Anyone still think Privatizing Social Security is a good idea? - New England Patriots Forums

mcgraw_wv · 10-09-2008, 09:46 AM

The financial crisis we are in right now would have crushed people in private retirement accounts instead of Social Security, putting our elderly people and people in need on the streets starving... When the idea was pushed so strong from the Right... I warned of this.

This financial crisis we are in right now shows how simply bad of an idea that truely was...

Quote:

McCain Voted for Bush’s 2006 Social Security Privatization Plan. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

In 2000 McCain Wanted to Divert Social Security Money to Private Accounts. The Wall Street Journal reported that “[a] centerpiece of a McCain presidential bid in 2000 was a plan to divert a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts, much as President Bush proposed unsuccessfully.” The plan would put workers’ retirement money into the risky market and reduce the amount of Social Security payments they would receive from the government. The plan would undermine the Social Security system. [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politic...retirement.cfm

Whew... we dodged a bullet on that stinking mess of an idea from McCain and Bush...

mcgraw_wv · 10-09-2008, 10:13 AM

And this leads me to ask the question...
What decisions / ideas has McCain propsed that turned out to be right, smart, or even just not devestating...?

If we are going to judge judgment in these candidates... Where is the proof of McCain's solid judgment?

- Iraq war will take days
- Greeted as liberators
- privatizing social security
- Deregulation of wall street and business

Can anyone list and detail his great successes in judgement?

***BelichickFan*** · 10-09-2008, 10:16 AM

Actually I do as long as it's managed in a way so that people can't be all in stocks forever. I'll get back to that in a second but first, the wording "divert a portion", while correct, overstates it as it was a very small portion. But moving on, as I have said in numerous threads, the problem is with asset allocation. If I were allowed to put a piece in my private account I would still prefer that - however too many people don't understand the way to invest so we would have to have had some regulation along the lines of "you have to have as much in money market/bonds/etc as a percentage as your age" to stop people from leaving everything in stocks.

But, yes, as a 41 year old I would prefer to have been able to invest a piece by myself and have the equivalent percent reduced from my SS payments when I retire. But through regulation or education we would need to make sure it didn't just run unfettered but I said that 18 months ago too.

PatsFanInEaglesLand · 10-09-2008, 10:21 AM

Yes, for people my age(36) it was and still is a good idea.

Obama took exactly 1 stand, yes a whole whopping 1, it was opposing the surge and he was dead ******* wrong.

***Harry Boy*** · 10-09-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

The financial crisis we are in right now would have crushed people in private retirement accounts instead of Social Security, putting our elderly people and people in need on the streets starving... When the idea was pushed so strong from the Right... I warned of this.

This financial crisis we are in right now shows how simply bad of an idea that truely was...

John McCain Revealed: Retirement Security

Whew... we dodged a bullet on that stinking mess of an idea from McCain and Bush...

I agree, you got a good one with that, there are many more things I as a "Neo Con" don't agree with Bush/Mccain on, Illegal Aliens being the Big One.

mcgraw_wv · 10-09-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Actually I do as long as it's managed in a way so that people can't be all in stocks forever. I'll get back to that in a second but first, the wording "divert a portion", while correct, overstates it as it was a very small portion. But moving on, as I have said in numerous threads, the problem is with asset allocation. If I were allowed to put a piece in my private account I would still prefer that - however too many people don't understand the way to invest so we would have to have had some regulation along the lines of "you have to have as much in money market/bonds/etc as a percentage as your age" to stop people from leaving everything in stocks.

But, yes, as a 41 year old I would prefer to have been able to invest a piece by myself and have the equivalent percent reduced from my SS payments when I retire. But through regulation or education we would need to make sure it didn't just run unfettered but I said that 18 months ago too.

I believe and understand your points, as I feel the same way for myself... However I worry about all the other people, my grandmother, and other elderly people who do not know how to invest, putting their well being in the hands of some financial advisor...

Think about this for a second... you pass away before retirement, your wife relies on small amount of revenue and yoru Social Security check... would you feel comfortable with the market determining if your family eats or not, has shelter or not? Granted, I know you would know how to invest in your retirement... but will everyone that may rely on it in your family know what and how to do it... and do you trust some advisor that is paid to push certain advice?

Real World · 10-09-2008, 10:47 AM

Yes, absolutely. IIRC most of the proposals that were floated only allowed for a portion of an individuals savings to be invested in the market. If you look at the rolling averages of the stock market, throughout it's existence, there is something like an average 18% gain over every 10 year period. Since a retirement plan is a long term investment, that usually spans 2-4+ decades, the current situation is somewhat irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. Remember that 9/11 saw a market crash, only to see it crack a record 14,000 some 7 years later. Obviously the future is unpredictable, but if history shows us anything, I'd expect that the market will return in due time.

***BelichickFan*** · 10-09-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

I believe and understand your points, as I feel the same way for myself... However I worry about all the other people, my grandmother, and other elderly people who do not know how to invest, putting their well being in the hands of some financial advisor...

Think about this for a second... you pass away before retirement, your wife relies on small amount of revenue and yoru Social Security check... would you feel comfortable with the market determining if your family eats or not, has shelter or not? Granted, I know you would know how to invest in your retirement... but will everyone that may rely on it in your family know what and how to do it... and do you trust some advisor that is paid to push certain advice?

Like I said it would have to be limited. I would limit the allowable decisions enough that many Republicans would be turned off but I don't have a lot of confidence in the average person I'm afraid. But if you had an automated system that ensured that a percentage of at least your age is invested in government securities or very low risk bonds, etc, then it would be OK.

A simple formula so that until you're 45 you can invest fully in stocks but at 45 you have to be at least 45% in safe investments and that could go up incrementally so that by 65 so have to be 90%, or whatever in safety.

It could work but would need safeguards and would have to be explained a lot better than it has been. But it's dead now.

mcgraw_wv · 10-09-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

Yes, absolutely. IIRC most of the proposals that were floated only allowed for a portion of an individuals savings to be invested in the market. If you look at the rolling averages of the stock market, throughout it's existence, there is something like an average 18% gain over every 10 year period. Since a retirement plan is a long term investment, that usually spans 2-4+ decades, the current situation is somewhat irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. Remember that 9/11 saw a market crash, only to see it crack a record 14,000 some 7 years later. Obviously the future is unpredictable, but if history shows us anything, I'd expect that the market will return in due time.

I know, I understand that...
But tell that to the people who begins withdrawing their private SS funds in the time of a crash...

So it's a crap shoot to when and how much you get to retire with... if you retire in the midst of a crash, tough...???

Stokes · 10-09-2008, 10:54 AM

RW has it, the plans rely on long-term investment, as the trend over 30-40 years is always up. Also, weren't the plans optional? So in the cases you worry about mcgraw (people that don't know how to invest), they can just stick with the gov't program rather than pulling the money out. To me it makes sense, its your retirement money, and if you want to pull a portion and risk it in the market for the potential reward of it growing much faster, why not?