Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1)That wasn't the entire plan
2)The stock market option was voluntary
Also, you do realize those were paper losses and anyone that stayed in the market has long since made up the loss and more.
(well...obviously you don't).
See....this is a perfect example of using scare tactics (that aren't fair) and as a result you fool the ignorant and in the end nothin' get done.
So if we had "voluntarily" put the SS into the stock market are you saying that it would not have failed? If it still failed how many people would have not panicked before it recovered and waited it out? I think the scare tactic gave way to the sounds of relief that we did not listen to baby bush in the first place
Both parties have known about Social Security's insolvency for years. Neither have done anything. Bush proposed a solution and Democrats accused him of gambling our future and grandma's life. At least he had the guts to propose something while getting demonized.
What you should so is admit there is a problem and try to find a solution. I only see Republicans trying to find a solution at the moment, in fact Obama has weakened Social Security with the Payroll Tax Reduction.
I'm calling out republicans because they are the ones bi*ching and complaining about it. They had a chance to do something, and nothing happened.
(This has already been asked/answered but I'll try again.)
"Nothing happened" due to the rhetoric and scare tackics that were rollled out by the left and a GOP w/o the backbone to stand on principle due to too many establishment types being in DC.
Again, this is changing on the right.
It is status quo on the left.
Rand Paul (and plenty others on his coattails) in 2016!
So if we had "voluntarily" put the SS into the stock market are you saying that it would not have failed? If it still failed how many people would have not panicked before it recovered and waited it out? I think the scare tactic gave way to the sounds of relief that we did not listen to baby bush in the first place
What "would not have failed"? I don't understand what you're asking here. Can you pls clarify?
If people "panicked" than they had ZERO business taking advantage of the voluntary "opt in" option to invest a portion of the SS funds in the market. Again....no one would force ANYONE to invest in the market.
Scare tactics. It is sad because it feeds on the ignorant and in the end, no one is better off.
What "would not have failed"? I don't understand what you're asking here. Can you pls clarify?
If people "panicked" than they had ZERO business taking advantage of the voluntary "opt in" option to invest a portion of the SS funds in the market. Again....no one would force ANYONE to invest in the market.
Scare tactics. It is sad because it feeds on the ignorant and in the end, no one is better off.
Ok, in otherwords it would have failed regardless if they would have invested or not. So my question is would have became of them had they invested their SS? And would it have been a good thing to do in the first place?
Ok, in otherwords it would have failed regardless if they would have invested or not. So my question is would have became of them had they invested their SS? And would it have been a good thing to do in the first place?
So your contention is that somehow SS would have failed back in 2008/2009 had the option been available for individuals to voluntarily invested 1/6th (max) of their SS dollars in the market?
I guess I'm not following how you arrive at that.
Forgive me if I'm being thick-headed on this one, but maybe if you defined "failed", it would help.
So your contention is that somehow SS would have failed back in 2008/2009 had the option been available for individuals to voluntarily invested 1/6th (max) of their SS dollars in the market?
I guess I'm not following how you arrive at that.
Forgive me if I'm being thick-headed on this one, but maybe if you defined "failed", it would help.
* SS isn't a person's "life savings", it was a program set up to help individuals supplement their retirement savings.
* Individuals at or approaching retirement age using the simpliest, well- respected investment stategies, would not have a large portion of their "life savings" in the market. Moreover, the fact the proposed SS reform only allowed for an investment of 1/6th into the market, even if someone was being recklessly aggressive with their investment, they still only would have 1/6th of their benefits exposed to the volitality that took place in the market in 2008.
* As I mentioned earlier, for those who were in the market when it tanked, those losses were made up in a few years (as long as they stayed invested in the market) to ride it back up. Yes, this can be confusing issue to some, so guess what? Their best strategy may be to stay out completely since again, this was a VOLUNTARY option.
So in the end, unless I'm missing something in with your point. There are no losers in this and there is no "fail(ure)".
* SS isn't a person's "life savings", it was a program set up to help individuals supplement their retirement savings.
* Individuals at or approaching retirement age using the simpliest, well- respected investment stategies, would not have a large portion of their "life savings" in the market. Moreover, the fact the proposed SS reform only allowed for an investment of 1/6th into the market, even if someone was being recklessly aggressive with their investment, they still only would have 1/6th of their benefits exposed to the volitality that took place in the market in 2008.
* As I mentioned earlier, for those who were in the market when it tanked, those losses were made up in a few years (as long as they stayed invested in the market) to ride it back up. Yes, this can be confusing issue to some, so guess what? Their best strategy may be to stay out completely since again, this was a VOLUNTARY option.
So in the end, unless I'm missing something in with your point. There are no losers in this and there is no "fail(ure)".
You just hit on the head what have been wrong. The majority of the people are not financially intelligent and do only what someone in authority suggest to them. So if the president suggest that you should invest into the stock market millions would have done so without any further investigation. Do you remember the crash before the great depression? Many people committed suicide over the lost of their money and the stock market eventually recovered, the same scenario would not have been to far fetched if it had happened today.
You are looking at it from rational and intelligent point of veiw but the vast majority would not and their entire savings would go into something that they knew little about and they would have lost everything.
You just hit on the head what have been wrong. The majority of the people are not financially intelligent and do only what someone in authority suggest to them. So if the president suggest that you should invest into the stock market millions would have done so without any further investigation. Do you remember the crash before the great depression? Many people committed suicide over the lost of their money and the stock market eventually recovered, the same scenario would not have been to far fetched if it had happened today.
You are looking at it from rational and intelligent point of veiw but the vast majority would not and their entire savings would go into something that they knew little about and they would have lost everything.
they is what I was just saying
I could take issue with the 1929 stock mkt crash analogy, but that is only a small difference in where both of us see the big picture here so I won't waste either of our times.
It is clear we have two completely different worldviews on what the role of the gov't is, and to what level of personal responsiblity we each see should be expected by the citizens of the US.
That's fine. That is what makes you a liberal and me a conservative. I don't imagine we're going to find a lot of common ground on the value of increased personal resonsbilty on this topic as you feel individuals' needs can best be provided by the state. That would be the opposite of where I'm at.
Agree to disagree?
Thx for the civil discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
