No, you're too dumb to invest your own SS money

[Fieldmouse]

Yep, you can be trusted with your very own private SS account. The common folk just aren't smart enough to know a good investment from a bad one. Thank god we have wise politians working for us.

Another bankrupted alternative energy company that Obama invested in.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...goes-bankrupt/

[bergall]

That's been the demokrat's mantra for years. Certainly, the benefits gained from the Bush tax cuts were great, yet the inept and stupid socialists flat out declared they have a right to that tax money, and that if people kept it instead of giving it to the government they'd just waste it. I remember the initiative in Florida to stop discretionary issuance of gun licenses...the state reverted to a 'shall issue' state amid screams and protestations from the left that rivers of blood will run thru the streets and yet none of that happened and Florida enjoyed a decline in violent crime as people flocked to gun stores to arm themselves, to provide the protection the police were both unable and not required to give. Same here...THEY want YOUR money. They are not entitled to it......

[LBR]

Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel received a $118 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department in 2009...

Ener1 is the third company to seek bankruptcy protection after receiving assistance from the Energy Department under the economic stimulus law. California solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. and Beacon Power, a Massachusetts energy-storage firm, declared bankruptcy last year. Solyndra received a $528 million federal loan, while Beacon Power got a $43 million loan guarantee.

And they refulse to answer questions about throwing near 700 million dollars (just on these three pollitical donars) of taxpayer money down the toilet. Impeachment proceedings are way late already.......

[NeverWill]

Just asking the 50 million old people who paid in $10,000 to SS and they took out $300,000.

I think they should cut you off as soon as you hit what you put in with some factor for inflation and earnings.

The elderly are by far the worst worst worst offendors of taking free Welfare. Food stamps is peanuts compared to the elderly blood suckers.

[Fieldmouse]

Originally Posted by NeverWill

Just asking the 50 million old people who paid in $10,000 to SS and they took out $300,000.

I think they should cut you off as soon as you hit what you put in with some factor for inflation and earnings.

The elderly are by far the worst worst worst offendors of taking free Welfare. Food stamps is peanuts compared to the elderly blood suckers.

FYI, Econ 101, 1000k invested for every year since birth at a nominal return rate of 8% will leave you with well over 4 million dollars at age 65. Still want to be forced to give 15% of your salary to the government in return for a check of 1200 to 2400/ month?

[NeverWill]

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse

FYI, Econ 101, 1000k invested for every year since birth at a nominal return rate of 8% will leave you with well over 4 million dollars at age 65. Still want to be forced to give 15% of your salary to the government in return for a check of 1200 to 2400/ month?

8% is an absolutely amazing rate and a $1,000 65 years ago was like a high income bracket person today.

All of the factory workers used to make under a $1,000 per year total

[sachiko]

Originally Posted by NeverWill

Just asking the 50 million old people who paid in $10,000 to SS and they took out $300,000.

I think they should cut you off as soon as you hit what you put in with some factor for inflation and earnings.

The elderly are by far the worst worst worst offendors of taking free Welfare. Food stamps is peanuts compared to the elderly blood suckers.

Even I know that the money collected from those people over the years, discounted at any reasonable rate, would have amounted to far more than $10,000.

The fund should also contain the "contributions" along with the dividends/interest of those who never started collecting. (Because they died before they became eligible.)

The remainder of the fund should also keep earning dividends/interest even though the people who "contributed" have started to draw benefits.

Also, the years 65-70 are a popular time to die. The uncollected money should still be there earning returns.

And FYI, the minimum wage went to $1 per hour in the late 50s. That gives even minimum wage earners over $2,000/year.

[NeverWill]

A person making min wage in 1960 and working for 45 yeras and getting a 3% increase every year along with a 2.5% earnings would have accumulated $60,000 in their account by retirement age. Sounds like about 6 years until they go on the biggest welfare plan in the country.

And they have the nerve to act ENTITLED to it.

[bergall]

Whoa...you two guys just lost me.... Some points which may or may not be salient:
1: Social Security is not welfare. It is a payout to people who were forced to participate in a program in which they were promised a return, and which they could not opt out of.
2: Social Security began 1/1/'37. At the time, the life expectancy of a normal American
was 58 years for Males, 62.4 for females (link: http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html), In 2012 the life expectancy for males was found to be 75.81 with females still living longer, topping out at 81.73 years. (link: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195)

I do not see how the progressive democrats of 1935 (the year the bill was passed) could have foreseen such a disparity. The system was originally designed for MOST of the people participating in the program to actually DIE BEFORE THEY WERE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS. It took until 1949 before the average male life expectancy actually reached the retirement age of 65 (14 years), and all the way to 2006 before males were able to enjoy a 10-year retirement period before their life expectancy topped out at 75 years. Women always skewed the formula, but to be fair, the amount of money paid out to females did not even being to become statistically measurable until after the sexual revolution in the 60's and 70's where women went to work and started paying into the system en masse.
So it's NOT welfare. It's a badly planned demokrat ponzi scheme, with it's tenets based on low female participation (no payouts to the women who mostly stayed home and worked as homemakers), and the fact that most people would die before being paid a dime from the plan.
3. Millions of these 'parasites' actually planned retirement and supplemental income lifestyles based on this government mandated entitlement. You cannot just remove it without figuring out how you're gonna keep gramma from moving into park, and supplementing her meager diet with canned cat food.

I don't know what the issue is. The ponzi scheme is collapsing. It was good politics back in the days of the Great Depression...and it's viability was unquestioned back in a time when people trusted the demokrats, and the plan was designed to actually WORK because it collected more than it was ever going to pay out not because of anything other than PEOPLE DID NOT LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO BE ELIGIBLE TO COLLECT THE PAYOUTS.

It's time has come and gone. Time for a phase out...and adoption of a system which can be self-sustaining, and where there is personal responsibility for retirement funding. The government should not be in the business of retirement planning.

[NeverWill]

Gramma can't move into the park. The 99%'s are living there