Jim, amongst the continual stream of lies and other effluent slop presented to the public as "NEWS" by the MSM is that simply disagreeing with Nobama is racist.
Posted on 09/21/2008 12:45:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Barak Hussein Obama today laughed and said John McCain wants your social security invested in the stock market. How would you have liked your social security invested in the stock market this week, he asks? And his liberal Democrat audience howled in approval of his financially astute remarks.
But wait. Not that the stock market did all that bad this week, but we don't invest our retirement funds week by week. They're there for the long haul. In the long run, the stock market returns 9% to 10% annually on your investments. They say your Social Security account returns approx 1.5% annually. I don't know how they calculate that though, seeing as how the social security lock box is empty. Your social security account is zero. It's nothing but IOUs. And those government IOUs just got watered down this week by approx a trillion bucks.
No, I don't think I'll agree with Obama on this one.
DOH!!!!!
Dividends! Ok, yeah, that may change things drastically.
Nobody beat Dave Ramsey up just yet.
He asked the wrong question, Obama that is. Would you rather have your retirement funds invested in the stock market...or have no retirement funds at all (as SS is going to go broke eventually.)
We usually have our retirement account divested in a number of different funds. When things looked like they were going wobbly a few months ago we moved them to a “stable” fund. No growth to speak of, but we didn’t lose anything either. I’m sure that stable fund in normal times returns as much as you get long term in interest on your SS dollars.
And they would be lying when they say that. Social Security has taken on too many roles outside of retirement to even think of having a positive rate of return. Plus, when you die, if you had a balance in your "lock box", it is forfeited.
The program should be either privatized, or made voluntary instead of mandatory.
No. I would rather they be invested in rental properties free and clear - which I will manage.
Those people might be including dividends from stocks that provide them. A typical portfolio will have some dividend-bearing stocks, which would be quite useful right now.
In addition, you can find endpoints that show a return only equal to inflation or a return at high as 15%, depending on specific dates chosen. 1929 to 1982 will look lousy, 1932 to 2000 will look great. Fair measures have to measure from peak to peak or trough to trough, or better still, properly reflect not a one time investment at a single price, but gradual investment that averages out the prices paid over whole swings.
The stock market is volatile, however. And that does matter, it is not just a footnote. 100% stock means a pretty serious gamble on the holding period. That is why market practice for nearly a century has instead been to hold both stocks and bonds, in equal proportions or 60-40 to overweight stock a bit for its higher long run returns. The combination reduces the volatility enourmously, because bonds pay throughout, and rebalancing buys stock low and sells it high.
It is easier to walk on two legs than to hop along on one...
The Dow is only a small piece of the entire U.S. stock market.
Does BO know what FIRS is?
Govt employees have their retirement funds in domestic and foreign stocks or Govt bonds. I don’t hear them complaning.
excellent case for fi courses through out grade school.....Then when spincters like Biden spew there spewage
young “skulls of mush”(R.L.)will realize he is really full of crap!
*
A person could pay into SS for 50 years and die the day before he was scheduled to receive the benefits. All of his contributions and the matching ones of his employers would not be part of his estate if he were unmarried and had no dependent children. All he would receive would be a small death benefit. SS is an insurance scheme, not a pension system. All assets belong to the USG. It is a pay as you go Ponzi scheme that will start paying out more than it is taking in by 2017.
The SS Trust Fund contains non-market T-Bills [IOUs that can only be redeemed by the USG] and is included in the national debt under "Intra-governmental Holdings." It represents an unfunded liability.
At least under a personal accounts system, the money would belong to you, not the USG. And it could be passed on to your heirs and be part of your estate.
Neither do his followers which is why they were applauding. Please, let's allow them to stay in SS! Can you imagine the whining every time the DOW dips? Talk about a bailout!
That word “invested” makes this a very convoluted way to present a choice.
What you and your employer are forced to pay each year in social security tax, and it is a tax, is paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government".
The Office of Management and Budget describes the distinction as follows:
These Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense .... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.
Since 1950, the maximum Social Security tax a worker must pay has increased 25,910% … that is not a typo; Social Security tax increased 25,910% since 1950. The increases were a result of increases in the limit and increases in the rates. It is amazing how many times Congress had to fix something they said wasn’t broken. In 2008, the maximum Social Security tax owned is $15,606 against an income of $102,000. The rate is 15.3% which includes the 2.9% Medicare tax, which actually has no limit.
That $15,606 does not have your name on it. This year’s “Social Security Contribution” and all previous years are not yours. They are a tax. If you die before reaching the age of maturity, you will receive none of it. If you die before drawing or while drawing Social Security you can leave none of it to your heirs, it is not yours.
It would be revealing to know how Obama considers Social Security an “investment”.
This is my lengthy way of saying I’ll stay with the stock market and other negotiable financial instruments, and I’ll stay with John McCain.
Where does numbnutz think all pension plan money goes? Inside a HUGH mattress at some union HQ Building? No, the money is IN "the stock market".
It's too late for me and the wife we're stuck with SS, but I wish our kids had another option.
If you take a long term strategy the market has always been the best place to invest your retirement money. I believe an average rate of return is about 10%. When I was a couple of years from retirement I moved a lot of it into more stable investments to avoid short term drops in the stock market. SS guarantees you the worst possible return on investment. You may as well put your money in a shoe box in the closet.
Shoebox Savings & Thrift sounds like a better deal than SS. You won't make any interest or dividends, and it'll lose value from year to year, but:
1. It actually exists
2. It's actually yours
3. Some politician isn't going to throw it out the window/pocket it/give it away
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.