Notice how DTB ignores the unemployment numbers straight from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that I posted above - changing the subject to some ding-bat on CNN and the MJ trial?
Great job George!
- Thread starter ocelot
- Start date
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
ocelot--the reason why I like the privatized accounts is that it gives everyone choices. Will there be people that make money off of this with fees? Certainly. But if the return to the person is better than what is offered now, it is an improvement.
You can also go with T-bills at 4% interest per year with no fees. That is much better than the current 2.5% interest over the course of my expected lifetime.
I, personally, do not use mutual funds because of the fees in my personal investing. But I prefer to have my money, so I can have some input as to what my account does.
You can also go with T-bills at 4% interest per year with no fees. That is much better than the current 2.5% interest over the course of my expected lifetime.
I, personally, do not use mutual funds because of the fees in my personal investing. But I prefer to have my money, so I can have some input as to what my account does.
dawg,
I don't have too much problem with the extremely modest privatization plan being talked about but I still see it as a non-issue and believe it is a smokescreen to avoid the REAL problems with our health-care system. I think that is where the game will be won or lost.
I don't have too much problem with the extremely modest privatization plan being talked about but I still see it as a non-issue and believe it is a smokescreen to avoid the REAL problems with our health-care system. I think that is where the game will be won or lost.
Smurph I have seen Dobbs on occasion and would agree with you he is quite factual and represents both sides the times I viewed.
Ocelot Let me commend you on your research--good for you. Actually there several enities that chart figures and come up with different #'s and each party uses the one that fits their agenda--with that being said I could not argue with yours #'s and in fact would say they probably are the most accurate than the others.
Now I would like for you to go back and look over those #'s and the ones prior to Clinton in Reagan years and tell me what jumps out at you. Could it be events that occurred in their terms rather than anything either pres was responsible for.
Like the example of manufacturing jobs--it has been on decline since its peak in 1980.
Employment figures will be harder to keep below 6 in future--simply because we have influx of immigrants doing work and many not reported--and then there is that segmant of population that continues to grow for monetary reasons without intention of working. Go through these tables and look for the highest unemployment sector and you'll see my point.From your Bureau of Statistics also.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat24.txt
Ocelot Let me commend you on your research--good for you. Actually there several enities that chart figures and come up with different #'s and each party uses the one that fits their agenda--with that being said I could not argue with yours #'s and in fact would say they probably are the most accurate than the others.
Now I would like for you to go back and look over those #'s and the ones prior to Clinton in Reagan years and tell me what jumps out at you. Could it be events that occurred in their terms rather than anything either pres was responsible for.
Like the example of manufacturing jobs--it has been on decline since its peak in 1980.
Employment figures will be harder to keep below 6 in future--simply because we have influx of immigrants doing work and many not reported--and then there is that segmant of population that continues to grow for monetary reasons without intention of working. Go through these tables and look for the highest unemployment sector and you'll see my point.From your Bureau of Statistics also.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat24.txt
Private accounts for the few that know what there doing. Maybe. Look at last 4 years in the market. If you guessed right. If you didn't. And this you can always stick with the good strong American companies and be safe. Well of course thats bull. And those who believe they can live on 4% growth. Be very careful.
Might be better to have your Insurance program called S S as it is today. Then on your own you can gamble. At least you have something to fall back on.
Might be better to have your Insurance program called S S as it is today. Then on your own you can gamble. At least you have something to fall back on.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
djv--if you can't live with 4% growth on your SS, how can you stand by and let it stay at 2.5%?
From my understanding, that is what SS currently grows at. A T-bill is just as guaranteed as the investments that we are currently using for SS funds.
Also, choice is what this country is built on. If someone is not educated in investing, they should buy the T-bills and check back when they are eligible to cash out.
I also want to point out that I have not once said that Bush's plan that has been proposed is the end all to SS reform. I very much appreciate the fact that he put something on the table. Now the ball is in the court of those opposing it to take what is there and improve upon it.
From my understanding, that is what SS currently grows at. A T-bill is just as guaranteed as the investments that we are currently using for SS funds.
Also, choice is what this country is built on. If someone is not educated in investing, they should buy the T-bills and check back when they are eligible to cash out.
I also want to point out that I have not once said that Bush's plan that has been proposed is the end all to SS reform. I very much appreciate the fact that he put something on the table. Now the ball is in the court of those opposing it to take what is there and improve upon it.
Dawg the Senator from Ill sorry don't know all there names. Said this. Raise the tax limit to 110 from 90 thousand. No early retierment till 63 and all those born after 1960 who are expected to live into there 90's. Regular retierment is age 68. That makes it good for 110 years. It was shot down at once because of the jump to 110. But a few days later the Pres said they would mean test the upper end of earners on how much S S they would get.
What the helll that is a hidden tax.
Yes I understand the 4% Vs 2.5% Really when you put in the average inflation last 30years at 2.9% a year. That changes all the numbers. That is why S S is a insurance system. You may only put in 120000 to 200000 all the years you work. Dependng on salary. At 19000 a year pay back to start with. In 7 to 10 years you got all your money back and now are getting way more then 4%.
And each year get a 1.5% to 2% raise for doing nothing. I can tell you now there is no program that will pay you 1900 a month for your 200000. I just checked with a Fedility. You give them 275000 today they will give you 1450 a month the rest of your life if you are starting today and are 63. 300000 would be 1610. And those are fixed no increase.
What the helll that is a hidden tax.
Yes I understand the 4% Vs 2.5% Really when you put in the average inflation last 30years at 2.9% a year. That changes all the numbers. That is why S S is a insurance system. You may only put in 120000 to 200000 all the years you work. Dependng on salary. At 19000 a year pay back to start with. In 7 to 10 years you got all your money back and now are getting way more then 4%.
And each year get a 1.5% to 2% raise for doing nothing. I can tell you now there is no program that will pay you 1900 a month for your 200000. I just checked with a Fedility. You give them 275000 today they will give you 1450 a month the rest of your life if you are starting today and are 63. 300000 would be 1610. And those are fixed no increase.
Last edited:
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
djv--There are really two issues at hand, imo. I believe due to our age difference, we are primarily (but not solely) concerned with opposite issues.
The first issue is making sure that the population that is approaching reitrement age gets what they have been promised. This is the issue that you refer to when you are speaking of the monthly income coming back to a person. This is a VERY important issue and one that must be addressed.
The second issue is moving forward with SS. The current system is broken. I don't want something to make it good for 110 years or 250 years. If we are going to chage the system, I want a system that is projected to work as far out as we can project. If we can see an end to when it will work, then we have not fixed it -- only patched it for the next generation to worry and fight about.
You mention some very good ways to improve our current situation with raising minimum retirement age and the tax limit (which personally I don't see why there needs to be a limit if PSAs are introduced and your money stays with you).
I must admit that you lost me towards the end of your post.
Once again, I think we are speaking of two different issues, though. I feel that if we are given a choice, the younger generations will have the opportunity to far exceed the bankroll at retirement than we can achieve with the current system no matter what fixes are put in place.
Some people say that there are parts of the population that will make bad choices and lose their money. Is that really a good enough argument not to allow people the choice to improve their situation? Is is right to hold EVERYONE back because of a few? Not to get too far on another subject, but that is exactly the reason why our education system is a joke. Smarter kids are not allowed to excel in fear of making the less intelligent kids feel inadequate.
But that discussion is for another day.
The first issue is making sure that the population that is approaching reitrement age gets what they have been promised. This is the issue that you refer to when you are speaking of the monthly income coming back to a person. This is a VERY important issue and one that must be addressed.
The second issue is moving forward with SS. The current system is broken. I don't want something to make it good for 110 years or 250 years. If we are going to chage the system, I want a system that is projected to work as far out as we can project. If we can see an end to when it will work, then we have not fixed it -- only patched it for the next generation to worry and fight about.
You mention some very good ways to improve our current situation with raising minimum retirement age and the tax limit (which personally I don't see why there needs to be a limit if PSAs are introduced and your money stays with you).
I must admit that you lost me towards the end of your post.
Once again, I think we are speaking of two different issues, though. I feel that if we are given a choice, the younger generations will have the opportunity to far exceed the bankroll at retirement than we can achieve with the current system no matter what fixes are put in place.
Some people say that there are parts of the population that will make bad choices and lose their money. Is that really a good enough argument not to allow people the choice to improve their situation? Is is right to hold EVERYONE back because of a few? Not to get too far on another subject, but that is exactly the reason why our education system is a joke. Smarter kids are not allowed to excel in fear of making the less intelligent kids feel inadequate.
But that discussion is for another day.
Yes education is a big bucket as Medicare is. In fact Medicare goes in to deep trouble 2007 and no one want's to mention it. It should be fixed before S S. Or maybe it's time to tie it in with S S as a over all fix. On the point above I was just trying to point out folks need to put more away then they think. Some folks understand that as you do. Our problem is over 30% don't. The other reason I would like the system as it is today not changed much is. So many companies are dropping pension plans. If left as is today at least many folks could take some risk with other funds. At least they won't be broke if that fails. Or does not gain as much as they think it will. Right now there are so many folks I know that took the big hit in 2001/2002. They are so thankful they have that 1400 to 1700 a month coming from SS . They lost over 50% of there money in 01 & 02 and have not made it up yet.
