the whole millionaire thing is plausible to them. At least the government has the ability to create that much money; with privatization (as I explained before), you only have as many dollars available as people contribute.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Nope. I already explained that in a previous post.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

JohnfrmClevelan said:
You guys are arguing that retirees can all retire fairly wealthy, able to spend far, far more than the SS payments they get today. Well, that requires the economy to increase production, if those retirees are planning on spending their money.

You are enamored with the big numbers being thrown around when you apply one's SS contributions to the stock market, based on past performance, but you gloss over the real-world problems with those projections when applied to all workers and retirees.

It's funny - for years, because of MMT, I've gotten the "why don't we just give everybody a million dollars, then?" argument, which we all seem to understand would result in inflation, because the economy wouldn't be able to meet the increased demand. But now, when privatization proponents claim that investors would have had $1.4 million each by the time they retired, suddenly the whole millionaire thing is plausible to them. At least the government has the ability to create that much money; with privatization (as I explained before), you only have as many dollars available as people contribute.
Click to expand...

All I have argued is SS is a horrible program that is unable to provide a minimum standard of living and yet is unable to be solvent. Contrasted to private retirement funds that do not have such problems.

I have yet to see an issue with production. Why does it concern you?

What real world details were glossed over? The ones you raised? Because they weren’t glossed over.

1.4M is at the very low end of my projections to retire on. I’ll have no problem hitting that target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom