Serious SS question

[Plane]

Roger Boyce, 71 and Dale Roberts, 54 - http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-01-25-enron-employees-usat_x.htm

Dan Gannon, 60 - http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/032107kvueenronpowerball-eh.dc12b6.html
(This one has a twist - he won $182 million in the Powerball lottery )

Lisa Brown's retirement fund fell from $45,000 to $210 from Worldcom's debacle.

I've provided the names and the data, now you answer my question Sirs.

Actually Js, you haven't.  You provided some names of folks who did precisely what I referred to as would not be occuring with current SS reform dialog....putting one's eggs all in 1 basket, no diversifying, no leaving it in for a period of 30+years, no nothing of what was asked of.  So, no you haven't answered the query in any way.  But by all means, there must be some examples of how terrible this system must be to those who are in it for the long haul, like what people are required to do for SS

So, you aren't giving people the freedom to invest how they like? You are still directing them on where to invest?

People could volentarily invest in almost anything just as now.

Yes, there would be a short list of choices and all of the choices would be diversified funds
The diffrent funds could be specialist in certain sectors of the economy , but there would be no baseball card or commodity future type investents in the mandated investment scheme.

More importantly there would be no Ponzi scheme that had current investment as its only sorce of payout.

Saying that Social Security IF LEFT ALONE will go 'bankrupt' is not a realistic statement, since there will be major political pressure to force the government to rectify problems with SS.

  How you can beleive this is a mystery to me. I might as well write a check to myself for a zillion dollars , thus makeing myself a zillionaire.

What can political pressure do to prevent the government from reduceing the payout ,when there is nothing in the till ?

If the answer is to raise taxes infinately , I predict political pressure in a difrent direction .

Bill Clinton took action to reuce the COLA by changeing the formula that computed it , the result was a more "realistic " Cola that would tend  to rise by a lower perentage evey year , for example if the old formula would have produced a 5% Cola the new COLA would poduce 4%. This might not seem signifigant unless one considers that the diffrence is culumulitive over the years. If it makes 1% diffrence each year ten years down the road the difrence it makes is more than 10%, because the baseline each year is lower than it would have been.

So the promise will be broken , the process is already underway ,but the breaking is done in small stages so that it will be hard to tell exactly when it happened.

[_JS]

Roger Boyce, 71 and Dale Roberts, 54 - http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-01-25-enron-employees-usat_x.htm

Dan Gannon, 60 - http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/032107kvueenronpowerball-eh.dc12b6.html
(This one has a twist - he won $182 million in the Powerball lottery )

Lisa Brown's retirement fund fell from $45,000 to $210 from Worldcom's debacle.

I've provided the names and the data, now you answer my question Sirs.

Actually Js, you haven't.  You provided some names of folks who did precisely what I referred to as would not be occuring with current SS reform dialog....putting one's eggs all in 1 basket, no diversifying, no leaving it in for a period of 30+years, no nothing of what was asked of.  So, no you haven't answered the query in any way.  But by all means, there must be some examples of how terrible this system must be to those who are in it for the long haul, like what people are required to do for SS

So, you aren't giving people the freedom to invest how they like? You are still directing them on where to invest?

People could volentarily invest in almost anything just as now.

Yes, there would be a short list of choices and all of the choices would be diversified funds
The diffrent funds could be specialist in certain sectors of the economy , but there would be no baseball card or commodity future type investents in the mandated investment scheme.

More importantly there would be no Ponzi scheme that had current investment as its only sorce of payout.

Plane read your first two sentences:

"People could volentarily invest in almost anything just as now."
"Yes, there would be a short list of choices and all of the choices would be diversified funds."

Don't you see a logical inconsistency there?

And just to be clear, we are talking corporatism here - neoliberal corporatism at that. For example, could you invest in your Trade Union? Could you take the money and donate it to the CPUSA?

No. You can invest in a government selected group of mutual funds, where a select group of investors will make a fortune by receiving a massive infusion of investment capital. Nice...

[sirs]

You see Plane, it works like this.  We need to criticize and condemn any reform program for allowing the potential that one could lose everything (as implied by the Enron & Worldcom folks), yet equally condemn it for not allowing enough freedom for one to lose everything.

Isn't that nifty, how that works?  You would think then, given such extremes in criticizing the same program, there would be some compromise that could be reached in the middle somewhere

 

[Michael Tee]

What I'd like to know is how, if government is so devious, incompetent and untrustworthy, it is going to be allowed to pick out the one or two "chosen" baskets of mutual funds which are the only ones the "free to choose" investors are really free to choose?

Does nobody see the potential for government abuse here?  Why is this devious, untrustworthy, power-hungry Federal Government suddenly endowed with the wisdom, honesty and probity to pick out which funds its citizens can invest in?  Where does the confidence come from that this untrustworthy Federal Government won't put its friends' and supporters' funds into the basket and leave out the funds that have failed to show their support of the administration?

[_JS]

You see Plane, it works like this.  We need to criticize and condemn any reform program for allowing the potential that one could lose everything (as implied by the Enron & Worldcom folks), yet equally condemn it for not allowing enough freedom for one to lose everything.

Isn't that nifty, how that works?  You would think then, given such extremes in criticizing the same program, there would be some compromise that could be reached in the middle somewhere

 

No. That's your typical hit and run style once you've lost the ability to manipulate the framing of the debate, Sirs.

I told you very starkly why I disagree with privatisation of social security. It is not the goal of social security to fluctuate with the market, nor invest in private businesses, nor enrich Wall Street investors. That's it.

That does not mean I cannot appreciate the bizarre aspects of the plan y'all seem so hellbent on endorsing.

You speak of freedom, where there is none. You speak of choice, but there is none. The Federal Government, which you constantly berate, is the very institution that will tell you where you can place the funds. I'm not attacking the plan per se, but the fact that y'all support it so whole-heartedly. I find it humorous. "Freedom?" Hell, you couldn't even take the money and invest it in futures, foreign currency, or commodities. No, it must to be from a range of selected mutual funds. This from the same people that went ape shit over "Hillary Clinton won't let you select your own doctor" back in 1993!!

No. I gave my reason for opposing social security privatisation, but that doesn't preclude me from enjoying the many portrayals of Janus that are taking place in here.

[sirs]

You see Plane, it works like this.  We need to criticize and condemn any reform program for allowing the potential that one could lose everything (as implied by the Enron & Worldcom folks), yet equally condemn it for not allowing enough freedom for one to lose everything.

Isn't that nifty, how that works?  You would think then, given such extremes in criticizing the same program, there would be some compromise that could be reached in the middle somewhere

 

No. That's your typical hit and run style once you've lost the ability to manipulate the framing of the debate, Sirs.

Hit & run style??  Naaaa, the framing was clear cut......show us examples of folks who left their $$ in the stock market for 30+ years and came out with less.  Fact is, nithing has been shown of such, with the only "examples" that of those putting all their investment $$ into 1 basket, and losing that 1 basket.  That never was even a remote possibility with the reform being discussed, despite Lanya's and your efforts at implying such.  Then when that is demonstrated to be the case, you quickly revert to the other extreme in criticism,...now there's not enough freedom in doing choosing. 

Trying to have it both ways, and getting your hand caught in the cookie jar is the more accurate scenario.  But more to the point, where's the medium in your criticisms?  At what point is their enough freedom to provide better returns than the bankrupting train of SS, but enough Government oversight to prevent SS induced Enrons?

[_JS]

You see Plane, it works like this.  We need to criticize and condemn any reform program for allowing the potential that one could lose everything (as implied by the Enron & Worldcom folks), yet equally condemn it for not allowing enough freedom for one to lose everything.

Isn't that nifty, how that works?  You would think then, given such extremes in criticizing the same program, there would be some compromise that could be reached in the middle somewhere

 

No. That's your typical hit and run style once you've lost the ability to manipulate the framing of the debate, Sirs.

Hit & run style??  Naaaa, the framing was clear cut......show us examples of folks who left their $$ in the stock market for 30+ years and came out with less.  Fact is, nithing has been shown of such, with the only "examples" that of those putting all their investment $$ into 1 basket, and losing that 1 basket.  That never was even a remote possibility with the reform being discussed, despite Lanya's and your efforts at implying such.  Then when that is demonstrated to be the case, you quickly revert to the other extreme in criticism,...now there's not enough freedom in doing choosing. 

Trying to have it both ways, and getting your hand caught in the cookie jar is the more accurate scenario.  But more to the point, where's the medium in your criticisms?  At what point is their enough freedom to provide better returns than the bankrupting train of SS, but enough Government oversight to prevent SS induced Enrons?

Why privatise at all? We can have a perfectly stable Social Security fund and there are many solutions to do so. More importantly, these solutions will not deviate from the legal goal of social security. They will not create market distortions either, as your supported corporatist model would. We don't have to panic and enact any knee-jerk legislation. We can lift the cap on payroll taxes of those who make more than $97,000 and there are other steps that will lead to solvency. And in this way we will not require enriching select Wall Street investment firms.

[sirs]

...the framing was clear cut......show us examples of folks who left their $$ in the stock market for 30+ years and came out with less.  Fact is, nithing has been shown of such, with the only "examples" that of those putting all their investment $$ into 1 basket, and losing that 1 basket.  That never was even a remote possibility with the reform being discussed, despite Lanya's and your efforts at implying such.  Then when that is demonstrated to be the case, you quickly revert to the other extreme in criticism,...now there's not enough freedom in doing choosing. 

Trying to have it both ways, and getting your hand caught in the cookie jar is the more accurate scenario.  But more to the point, where's the medium in your criticisms?  At what point is their enough freedom to provide better returns than the bankrupting train of SS, but enough Government oversight to prevent SS induced Enrons?

Why privatise at all?

Because
a) the current SS system is going to go bankrupt, sooner rather than later...it NEEDS reformed
b) Katrina
c) it's egregiously unfair & UNETHICAL to try and make others ("the rich") make up the shortfall, when they've already been taxed on the same thing
d) you have yet to provide any examples of folks who have invested in a diverse portfolio, within the Stock Market, for 30+years and came out with less than when they started.  On the contrary, as Ami has pointed out, even the most safe of diverse mutual fund arrangements will produce nearly DOUBLE what SS generates