UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (59) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 5267  
Subject: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 8/26/2005 2:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>
>> That's really silly. Indexes would be used. No one would be able to influence the investments. <<

Maybe at first. But I suspect that eventually, some legislators would want to set up some "socially acceptable" screening. And what we'd have to invest in might still be somewhat like an index, but probably more like the Domini Social Index.
<<

Well, the Domini Fund has returned 10.68% for the past year. I could live with that! You go look up how much Treasuries have returned.

So if they want to offer a socially responsible fund as an option, why not?
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4545 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 8/26/2005 9:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
>> So if they want to offer a socially responsible fund as an option, why not? <<

Nothing wrong with it as an option.

My fear is that politicians would start making it a *requirement*.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4549 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 8/28/2005 7:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Since everyone has their own ideas about what socially responsible is, I don't think that is likely to happen.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gdgrimm Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4550 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 8/29/2005 11:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
...Since everyone has their own ideas about what socially responsible is, I don't think that is likely to happen....

Ummm. You're being sarcastic, right?

Everyone has their own ideas about whether SS should even exist, yet the gov't is making everybody participate in it.

Differing opinions amongst people has never stopped the gov't from mandating something upon everybody.

And BTW, this gov't choosing what can be invested in has been running rampant in California's pension plan.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ravvt Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4551 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 8/29/2005 9:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
And BTW, this gov't choosing what can be invested in has been running rampant in California's pension plan.


Here's a World Bank study which documents the problems of gov't directed pension accounts worldwide.

Net-net: Lower returns...


http://tinyurl.com/6tbjm

Managing Public Pension Reserves Part I:
Evidence from the International Experience


Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0003; Publication Date: 01/2000
by Augusto Iglesias and Robert J. Palacios

Abstract
Many pension schemes mandated by governments have accumulated large reserves. The management of these funds has a direct effect on financial sustainability and potential benefit levels. It also has important indirect effects on the overall economy when the funds are large. Part I of this study surveys some of the available cross-country evidence on publicly-managed pension reserves.

We find that publicly-managed pension funds (i) are often used to achieve objectives other than providing pensions (ii) are difficult to insulate from political interference and (iii) tend to earn poor rates of return relative to relevant indices. These findings are consistent across countries of all types, but returns are especially dismal in countries with poor governance.

The experience to date suggests that the rationale for prefunding have been seriously undermined by public management of pension reserves. Countries with serious governance problems should probably avoid funding altogether.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4552 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/3/2005 5:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>Ummm. You're being sarcastic, right?<<

No, I am quite serious. I agree, most socially responsible funds would exclude tobacco, alcohol, weapons. Some might add other things, though.

>>Everyone has their own ideas about whether SS should even exist, yet the gov't is making everybody participate in it.
<<

No, only a very small minority of right-wing kooks think it should not exist. The rest of us favor it, but want it stabalized for the future.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4553 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/3/2005 5:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
All right. This is exactly why an index should be used for SS and corporate governance should be stictly forbidden.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4554 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/4/2005 12:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
No, I am quite serious. I agree, most socially responsible funds would exclude tobacco, alcohol, weapons. Some might add other things, though.

Seeing as the Constitution specifically protects the rights of citizens to own weapons, why would you have a government program that excludes the companies that make weapons?

>>Everyone has their own ideas about whether SS should even exist, yet the gov't is making everybody participate in it.
<<

No, only a very small minority of right-wing kooks think it should not exist. The rest of us favor it, but want it stabalized for the future.


I guess that makes me a "right-wing kook". However, I don't believe that the rights of the mass, which is never mentioned in the Constitution, should trump the rights of the individual, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.


Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4555 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/4/2005 12:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JustWhoIAm:

<<<<No, I am quite serious. I agree, most socially responsible funds would exclude tobacco, alcohol, weapons. Some might add other things, though.>>>>

"Seeing as the Constitution specifically protects the rights of citizens to own weapons, why would you have a government program that excludes the companies that make weapons?</>"

Do you know about some secret Amendment to the Constitution that protects the rights of citizens, but not others, to own weapons?

My copy of the Constitution does not.

Curiously, JAFO






Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4556 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/4/2005 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Seeing as the Constitution specifically protects the rights of citizens to own weapons, why would you have a government program that excludes the companies that make weapons?</>"

Do you know about some secret Amendment to the Constitution that protects the rights of citizens, but not others, to own weapons?


No. Why do you ask? My post was not suggesting that such a thing existed.

The prior post noted that certain types of companies would likely be excluded from a socially responsible fund held by the government. One of the types of companies that was noted as likely excluded was companies dealing with weapons. I simply pointed out that the Constitution acknowledges the right of citizens to bear arms and that it would not make sense for that same government to exclude manufacturers of weapons from a fund that it held. As for people visiting the U.S., there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the government from creating a restriction that would prevent them from having weapons while they visit.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4560 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/4/2005 11:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>Seeing as the Constitution specifically protects the rights of citizens to own weapons<<

Off topic. And you left out the part about "a well-regulated militia".

>>, why would you have a government program that excludes the companies that make weapons?<<

Offering the OPTION of not investing in them is hardly an exclusion. Besides they get plenty of government money anyway.

>>I guess that makes me a "right-wing kook". <<

No "guess" about it. Social Security is staying around. Do get over it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4562 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/5/2005 9:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>Seeing as the Constitution specifically protects the rights of citizens to own weapons<<

Off topic. And you left out the part about "a well-regulated militia".


How do you figure it is off topic? You brought up that a socially responsible fund held by the government would exclude makers of weapons.


>>I guess that makes me a "right-wing kook". <<

No "guess" about it. Social Security is staying around. Do get over it.


Thanks for the clarification. I understand that Socialist Security is staying around. I understand that our government has moved from protection of the individual from the masses to suppression of the individual for the masses. I also understand when people cannot support their argument they often stereotype their opponent with a derogatory term--in fact, I'm breaking my 10 yr old daughter of the habit.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4563 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/5/2005 9:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> Off topic. And you left out the part about "a well-regulated militia". <<

OT again, but it was stating WHY the RKBA was necessary, not that this was a condition on weapons ownership. Nowhere does it say that the RKBA only exists for people in a "well regulated militia."

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gdgrimm Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4564 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/5/2005 1:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Let's put this whole thing into thread context...

ziggy29 in http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=22943705 said:
"My fear is that politicians would start making it a *requirement*."

you replied in http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=22952609:
"Since everyone has their own ideas about what socially responsible is, I don't think that is likely to happen."

Which would mean that you believe that since everyone has their own ideas on the subject, the gov't isn't likely to make a requirement about it.

To which I supplied an example of something that not everybody agrees on (i.e. how, or even if, SS should exist), yet is still a gov't requirement.

Perhaps you do have some good reason to believe the gov't won't mandate 'socially acceptable' funds upon people, but to think it won't simply because people can't agree on what that would mean is silly.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4566 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/6/2005 3:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>> Nowhere does it say that the RKBA only exists for people in a "well regulated militia."<<

Sounds like exactly that to me. But since it's nothing to do with Social Security let's drop it. YOu want the last word, feel free.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4567 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/6/2005 3:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>Let's put this whole thing into thread context...<<

Accurately done, thank you.

>>Perhaps you do have some good reason to believe the gov't won't mandate 'socially acceptable' funds upon people,<<

Yes, I do, and it's because people will not tolerate it, since it could limit their returns. I have no problem if SR funds are offered AS AN OPTION. If you do, why?

>> but to think it won't simply because people can't agree on what that would mean is silly.<<

I stated that people who favor such funds, or those who run them would generally exclude tobacco and alcohol. Most would exclude weapons also. Beyond that, there will be a few folks that have something they don't like and will be pushing to exclude it. No one thing would be important enough to most people to get on the list.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4568 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/6/2005 7:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Yes, I do, and it's because people will not tolerate it, since it could limit their returns.

Are we talking the same people that do not want any private accounts and demand to stick with the lack of returns in SS? It is amazing what the majority of people will tolerate when it comes to bad financial decisions.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4569 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/6/2005 9:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>Are we talking the same people that do not want any private accounts...<<

Yes.

>> and demand to stick with the lack of returns in SS? <<

Of course not. This is an investment site, isn't it? I agree, there ARE such people. Hopefully they can be convinced that getting a better return from their SS dollars is a good thing. If not, things look rather bleak for SS. And for the USA.

>>It is amazing what the majority of people will tolerate when it comes to bad financial decisions.<<

Unfortunately the majority is lacking in financial knowledge--no question about that. They believe Wall Street and the big banks are out to cheat them. And hasn't that happened far too often?




Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4570 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/6/2005 11:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Unfortunately the majority is lacking in financial knowledge--no question about that. They believe Wall Street and the big banks are out to cheat them.

Yep, they also believe the government is here to take care of them. However, many of us understand that Wall Street and big banks are out to make money and do so by enabling us to do the same; and that the government is not here to take care of us either by design or recent intent.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: OldOne Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4571 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 12:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sounds like exactly that to me.

Actually, the qway the founders probably intended it was that the right to keep & bear arms was not to be infringed in order that the people should be free to form themselves into militias to provide for the common defense.

The well-regulated part simply means that they have trained together and function well as a military force. The word "regulate" has changed meaning over time.

The point is moot today, since any male posting to this board probably is, or has been, a member of the "unorganized militia", which is defined by statute as all able-bodied men between the ages of 15 and 45.

These are exactly the people the founders wanted to have arms.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4573 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 8:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
They believe Wall Street and the big banks are out to cheat them. And hasn't that happened far too often?

No, it's remarkably rare considering that there are thousands of publicly traded companies and God knows how many banks... and a very small percentage have ever cheated any investor/account holder out of a dime. Those that have are (rightfully) punished. Social Security on the other hand, suffice it to say that, seeing as it is a monopoly of sorts, the danger of any potential (or existing) "cheating" in the system is far, far more dangerous than that of banks and stocks.

This is an important point. Since SS is paid out (or not) on Government whim, any given person's money is at far more risk within the SS system than in the stock market or in a bank. The Government is the only entity that can reneg on their promises without fear of persecution, all they need do is declare an emergency and seize the funds. Any publicly traded company that tries to pull such a scam would be sued into oblivion and have their directors hauled off to jail. Ditto any bank.

This doesn't mean that all banks/companies are incapable of fraud, but rather that they at least have a disincentive to commit fraud. The Government sets the rules, so they can change the rules and cheat people out of money legally. Call me crazy, but I'd much rather put my faith in the people that can be brought to justice if need be.

Mike

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4574 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 8:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yep, they also believe the government is here to take care of them.

Hey, that's what the people of New Orleans thought too! Funny, when push came to shove it suddenly became "every man for himself." Gee, that whole depending on the government to save your butt thing works every time it's tried, doesn't it? Yep, that's the horse I'm hitching my cart to for my financial wellbeing! What could possibly go wrong?

Mike

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4575 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 9:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
>> Unfortunately the majority is lacking in financial knowledge--no question about that. They believe Wall Street and the big banks are out to cheat them. And hasn't that happened far too often? <<

These are the scare tactics that AARP uses, even as their Wall Street "partners" often charge fees of more than 1% on AARP stock mutual funds...all the while proclaiming that the TSP funds, with an 0.06% expense ratio, are a giveaway to Wall Street and too unsafe. Best get with the program and put your money in an AARP fund paying 1.4% in fees.

AARP gets a bigger cut, in terms of percentage, for merely allowing its name to be used on the fund than the TSP collects in actual expenses for its funds.

Who's cheating whom here?

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4576 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 3:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Colovion:

<<<<They believe Wall Street and the big banks are out to cheat them. And hasn't that happened far too often?>>>>

"No, it's remarkably rare considering that there are thousands of publicly traded companies and God knows how many banks... and a very small percentage have ever cheated any investor/account holder out of a dime."

You must be focused on the last seventy years.

Go with the anti-government flow on this board, and go back to the days before the '33 Act (Securities Act of 1933), the 34' Act (Securities Exchange Act of 1934), the SEC, the 1940 Investment Company Act, and the FDIC, and you statement is not close to accurate.

If government is really as bad as so many here claim, and is not out to protect the average citizen, then it is duplicitious to claim the benefit of actual government acts, and proof from after their enactment is no proof at all for that anti-government argument. You are actually proving the other side's argument.

Regards, JAFO




Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4577 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 3:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Colovion: "Gee, that whole depending on the government to save your butt thing works every time it's tried, doesn't it? Yep, that's the horse I'm hitching my cart to for my financial wellbeing! What could possibly go wrong?"

Does that mean you only invest in companies where you know the offiers personally and have direct access to their books, or do you use the filings that are required by various securities laws to perform your due diligence?

If the latter, then you have already hitched your cart WRT to your financial wellbeing.

Curiously, JAFO




Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4578 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 3:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There's a world of difference between investing in a company that follows the laws of the land that are, of course, legislated by the government and "investing" via an actual government program. One is a legitimate role of government (even if I don't agree with the reasoning of all of the laws) that is consistent with a Capitalist system and the other is outright Socialism.

Mike

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4579 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 4:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If government is really as bad as so many here claim, and is not out to protect the average citizen, then it is duplicitious to claim the benefit of actual government acts, and proof from after their enactment is no proof at all for that anti-government argument. You are actually proving the other side's argument.


Perhaps the government wants a monopoly. ;-)

As for being duplicitious, it is quite logical to claim some programs have benefits and others do more harm than good. Most of the recent programs do more harm than good--NCLB, Prescription Drugs, this years transportation bill, etc.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4580 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 6:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Colovion: "There's a world of difference between investing in a company that follows the laws of the land that are, of course, legislated by the government and "investing" via an actual government program."

Like my investments in government programs like the 401-k, IRA and Roth IRA? Those programs are all creatures of the tax code (i.e., the government).

"One is a legitimate role of government (even if I don't agree with the reasoning of all of the laws) . . . ."

So them you seem to agree that is in fact to rely on the government for protection?

Regards, JAFO



Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4581 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 7:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JustWhoIAm:

<<<If government is really as bad as so many here claim, and is not out to protect the average citizen, then it is duplicitious to claim the benefit of actual government acts, and proof from after their enactment is no proof at all for that anti-government argument. You are actually proving the other side's argument.>>>

"As for being duplicitious, it is quite logical to claim some programs have benefits and others do more harm than good. Most of the recent programs do more harm than good--NCLB, Prescription Drugs, this years transportation bill, etc."

Why is it logical?

If you really believe what you previoulsy wrote:

"Yep, they also believe the government is here to take care of them. However, many of us understand that Wall Street and big banks are out to make money and do so by enabling us to do the same; and that the government is not here to take care of us either by design or recent intent."

that the government is not here to take care of us, then why claim credit for any government programs that protect us. Either the government is here to protect us or it is not?

Or is is ok to beleive that the government should take care of us when it is something that you agree with, but when it is not someone you agree with, then the government is not here to protect us and we should belittle the people who believe otherwise.

All of those acts I cited previously interfere with the free market, and made life more difficult for some people.

For that matter, corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, etc. -- any form other than sole proprietorship or general partnership interfere with the market. If you really want less government intrusion, why not ditch all of them? Why does capital need so much special protection?

JAFO









Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4582 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 9:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
that the government is not here to take care of us, then why claim credit for any government programs that protect us. Either the government is here to protect us or it is not?

'Protecting' and 'taking care of' are two very different things. 'Taking care of' is what you do for infants, children, and those that cannot take care of themselves. 'Protection' can be given to both those who can take care of themselves and those who cannot. I say the government was not intended to 'take care of us', because the Constitution does not have any clause that indicates it should take care of people. However, the Constitution does specify protection in various forms--laws, military, etc.

Examples of protection: laws, military, courts, police, department of health

Examples of 'taking care of': welfare, food stamps, subsidies, social security, medicare

Or is is ok to beleive that the government should take care of us when it is something that you agree with, but when it is not someone you agree with, then the government is not here to protect us and we should belittle the people who believe otherwise.


No. It is okay for the government to protect us as designed in the Constution. If the government is to take care of us, then we need to amend the constution to include that. You should never believe that the government will take care of you. You should be able to believe it will protect you--or atleast try.

Keith

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4583 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/7/2005 9:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Like my investments in government programs like the 401-k, IRA and Roth IRA? Those programs are all creatures of the tax code (i.e., the government).

However, if the government did not tax investment income, you would likely use a regular investment account to accomplish the same thing. The only thing that makes them necessary is government taxes. They are not examples of the government taking care of people.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4584 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/8/2005 8:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
So them you seem to agree that is in fact to rely on the government for protection?

Protection from enemies foreign and domestic, yes. This is the core responsibility of the government. Establishing laws to regulate trade is fine as well, in fact it is essential that everyone play by the same rules and those who violate them are punished... Capitalism and anarchy are not compatible.

There is, however, no justification for the government to protect you from your own financial ignorance, especially if that means taking from others who are responsible (ie. punishing them for that responsibility) to reward you for that ignorance. We're basically paying people to be irresponsible! It's not something I'll ever condone, even if I have no choice but to pay up.

That doesn't mean, of course, that I won't do everything legally possible to avoid paying into the system and save money outside of it. That does indeed include 401(k)'s (or in my case a 403(b)). Yes, they are indeed a result of the U.S. tax code (hence their names), but again, there is a difference between using these legal entities to invest in private companies voluntarilly and being forced to "invest" in a government entity, like it or not.

I don't have to participate in my 403(b), I do because of the $2 for $1 matching and some decent investment options (another major distinction), but there is no law saying I have to. I could just invest for retirement via DRIPs if I wanted to (and indeed I do supplement my retirement investment with DRIPs). I'm literally betting that these will be worth far more than SS will be when I retire, and if history is any guide I'll win that bet handsomely.

Mike

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4585 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/8/2005 8:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> that the government is not here to take care of us, then why claim credit for any government programs that protect us. Either the government is here to protect us or it is not?

Or is is ok to beleive that the government should take care of us when it is something that you agree with, but when it is not someone you agree with, then the government is not here to protect us and we should belittle the people who believe otherwise.
<<

Well, if I may momentarily sip from the Libertarian Party Kool-Aid -- using them since they are one of the most anti-big government political groups out there -- the proper purpose of government would be to protect its citizens from force or fraud. Regulations that help prevent cheating shenanigans by financial institutions could reasonably be construed as protection against fraud.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4586 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/8/2005 8:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Well, if I may momentarily sip from the Libertarian Party Kool-Aid --

Personally I like the Libertarian Party Kool-Aid, until they start throwing drugs into it.

Mike

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4587 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/8/2005 8:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> Personally I like the Libertarian Party Kool-Aid, until they start throwing drugs into it. <<

I usually do, too. I was just pointing out that even a group that advocates smaller government believes that protecting its people from fraud is a legitimate function of government.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4588 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/8/2005 9:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Well, if I may momentarily sip from the Libertarian Party Kool-Aid -- using them since they are one of the most anti-big government political groups out there -- the proper purpose of government would be to protect its citizens from force or fraud. Regulations that help prevent cheating shenanigans by financial institutions could reasonably be construed as protection against fraud.

Actually you're drinking the same stuff that Madison, Franklin, and Adams were when they helped start this place.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4590 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/9/2005 2:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>These are the scare tactics that AARP uses, even as their Wall Street "partners" often charge fees of more than 1% on AARP stock mutual funds...all the while proclaiming that the TSP funds, with an 0.06% expense ratio, are a giveaway to Wall Street and too unsafe. Best get with the program and put your money in an AARP fund paying 1.4% in fees.<<

1.4%. As much as that. I guess you are not aware that lots of funds charge as much as 5% upfront and run up huge expenses to boot! And all this has WHAT to do with Social Security reform?

AARP is a fine organization, and my wife recently got a nice dicount from Avis because we're members. But I'm not here to defend everything they do, and I have not invested in their funds. I do believe that anyone who opposes the Bush scheme come up with a better idea, and AARP has not done that as far as I know.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: prometheuss Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4591 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/9/2005 11:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
1.4%. As much as that. I guess you are not aware that lots of funds charge as much as 5% upfront and run up huge expenses to boot! And all this has WHAT to do with Social Security reform?

The opponents of SS reform claim that the purpose of reform is to make money managers on Wall Street rich. Those who support reform point out that this need not happen and point to the Thrift Savings Program (TSP) which offers index funds with expenses in the 0.06% to 0.08% range to federal government employees including Congress.

AARP is among those sounding this claim most loudly, but at the same time AARP's partners offers funds to members that charge 20 times as much as the TSP. That's blatant hypocrisy in anyone's book.

That's what this has to do with SS reform. The complaint that personal accounts are a way to enrich Wall Street at the expense of account holders is a red herring. But then, your observation that some money managers charge 5% up front has nothing to do with anything either.

http://www.tsp.gov/features/chapter07.html

Regards,
Prometheuss


Print the post Back To Top
Author: mendomann Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4592 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/9/2005 4:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
AARP is a fine organization

Pknudsen, you are right it is a fine organization and I am grateful that Michael Brown is not the head of it. Now that Michael Brown has been sent packing I fear that all the Arabian horses in this country are now in jeopardy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ravvt Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4593 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/9/2005 5:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
AARP is a fine organization...

Maybe PKnudsen or Plagermann can tell us why AARP is such a "fine" organization. Is it just the fact that you can obtain a discount on some of the services they hawk or is it because they are totally aligned with the Democratic / Liberal line on all social issues?

I'm hard pressed to understand how an organization with an annual revenue of $878Million can be "non-profit". According to this BusinessWeek article, their insurance and mutual fund offerings are mediocre at best. Maybe, if you are a liberal, being cheated by a liberal organization is less onerous than by some "greedy capitalist" business...


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_11/b3924050_mz011.htm

By Raising Its Voice, AARP Raises Questions
It vocally opposes private accounts. But could its commercial interests create a conflict?


In Washington, an entity's power can be measured by the vehemence of the attacks it draws. By that standard, AARP may be outmuscled only by the White House in the slugfest over restructuring Social Security. The 35 million-member seniors' lobby has put its credibility on the line by opposing Bush's call for individual investment accounts carved out of Social Security payroll taxes.

Its high-profile opposition to those accounts has put AARP in the political bulls-eye. In one far-fetched attempt to drive a wedge between AARP and its members, the conservative group USA Next has posted an Internet ad accusing the organization of endorsing gay marriage while failing to support U.S. troops. Some also see AARP's opposition to diverting Social Security funds to private accounts -- which it criticizes as too risky -- as the height of hypocrisy. Says American Enterprise Institute scholar James K. Glassman: "They are selling mutual funds, which by any conventional standard are far riskier than anything anybody has contemplated" for Social Security.

At the same time, AARP's role in the Social Security debate has focused new attention on the hundreds of millions of dollars the group makes by endorsing and co-branding health insurance, financial products, and travel services that are sold to its members. Some of those products suffer from lackluster performance, particularly the mutual funds it co-brands with Scudder Investments, a unit of Deutsche Bank.
As a result, AARP is considering an overhaul of its mutual-fund program, BusinessWeek has learned. Sources say the group may even replace Scudder for some or all of its offerings.

...

PROFITS SUPPORT SERVICES
AARP officials reject the criticisms. The organization's marketing "does not in any way influence AARP's public policy positions," says Dawn M. Sweeney, president of AARP Services Inc., the for-profit subsidiary that manages AARP's co-branding deals. And, Sweeney adds, while AARP objects to diverting payroll taxes to the stock market, it supports private investing outside of Social Security. "AARP is not opposed to private accounts," says Sweeney. "We are opposed to private accounts that drain money out of Social Security." AARP also says it pours all of its commercial profits back into advocacy and assistance for the elderly, providing member services such as driver's education and free legal and tax advice.

Still, the scale of AARP's commercial activities is enormous. The nonprofit is one of the nation's most aggressive in selling its name to marketers of financial and travel products. In 2003, the latest year for which financial reports are available, AARP collected $300 million -- or 39% of its $770 million in revenue -- by co-branding with companies such as Scudder (DB ), UnitedHealth Group (UNH ), and New York Life. AARP hauls in $142 million in fees from the sale of Medicare supplemental insurance, almost $76 million from the sale of auto and home insurance, and almost $12 million from life insurance, followed by about $7 million in mutual-fund fees.

This isn't the first issue in which questions have arisen over whether AARP's commercial interests may conflict with those of its members. In 2003 it backed Bush's controversial plan to remake Medicare. Liberals claimed AARP's support was driven more by its interest in selling Medicare insurance than by the interests of its members. AARP strongly denied the allegations.


...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4594 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/9/2005 6:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ravvt: "Maybe PKnudsen or Plagermann can tell us why AARP is such a "fine" organization. Is it just the fact that you can obtain a discount on some of the services they e hawk or is it because they are totally aligned with the Democratic / Liberal line on all social issues?

. . .

"This isn't the first issue in which questions have arisen over whether AARP's commercial interests may conflict with those of its members. In 2003 it backed Bush's controversial plan to remake Medicare. Liberals claimed AARP's support was driven more by its interest in selling Medicare insurance than by the interests of its members. AARP strongly denied the allegations."


Maybe you can reconcile a claim that AARP is "totally aligned with the Democratic / Liberal line on all social issues" and your further quote that AARP supported Bush's controversial plan to remake Medicare?

Curiously, JAFO

(no big fan of AARP, and who knows that it was created as a tool for marketing insurance)

"Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus, a retired high school principal, founded AARP in 1958. AARP evolved from the National Retired Teachers Association (NRTA), which Dr. Andrus had established in 1947 to promote her philosophy of productive aging, and in response to the need of retired teachers for health insurance."

http://www.aarp.org/about_aarp/aarp_overview/a2003-01-13-aarphistory.html

"In 1947, Ethel Percy Andrus, a principal, established the National Retired Teachers Association (NRTA) and, in a unique partnership with insurance executive Leonard Davis, formed AARP in 1958. Davis provided insurance policies for NRTA members, and made a personal (though highly controversial) fortune for himself in the process."

http://www.60plus.org/about-aarp.asp

Charles R. Morris, examining the history of AARP in his book AARP: America's Most Powerful Lobby and the Clash of Generations, revealed that for much of its existence AARP was under the control of Davis thus "operating as a sales network to hawk very high-priced insurance and a host of other Davis-created products to old people."

Id.

"IN A PREVIOUS column, I talked about how the history of the American Association of Retired People (now known just as AARP) involved false pretenses, its major flaw being that one of its founders -- insurance broker Leonard Davis -- built its business model dependent on royalties from profitable insurance products."

http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column104h5.html




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ravvt Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4598 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/9/2005 8:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Maybe you can reconcile a claim that AARP is "totally aligned with the Democratic / Liberal line on all social issues" and your further quote that AARP supported Bush's controversial plan to remake Medicare?


The Medicare Part D program that AARP and the majority of congress supported is an $8.1 Trillion unfunded entitlement program. The only separation between AARP and the Democrats on support for this program is the fact that the Democrats wanted an EVEN LARGER unfunded entitlement. AARP, on the other hand, realized that they would rather have all workers on the hook to pay for this program now and get an commitment for a larger program down the road when the geezer crowd begins to complain that the current program isn't good enough. That's when the Donkeys and AARP will renew their all out assault on Repubs for being cruel to grannie as they join forces to go for the more expensive Donkey program...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4605 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/10/2005 7:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>The opponents of SS reform claim that the purpose of reform is to make money managers on Wall Street rich. Those who support reform point out that this need not happen and point to the Thrift Savings Program (TSP) which offers index funds with expenses in the 0.06% to 0.08% range to federal government employees including Congress.
<<

While I have nothing against making money, knowing Bush and his gang, I don't doubt that is exactly his purpose.

I of course agree that index funds like the ones you mention should be used. There was nothing about that in the Bush proposal, was there?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4606 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/10/2005 7:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>>Pknudsen, you are right it is a fine organization and I am grateful that Michael Brown is not the head of it. Now that Michael Brown has been sent packing I fear that all the Arabian horses in this country are now in jeopardy.
<<

I've never heard of Michael Brown. Sounds like you got this from some wacko web site, and you're worried about him cutting into your romances.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4607 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/10/2005 7:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>is it because they are totally aligned with the Democratic / Liberal line on all social issues?<<

(sarcasm) Since that would be the correct alignment for anyone with any sense, then yes.(/sarcasm)

In truth I don't pay much attention to their political positions. And (getting back on topic, which is Social Security Reform!) as I've stated anyone who opposes the Bush scheme should present a better alternative.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ravvt Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4608 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/10/2005 9:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I of course agree that index funds like the ones you mention should be used. There was nothing about that in the Bush proposal, was there?

Your ignorance of the proposals that have been argued here and elsewhere over the past year boggles the mind...

...first, we have one liberal plagiarizing liberal think tank policy papers and pawning them off as his ideas and writings and now we have another liberal decrying the evils of private account SS reform proposals without knowing any of the details of those proposals. If you want to argue your points regarding SS reform, you should at least know what your opposition is proposing...

...Bush's proposal for private accounts HAS ALWAYS been modeled on the Thrift Savings Plan, currently available to Federal workers, which uses low cost bond & equity index funds exclusively...


http://www.csss.gov/reports/Final_report.pdf

Strengthening Social Security and Creating
Personal Wealth for All Americans

Report of the President's Commission
December 21, 2001


Pg 42, Summary of Findings

Participants in Tier I should be able to choose one of three indexed balanced funds (conservative, medium, and growth) or any combination of five index funds, patterned after the current TSP funds, as well as an inflation-protected bond fund.

A standard fund should be established for those individuals who do not select a fund in Tier I.


...


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4609 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/11/2005 12:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<The Medicare Part D program that AARP and the majority of congress supported is an $8.1 Trillion unfunded entitlement program. The only separation between AARP and the Democrats on support for this program is the fact that the Democrats wanted an EVEN LARGER unfunded entitlement. AARP, on the other hand, realized that they would rather have all workers on the hook to pay for this program now and get an commitment for a larger program down the road when the geezer crowd begins to complain that the current program isn't good enough. That's when the Donkeys and AARP will renew their all out assault on Repubs for being cruel to grannie as they join forces to go for the more expensive Donkey program... >>



I have a very good friend who retired at age 62 with inadequate savings to carry that off. Today, at age 67, he complains bitterly that the Medicare drug benefit doesn't help him out much, yet provides enough incentives that he buys into it.

I point out to him that the Dems and media claimed that a Federal drug benefit was needed to help the indigent elderly get the drugs they need, and that's just where the big subsidy goes.

The middle class with assets get insurance against a calamatous drug bill, but don't get "free" drugs out of the program. My friend still has money and assets.

He finds it intensely annoying that he's not getting more of a subsidy.

In my view, there's an argument for a government program to help the indigent elderly, but not for a government program to subsidize those that have significant income and wealth. Also, we can afford to help the indigent elderly, but not to keep the retired middle class supplied with all the things they want.


So I like the Republican drug program just fine.



Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NoGoodReason Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4611 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/11/2005 4:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
No, only a very small minority of right-wing kooks think it should not exist. The rest of us favor it, but want it stabalized for the future.

Stabilized, meaning increasing tax rates to whatever level is necessary, even 50%, in order to maintain the program.

-NGR

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4613 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/11/2005 6:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>Your ignorance of the proposals that have been argued here and elsewhere over the past year boggles the mind...<<

You don't like what I post, don't read it. Meanwhile, I'll await a link showing anything about investing in indes funds in the Bush scheme.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4614 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/11/2005 6:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
>> Meanwhile, I'll await a link showing anything about investing in indes funds in the Bush scheme. <<

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2005-02-03-mym_x.htm

From the article (quoting and claiming fair use):

The personal investment accounts that are the centerpiece of the Bush administration's Social Security proposal would be modeled after a popular federal retirement savings plan that offers a mix of index funds with microscopic administrative fees.

The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is similar to the 401(k) plans many private companies offer their employees. More than 3.4 million federal civilian employees, postal workers and members of the armed services participate in the plan, which had more than $152 billion in assets at the end of 2004.


There you go.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ravvt Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4615 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/11/2005 11:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Meanwhile, I'll await a link showing anything about investing in indes funds in the Bush scheme.



Sorry, but it doesn't have pictures for you to follow along...I highlighted the answer to your question instead...


Pg 6-7

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/200501/socialsecurity3.pdf

Personal retirement accounts would be invested in a mix of conservative bonds and stock funds. Guidelines and restrictions would be put in place to provide sound investment choices and prevent individuals from spending the money in these accounts on the lottery or at the race track. Workers would be permitted to allocate their personal retirement account contributions among a small number of very broadly diversified index funds patterned after the current TSP funds.

• Like TSP, personal retirement accounts could be invested in a safe government securities fund; an investment-grade corporate bond index fund; a small-cap stock index fund; a large-cap stock index fund; and an international stock index fund.

• In addition to these TSP-type funds, workers could choose a government bond fund with a guaranteed rate of return above inflation.

• Workers could also choose a “life cycle portfolio” that would automatically adjust the level of risk of the investments as the worker aged. The life cycle fund would automatically and gradually shift the allocation of investment funds as the individual neared retirement age so that it was weighted more heavily toward secure bonds.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mendomann Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4617 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/12/2005 2:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've never heard of Michael Brown.

Have you ever heard of FEMA?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4620 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/13/2005 2:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>>http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2005-02-03-mym_x.htm<<

Very good, though there's no proof the columnist got it from Bush. But I'll so assume until I find differently.

Anyway, if you're just going to have index funds there is no need for personal accounts. Just invest the money!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4621 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/13/2005 2:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Very good. So how come Dubya's own pet congress couldn't get it passed?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ravvt Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4622 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/13/2005 9:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So how come Dubya's own pet congress couldn't get it passed?

...because the intransigent Donkeys have blocked progress...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4624 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/13/2005 10:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Anyway, if you're just going to have index funds there is no need for personal accounts. Just invest the money!


---
You know, I'd love to. But for some reason I keep losing hundreds of dollars a month into this program called "Social Security" that really hampers my ability to invest in index funds on my own. Now if only there was some way I could take part of those funds and invest them!
---

That's the crux of the matter. If you want someone to invest, taking hundreds of dollars away from them every month is a bad idea, especially when they look at that money as an "investment" in Social Security (when we all know it isn't an investment in the terms most people think it is.) Letting them put even a small percentage of that money into an actual investment would be huge! It would help eliminate the utter dependance far too many people have on the Federal Government, and as I said about Katrina we all know what that kind of dependance means... usually bad things for people AND the country!

I don't expect Democrats and/or Liberals to embrace this, they're ideologically against independance from the government, but the blatant hypocrisy is shocking! How do you reconcile them saying on one hand that poor people need SS because they can't afford to invest, but on the other hand that if you want to invest in an index fund you should do so outside of SS, not within it?

The way I look at it there is only one conclusion; they don't want poor people to invest at all! Heaven forbid they learn how to manage money and escape financial enslavement to the Federal Government! Why, that would pretty much destroy 90% of the Democratic financial platform!

Mike

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4625 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/13/2005 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Anyway, if you're just going to have index funds there is no need for personal accounts. Just invest the money!


If you are going to have a single index fund, this would be true. However, if there is more than one fund based on more than one index, then you need personal accounts so they can choose which fund best fits their needs.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4626 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 9/14/2005 2:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yeaaaahhh, Suuuure. That's why it never even came to a vote in committee. Haw Haw.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4648 of 5267
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security Lessons Date: 10/4/2005 9:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
At this point, I don't care how the investing gets done as long as it does get done.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (59) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement