In this thread, we talk about the State of the Union Address

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

2. Tough stuff if most people suck at money management. Put the money in the least aggressive fund and go from there. There is such a thing as risk versus reward and if someone does not know how to invest they can put it into MM funds or even CD's backed by the government (similar to FDIC). I really don't care. People must learn to take care of themselves.

I think this is where we're having the disconnect - I agree with this from a conceptual basis, and personal responsibility should really be emphasized as often as possible in government/citizen interactions.

However, the reality is that allowing dumb people to do dumb things with dumb money they've poured into a dumb system will likely cause a massive increase in the need for social services, welfare, government-sponsored senior housing, etc.

There's the distinct possibility that privatization creates more new expenses for the average taxpayer than they would gain through average investment. What do you do with those who lose their nut? What do you do in crappy markets?

The goal of any government interaction with the market should be to ebb swings, right? Doesn't privatization distinctly and strongly emphasize market swings by making the highs higher and the lows even lower (more money into social programs etc.)?

I don't want to make $40,000 in the market, but lose $1,200 in taxes every year for 50 years. This could well be a hidden net negative.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

However, the reality is that allowing dumb people to do dumb things with dumb money they've poured into a dumb system will likely cause a massive increase in the need for social services, welfare, government-sponsored senior housing, etc.

Don't we allow people to gamble their hard owned $$$ away? Doesn't our various governments sanction this possible loss of income? I see no guarantees that gambling will result in a reward of more $$$. The lottery also is a sinkhole where many dumb people sink their hard earned earnings. At least with the mutual fund market you will not lose all your principal as what you are, in fact, buying are shares of a fund at a price certain. One will still own the shares and as the market rebounds the shares regain their value. It may not be as quickly as one would like but it has always happened. I don't see the libs out there bitching about gambling and the lottery. Maybe that is because it is the governments that are taking peoples $$$ and not private entities. There is a little bit of hypocrisy there.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Don't we allow people to gamble their hard owned $$$ away?

We do, and the reason why we heavily tax casinos is to help offset the social cost of the catastrophic losses suffered by morons, addicts and others.

Past that, I don't get why this is a "Libs" thing - I'm not a liberal under any definition, I want to keep as much of my money as possible. Other people going broke forces me to spend my money on them, too - like it or not, that's the way it is. So let's not change a bad system for a worse one that allows them to go broke faster and in more ways.

I'm not sure what it's like in your part of the country, but honestly quite a few "libs" I know hate the lottery system for being about the most regressive 'tax' in the world - and I've never met a "Repub" who got all up in arms because dumb poor folk were getting charged a 49% tax on their lottery EV without being told about it or where it was going. So like ...

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

We do, and the reason why we heavily tax casinos is to help offset the social cost of the catastrophic losses suffered by morons, addicts and others.

Past that, I don't get why this is a "Libs" thing - I'm not a liberal under any definition, I want to keep as much of my money as possible. Other people going broke forces me to spend my money on them, too - like it or not, that's the way it is. So let's not change a bad system for a worse one that allows them to go broke faster and in more ways.

I'm not sure what it's like in your part of the country, but honestly quite a few "libs" I know hate the lottery system for being about the most regressive 'tax' in the world - and I've never met a "Repub" who got all up in arms because dumb poor folk were getting charged a 49% tax on their lottery EV without being told about it or where it was going. So like ...

Um, so why have casinos if you have so many problems with addicts, morons, etc. (your words)? This is, of course, a redundant question. The answer is because we as a people have freewill to do dumb stuff. As such, I do not believe it is my responsibility to rescue people who do dumb stuff with their money. I do believe it is our responsibility as a society to help the truly helpless and indigent. But not the morons and addicts.

How do you know that changing the SS system by privatizing a portion of it would necessarily be bad? Is this what the talking heads have told you? If we haven't tried it how do we know it won't work? Instead you would have us we keep bailing it out and throwing good money after bad. If we do the same thing over and over again why should we expect a different outcome? That is just crazy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...security-fund/#

I put my money into mutuals over the last 20 years and while the funds have gone up and down over this time frame I am well into the plus side. I am not a genius when it comes to investments but a (very) little common sense and one can build equity. One has to look at the long term results not the short term fluctuations.

What would one call someone who supports gambling or the lottery and then bemoans the fact that some people become addicted and lose all their money? Maybe I have misrepresented the "liberal" viewpoint but it is certainly not a conservative one. Perhaps it is just an insane viewpoint, instead. I am truly baffled.

I am in NC and can assure you that our state, which until this year has been run by "libs", in both chambers for the last 60 years , installed a lottery for "education" over the objections of those more conservative in beliefs. This lottery is a joke as the funds do not go directly to education and instead go into the general fund just like SS funds do at a national level. Education has not received extra due to lottery receipts and now we are laying off teachers. I am sick and tired of our "leaders" wasting our money and lying to us about their intentions.

SS is a sham and never was intended to be a retirement fund. It is a safety net and even at that a poor one. 15% of our money goes to prop this joke up and we are in the red this year.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

SS is a sham and never was intended to be a retirement fund. It is a safety net and even at that a poor one. 15% of our money goes to prop this joke up and we are in the red this year.

From the Social Security Administration page itself:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html


Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AGDee

From the Social Security Administration page itself:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html


Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)

Point taken. However this also indicates that it was never meant to be to sole or primary source of retirement funds.

"It is impossible under any social insurance system to provide ideal security for every individual. The practical objective is to pay benefits that provide a minimum degree of social security—as a basis upon which the worker, through his own efforts, will have a better chance to provide adequately for his individual security." -- From the Report of the Social Security Board recommending the changes which were embodied in the 1939 Amendments.

I should have parsed my words better and stated that it was not originally envisioned as the sole or primary source of retirement income. I still call it a sham as the return on investment is poor and the Trust Fund is not there. There is no money set aside by our Federal government.