Posted on 12/12/2008 10:18:17 PM PST by jackmercer
You are reading more into Rush's point than is there. He was simply pointing out that you should be your own asset manager, not hire one, since it's obvious that an asset manager good enough to hire would not be for hire. Duh!
In a Ponzi scheme, the house of cards can collapse. SS is backed by a $14 trillion GDP and is a contractual obligation. If that GDP goes away, then it means we have anarchy and a VERY short time to live and SS won’t matter. In that scenario, ammo, not cash, is king.
Ponzi scheme
I’m sorry but that is what SS is.
Thanks .. now I don’t have to type it all over again..
The rub? I have Leukemia and the odds of my collecting much of anything are a bit long. In other words, age 66 will be a milestone for me, not the beginning of my Golden Years.
The other rub, I would have had a about $2,000,000 or so that I owned, rather than a vague promise of a poverty level monthly allowance guaranteed by my bankrupt Government.
I can't leave my family a vague promise, now can I?
The fact people voted to have others take care of them doesn’t mean it’s constitutional, or right for government to go ahead and do it anyway. If citizens vote for the idiotic on unconstitutional, the reps and senators who have taken an oath the uphold the constitution are supposed to be the check on the idiocy and say no. That was a built-in check to mob rule. There are many times a politician should vote the way of their constituents but there are times when they cannot and say they’ve done the right thing.
We’ve hardly corrected anything if someone such as yourself sits there and asks the question you did, and meant it in all seriousness. If government is now tasked to take care of the individual, why don’t they pay my car payment? Why don’t they pay my electric bill? My mortgage? I have a few trips I’d like to take, can I just send the bill to Uncle Sugar? If they have a moral obligation, and I can make a moral claim to the money they take in from other citizens, why can’t I just have them pay for anything I determine necessary for my health or well-being?
After all, according to you, they are now tasked with taking care of me. If they have to take care of my retirement, I’ll retire right now and forward all my bills to the government.
Yup, and the people who bring over their Sr. relatives
from other countries and are on SSI as they enter U.S. air space. Never workd here or put a dime in the system.
I hate to see a reference to your having leukemia go by without offering my sympathy and prayers.
I personally don’t view SS as an investment but rather a service and insurance. I am paying 7% for a half of a deferred service and half insurance.
There’s supplemental retirement funds, disability insurance, supplemental life insurance payments all in one. Supplemental is the key word, SS is not in my view a primary source of any of the above but it is for some such as the unlucky, the lazy, the addicted, the mentally ill, etc.
Yes, a person can pay 200k but one has to look at the social contract angle of the 200k. No, you can’t leave your family with 2 million (or actually 1.4 million since you would have lost 30% in the last two quarters of this year), but they are guaranteed a safety net retirement, disability if needed and/or survivor benefits, albeit small. It’s a service and small annuity, not really an investment.
It is a tough sell, I agree, especially when I see gains like those of the mid/late 90s and some of this decade. But remember it came to be in a really nasty period where nest eggs like 2 million simply vanished in one day in 1929 and could very well be cut by 1 to 100 percent whenever the hell it feels like it with nothing remaining to pass on to family.
There are two sides to this argument and currently those in favor of privatizing SS are only 35% of the population (when Bush tried it in 2005). The only way to change it is to start a movement and persuade the masses.
There’s risk everywhere. Most people’s savings is not going to be threatened by a run on the bank in this day and age and if that is the case, hopefully we will return to sound money where that won’t be a problem.
Is having a retirement program run inefficiently by the federal government any better? So should we just never set aside our own money and expect someone else to do it for us?
“The fact people voted to have others take care of them doesn’t mean it’s constitutional, or right for government to go ahead and do it anyway. If citizens vote for the idiotic on unconstitutional, the reps and senators who have taken an oath the uphold the constitution are supposed to be the check on the idiocy and say no. That was a built-in check to mob rule. There are many times a politician should vote the way of their constituents but there are times when they cannot and say they’ve done the right thing.
We’ve hardly corrected anything if someone such as yourself sits there and asks the question you did, and meant it in all seriousness. If government is now tasked to take care of the individual, why don’t they pay my car payment? Why don’t they pay my electric bill? My mortgage? I have a few trips I’d like to take, can I just send the bill to Uncle Sugar? If they have a moral obligation, and I can make a moral claim to the money they take in from other citizens, why can’t I just have them pay for anything I determine necessary for my health or well-being?
After all, according to you, they are now tasked with taking care of me. If they have to take care of my retirement, I’ll retire right now and forward all my bills to the government.”
You do know that almost all of the New Deal was challenged in the courts by the Republicans and many components, most notably the National Recovery Administration, were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and were ceased? There were many things in the New Deal that FDR and the democrats tried to ram down the throats of the people and were stopped by the courts at Republica urging.
The surviving parts such as Social Security have been subjected to constitutional challenges in the decades since and have been upheld as constitutional. So the built-in checks to mob rule about which you spoke did indeed work and still do.
The remainder of your comment is nonsensical and is almost a litany of Non sequiturs to my argument that if there is a desire of people and the representatives concur, or vice versa, it can become law, subject to constitutional review if challenged.
No one said anything about taking “total” care of just any individual. Only under certain circumstances such as death of a spouse, permanent disability or serious illness, etc is some help granted, certainly not total middle class level help. And SS at 62 or 65 isn’t just a free “taking care of”, it is a service for which one pays.
Now if you really want yours and all car payments covered collectively by the people as a social benefit, then you can start a movement, run for office and lobby for it. We actually do have a system where you can make a go of it and see what happens. If you can get a majority to agree, your car payment and all others will be covered collectively.
There’s this thing called the Amendment process. What you’re proposing is democracy and it always devolves into a free for all where the majority takes what it wants (money, rights, land, etc.) from the minority. Hey, it’s what most people want right? That’s why we’re a Republic.
“So should we just never set aside our own money and expect someone else to do it for us?”
Of course we should set aside some of our own money and have our own investments. I am just advocating for the position of leaving the 7% SS tax in place for the guarantee. All other discretionary income should be at the whim of the earner. Where in any post above did you deduce that I am for all discretionary income to be turned over to government control?
The act does not make the action legal.
“There’s this thing called the Amendment process. What you’re proposing is democracy and it always devolves into a free for all where the majority takes what it wants (money, rights, land, etc.) from the minority. Hey, it’s what most people want right? That’s why we’re a Republic.”
Did you not read the post directly above yours where I specifically referenced constitutional challenges to parts of the New Deal that yielded the ceasing of many components of the New Deal? That is minority protection from majority decision and thus the very definition of a Republic.
Where did I say DIRECT democracy in any post above? Or did you simply see my reference to getting a majority to pass a law and conclude that I think we are a direct democracy and then skip over my references about constitutional review and thus the implication of a Republic?
I am lucky. I am afflicted with CLL, the “best” Leukemia you can get, or so they tell me. Unfortunately, you're supposed to get it in your 70’s, not in your 50’s. This popped up when I was 52.
I have been in remission for over 2 years. So far, so good. My Oncologist gave me a ten to fifteen year estimate on survival. Could be more, could be less.
When he told me, I said, “you mean I'm getting ripped off on my SS and Medicare?” That was my first thought when he broke the news. He looked at me like I was crazy. Maybe I am, but that is what really pissed me off.
Nobody lives forever, and I have had a good life and always appreciate how fortunate I have been.
I love Big Pharma for inventing the wonderful Chemo drugs I was given and I thank God for living in a Country that provides the incentive to provide the greatest Medical Care in the world.
Must be why I hate Liberal whiners and malcontents. Now we have one in the White House along with 52% of the Electorate.
Thanks for your kind thoughts. One thing I always remember is, there is always somebody better off than you and there is always somebody worse off than you.
That is life, and I'm the luckiest guy walking through it.
I agree. Social security is just a prelude to socialism. I am sick and tired of the government trying to sell me onto something, and wish they would just keep their hands off my money.
social security with government would just be like putting it on the stock market though. Government is broke, all they can is print money thus cause alot of inflation. Yea, you may get your money, but what use is it if you can’t buy much with it
What society security should be, is give ppl a choice. They could pick how much percentage of their portfolio goes into local stock, international stocks, real estate, precious metal, bond/fix interest etc that can be changed a few times a year. If ppl were smart and paying attention, they would’ve diverted their portfolio out of stocks and real estate by now
Yes, my position is I don’t need government babysitting my money. I am not paying the government to make money for me or help me make money. To me government should only be a simple set of public services, not a mutual stock fund. I have heard about this privatization plan for social security, and it sounds like we would not only being paying money into social security, but we would be limited into what companies we could invest in. It sounds like a plan for making a few people rich from government involvement and potentially risking my money in companies that would be subject to the same government scrutiny that provoked the “bailouts”, which were nothing more than payoffs.
Explain where social security is constitutional.
Get rid of it unless you want to write an amendment for it. Otherwise the system is illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.