Go to THE ECCLESIASTE
- Add a comment
- Go to OF COURSE BUSH IS LYING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY
I have no reason to believe Bush would tell the truth
about securing investments when he isn't telling the truth about Social Security or what our alternatives are.
Me? I have a "private retirement acount" -- and it isn't tied to the stock market. I also have a deferred compensaton account where I could choose investment. I had it in the stock market, then put it into a guaranteed return account. Glad I did.
Right now -- the market is 1,000 below its high. What would bring it up -- that's the question.
Economy and markets depend upon personal wealth, which in turn generates consumerism which injects wealth into companies. That brought us the affluence of the 50's -- the period of greatest real affluence we have had.
Today's economy depends upon consumerism also, but a pseudo kind. Credit cards are doled out now like candy and this generates a massive round of purchasing which generates a "wealth" of sorts -- employment for people who in turn purchase which generates "wealth" -- but this "wealth" is there only on paper -- it is debt paying for goods -- it is not actual money like in the 50's (although that was installment buying of autos and houses mainly --but debtors were paid).
Today, we have more bankruptcies (which government leaders are trying to pass laws agains) because of this enormous credit card usage.
Also, to assuage the problem, now we have home loans to pay off the credit card debt -- that halfway solves the debt problem -- but there is still debt -- the economy is based on people owing money, not paying money. And people still use their credit cards -- they're just not maxed out.
I think there is truly a debt to be paid -- and when the bill comes due . . .
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2005 at 8:03 AM
| link to this | reply
I have a question for those of you who object to private retirement accounts as part of Social Security. If the idea is so bad, why do federal employees have that exact program in place now? If it's so bad, then it should be abolished for them immediately. If it works for them, then it's only fair that it should be made available for private sector workers as well.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 8, 2005 at 7:40 PM
| link to this | reply
I’m honored to return the favor of after-the-fact inspiration. You guys have done this for me several times now.
Good point about the losses not being entirely made up yet. But you were a wee bit off on the high point of the Dow Jones index, according to this review of its history (http://www.mdleasing.com/djia.htm) the high point was 11,722.98 on January 14, 2000, just before the Clinton recession began. We’re closer to it than you think. And, as you recall, the reference point of your posting that started all this was ten years ago when it first cleared 4,000.
Sorry your pals lost in the Clinton recession, so did I. Fortunately, my investments were sound for the long term, and they’ve regained all former value and then some.
As for why the Dow Jones is hanging at the 10,500-10,700 range, I have no answers. My guess is the state of the dollar against foreign currencies, changes in interest rates and concerns over the federal budget.
Either I’m misreading your samples of alleged lies or you’re completely off track. President Bush, of all people, opposes raising Social Security taxes. And the projections he’s offered for the coming decades are very much like what President Clinton offered.
Of course there is no guarantee of making money in stocks. That’s why the President recommends, to quote the State of the Union Address, “The goal here is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We'll make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We'll make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. We'll make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement.” That’s essentially what I was told when I invested – go for solid, conservative stocks that may not turn a huge profit but also bear the least risk.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 8, 2005 at 7:38 PM
| link to this | reply
thank you writer of light
for giving me more to say on this subject
we have such a phony market -- one that is teetering on the edge of a major meltdown.
period
the previous boom (almost 12k on the Dow, or was it over 12k) was a fake boom to be sure -- it shows the volatility and emotionalism of the stock market. And the market is driven by the big investors and the big investment houses -- and people who are influenced by a sneeze or a wisp of a flower petal (figuratively) to sell or buy.
yes it was a tech boom -- people having overblown expectations.
As for it recovering all its loss -- let's see -- where is 10,700 anywhere near 11,900 or 12,000 something? We've got over 10% to go here -- 90% ain't bad, I guess -- but it's not the whole thing.
The market has been struggling to top 10.5 for some time now. The only reason I see for its edging is that the big investors are trying to make it look good so that Bush's thing can go through (HOWEVER -- lots of people are seeing the reality)
But the main topic here is that Bush has put out so many lies to try to persuade people to accept this change in Social Security -- like it's on its last legs and the only way to save it as it stands is to either raise social security taxes enormously for everyone -- or it will just go totally bankrupt.
come on!!!!
he wants to inject those billions into the stock market to save it -- or keep it up for a little while longer
then when these 20 somethings go to get their money out -- and if the market collapses -- then what?
projection -- 20 somethings get to invest in the market -- market goes up to new record highs -- levels off -- drops from time to time -- but stays about the same level.
like my coworkers who invested -- it was good for so long -- then they lost big time.
the stock market is one of the biggest gambles -- all the talk of it always coming out as a profit -- i think that's just a ploy to attract investors.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 8, 2005 at 7:50 AM
| link to this | reply
In reply . . .
Mary X – the one basket right now for a lot of people is the existing system. Participation in personal retirement accounts will be optional. Painter – again, I say it’s long-term stock market investment that pays off. The market has always been cyclical. The big dive in 2001 was from the Clinton recession (and, yes, the recession had its seeds during the Clinton years; recessions and booms start over time, not all at once) and the September 11th attacks, and the market has made up nearly all the ground it lost in that time. Corporate America in crisis? It was in the recession, perhaps, but it’s a different story now. And for all the griping about job loss, liberals should be all in favor of a shot in the arm for corporate America. And as far as who gives advantages to business – have a gander at this concerning our new Senate Minority Leader, Harry (Whitewater rafting, anyone?) Reid and his legislation to help developer friends: http://www.westlx.org/assets/Harveycorridor.pdf Sure there have been corrupt Republicans. But it’s hardly a monopoly.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 7, 2005 at 10:19 PM
| link to this | reply
I would agree with your proposal to raise the ceiling to $100K or so. Social Security is a regressive tax in this sense because those making over the ceiling don't have to pay any taxes on the money they make over that level, meaning they pay a smaller percentage in payroll taxes than low-income people. That wealthier people pay a greater percentage of their money in income and other taxes barely compensates for the many ways in which the system unfairly burdens low-income people. It's pretty silly for anyone to suggest that rich people are hurt by the progressive tax; that sounds a lot like the liberal whining that conservatives usually lambast, except when the subject of the whining affects them.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on February 6, 2005 at 8:28 AM
| link to this | reply
writeroflight
let me add to mary-X's comment (thank you, mary_x)
particularly about the Stock Market.
it looks as though it has gotten much of its boost from common people being able to invest more easily in the past ten years or so.
You say you know people who have profited.
Well, I know people who have lost 40% of their investment in that past couple of years -- and the stock market still hasn't fully recovered.
This social security proposal is a boon for anyone already owning stock in that the influx of new money will make them pretty rich -- and it will also bail out corporate America, which, it would appear, is experiencing a crisis.
But I fear that down the road, like the boom we had some years back, level off and stocks might even turn around and lose all the ground they've gained. The market depends upon factors other than investment -- and you know the shrewd investors -- those at the top of the heap, and not the common people who have to depend on a money market or other such account, will pretty well anticipate problems and sell out, leaving the common people holding the bag -- losing their shirts in the process.
The Republicans historically have been notorious for giving advantages to the big money and bascially helping big money screw the hell out of the common people. Anyone who has been following their activities has no reason to believe that this is no different.
That was the way it was in the 20's and we are returning to the practices of that time that led to the Great Depression.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 4, 2005 at 6:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Emptyhanded Painter,
I agree with you and my rebuttal to the previous comment by Writer is that every one already has the option of investing in the stock market with their own income, we don't need the additional gamble of putting all our eggs in a risky basket. It IS a risk, the dot.coms went bust, and no one's infallible or able to predict the stock market with accuracy. Also, another side benefit to the "privatization' of SSI, is that the payroll tax will be eliminated, employers will no longer be matching the 2.5% of employees contributions.
Also, get us out of this misguided war, put a percentage of that $300 billion spent on the war back into SSI, and there's no problem.
posted by
Blanche.
on February 3, 2005 at 6:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Empty handed painter, these are empty reasoned arguments.
What is the problem with helping the stock market? You are apparently unaware of the millions of ordinary people, particularly retirees, who benefit from stock market gains because they own small amounts of stock, easing even more the burden of reliance on Social Security. And the only way people who invested ten years ago have lost anything is by bad investments or selling at the wrong time. Looking at the ten years of stock market history you cite, the Dow Jones went from breaking 4000 for the first time on February 23, 1995 to the 10,500 range today. One makes money in the stock market by staying with it for the long term. Here’s a link to a history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average: http://www.davidstuff.com/financial/djia.htm. The problem with trying to keep Social Security solvent through higher taxes, in whatever guise you want, is that it keeps all the money in the government for Congress to spend as it pleases, which is something you express concern about. The private retirement accounts would put a portion of the money into our hands for us to invest at far better returns than the government provides. Two things really bug me about this. One is that federal employees have exactly this kind of program in place already. The other is that, if Social Security was such a hot deal, why aren’t the Congressmen who are so adamant that no one be given the option of private investment rather than having to rely on Social Security not on it themselves? Motto: Beware the program Congress mandates for you while not submitting itself to it.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 3, 2005 at 6:28 PM
| link to this | reply
I don't think anyone can say that historically, over a lifetime of work,
the stock market would be a bad investment. I think since 1927 the average for the stock market is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%. I think common sense would tell us if the stock market would not be on an upward rise for the most part our whole system of economics would be in shambles. I don't know if changing the rules about Social Security is the right thing to do, but investing in the stock market long term makes sense to me.
Once I invested in a small, start-up insurance company. After three years it was found out that the managment of the company had amassed fees about 2.5 times the industry average. This was bad, but it was not bad when you considered my original $5000 investment was worth $38,000 at the time. So Wall Street might make out well, but what if something like this could happen.
posted by
sarooster
on February 3, 2005 at 6:27 PM
| link to this | reply