State of the Union Thread

[Texsox]

Cut some social programs. Let me keep my contributions to SS. I will worry about my own retirement. Leave the Gov't out of it.

 

Nice start. I find it sad to step past poor old people in Mexico who do not have money for retirement, but I'm certain we can get use to that in the US.

[Rex Kickass]

Cindy Sheehan's congresswoman not the first to invite a "special guest protester."

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm

 

There was also some other wife of a congressman ejected for wearing a t-shirt that said "Support Our Troops."

[Texsox]

Cindy Sheehan's congresswoman not the first to invite a "special guest protester."

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm

 

There was also some other wife of a congressman ejected for wearing a t-shirt that said "Support Our Troops."

 

I always did like the "Clinton didn't inhale, he sucks" t-shirts.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nice start. I find it sad to step past poor old people in Mexico who do not have money for retirement, but I'm certain we can get use to that in the US.

 

 

If you let people keep their SS money and they invest it wisely then youd be stepping past them as they get in their caddy and drive off.

 

 

We've been over this around here before.

[Texsox]

If you let people keep their SS money and they invest it wisely then youd be stepping past them as they get in their caddy and drive off. 

We've been over this around here before.

 

If only we could trust them to invest wisely. Look at the number of personal bankruptcy in this country. Those are the ones that will hit 65 without any money. Toss in an illness, we are living longer, and boom we have problems.

 

What I think we can agree on is SS should be a safety net only. There should be adequate planning above and beyond SS. It should not be the sole source of income. The biggest problem I see is too many people hitting retirement trying to live just on SS.

[Cknolls]

I believe you can opt out of SS benefits.

 

I want to keep my money also, can I do that too?

[Balta1701]

I want to keep my money also, can I do that too?

Only if many others don't get to keep their money.

 

You know, I'm fairly sad I missed the SS discussions that I'm sure went on around here last year before I joined. I bet those were entertaining.

[YASNY]

If only we could trust them to invest wisely. Look at the number of personal bankruptcy in this country. Those are the ones that will hit 65 without any money. Toss in an illness, we are living longer, and boom we have problems.

 

What I think we can agree on is SS should be a safety net only. There should be adequate planning above and beyond SS. It should not be the sole source of income. The biggest problem I see is too many people hitting retirement trying to live just on SS.

 

The biggest problem I see is that back in the 60's, I believe, they took the social security funds, which were at a surplus, and put those into the general funds.

[Balta1701]

The biggest problem I see is that back in the 60's, I believe, they took the social security funds, which were at a surplus, and put those into the general funds.

Um, they're basically still doing exactly that. Social Security will be running a surplus until roughly 2017 give or take a year or two. Right now, that surplus is being used to purchase bonds from the General fund. But because this is the government buying bonds from itself...it doesn't count in the total "National Debt" or yearly deficit totals or whatever you want to call them.

 

Those bonds make up the Social Security Trust Fund...basically a big pile of U.S. government debt that is held by the Social Security Administration. So every extra dollar right now which has come into the government through Social Security taxes has in fact been spent by the general fund. There are just papers saying that the general fund will pay them back when the balance moves to the other side.

 

The whole idea of a "Lockbox" was to have the government stop spending the extra SS dollars in the general fund and instead hold onto that money to try to make the hit on the general fund easier when the baby boom retirement does hit in full force.

[kapkomet]

I believe you can opt out of SS benefits.

That's nice. You can opt out of rec'ving the benefits, but you still have to pay in.

[YASNY]

Um, they're basically still doing exactly that.  Social Security will be running a surplus until roughly 2017 give or take a year or two.  Right now, that surplus is being used to purchase bonds from the General fund.  But because this is the government buying bonds from itself...it doesn't count in the total "National Debt" or yearly deficit totals or whatever you want to call them.

 

Those bonds make up the Social Security Trust Fund...basically a big pile of U.S. government debt that is held by the Social Security Administration.  So every extra dollar right now which has come into the government through Social Security taxes has in fact been spent by the general fund.  There are just papers saying that the general fund will pay them back when the balance moves to the other side.

 

The whole idea of a "Lockbox" was to have the government stop spending the extra SS dollars in the general fund and instead hold onto that money to try to make the hit on the general fund easier when the baby boom retirement does hit in full force.

 

Of course they're still doing it. That's part of the problem. Of course, the biggest part of the problem is that they ever started to begin with.

[Balta1701]

Charges against Sheehan dropped...Capitol police say they "Screwed up".

 

Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.

 

“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.

 

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.

 

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”

 

The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.

 

Holding up the shirt his wife wore, Rep. Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning: “Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery.”

 

“Shame, shame,” he scolded.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If only we could trust them to invest wisely. Look at the number of personal bankruptcy in this country. Those are the ones that will hit 65 without any money. Toss in an illness, we are living longer, and boom we have problems.

 

What I think we can agree on is SS should be a safety net only. There should be adequate planning above and beyond SS. It should not be the sole source of income. The biggest problem I see is too many people hitting retirement trying to live just on SS.

 

 

Im with you on the 1st point. Americans are absolutely horrible when it comes to planning their futures. They dont wake up and realize they need to have money put aside till they're in their mid 50's and by then its damn too late.

 

 

They just want to live way over their heads, pile up thousands in credit card debt then complain when they retire that they are living like animals. I say screw em. I laugh like hell when I read stories about seniors eating dog food because they arent getting enough money from their SS checks. If they had a half an ounce of foresight and started saving in their 20's, they'd be eating caviar instead.

 

 

Its so easy to retire rich in this country it just blows my mind when people are still working at 80 out of necessity.

[Texsox]

Of course they're still doing it.  That's part of the problem.  Of course, the biggest part of the problem is that they ever started to begin with.

 

I think the biggest part of the problem was during economic prosperity (and to get more votes), the government increased the benefits beyond a safety net to where people try and retire just on social security.

 

In reality there isn't much of a difference between welfare (or whatever term you like) and social security. We are basically pooling our money and supporting people who can not support themselves. (I know there is a difference between too old to work and whatever put some one on public aid). I actually find it easier to support someone who has retired after being a productive citizen.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I think the biggest part of the problem was during economic prosperity (and to get more votes), the government increased the benefits beyond a safety net to where people try and retire just on social security.

 

In reality there isn't much of a difference between welfare (or whatever term you like) and social security. We are basically pooling our money and supporting people who can not support themselves. (I know there is a difference between too old to work and whatever put some one on public aid). I actually find it easier to support someone who has retired after being a productive citizen.

 

 

If you think you're gonna retire on SS alone then you are consigning yourself to 2 decades or so of abject poverty.

 

BTW. I prefer to liken SS not to welfare but the Ponzi scams of old.

[Texsox]

Im with you on the 1st point.  Americans are absolutely horrible when it comes to planning their futures.  They dont wake up and realize they need to have money put aside till they're in their mid 50's and by then its damn too late. 

They just want to live way over their heads,  pile up thousands in credit card debt then complain when they retire that they are living like animals.  I say screw em.  I laugh like hell when I read stories about seniors eating dog food because they arent getting enough money from their SS checks.  If they had a half an ounce of foresight and started saving in their 20's, they'd be eating caviar instead.

Its so easy to retire rich in this country it just blows my mind when people are still working at 80 out of necessity.

 

I have to agree with everything here, of course there are exceptions. If you were working for Enron, how would you know you'd suddenly lose everything?

 

Couples trying to raise a family on $30,000 a year won't be eating caviar, but they shouldn't be eating dog food, when they retire.

 

But if you cannot depend on the United States of America to fulfill it's social security promise, how can you depend on the stock market?

[NorthSideSox72]

I have to agree with everything here, of course there are exceptions. If you were working for Enron, how would you know you'd suddenly lose everything?

 

Couples trying to raise a family on $30,000 a year won't be eating caviar, but they shouldn't be eating dog food, when they retire.

 

But if you cannot depend on the United States of America to fulfill it's social security promise, how can you depend on the stock market?

 

Enron was sad, and they are paying now. But a lot of those people had their entire savings on ONE STOCK. That's pretty darn stupid.

 

Maybe the better approach to this is education. Part of high school economics classes should be about spending, saving and investing. Actual, practical stuff.

[Texsox]

If you think you're gonna retire on SS alone then you are consigning yourself to 2 decades or so of abject poverty.

 

BTW.  I prefer to liken SS not to welfare but the Ponzi scams of old.

 

I know it's an ackward analogy. But the government is supporting you either way. Any savings is a Ponzi scheme of sorts. To pay interest in the savings, you have to find someone willing to borrow the money at a higher price than you return.

 

In it's simplest form, social security should be a zero cost game to the government. Basically it is a mandatory savings plan. We will take X dollars from you each payday and we will invest it for you, offer a guaranteed return, and take a small percentage for overhead. Hell make a profit, my broker does.

 

But then we started giving benefits to people who did not contribute, and those who did started living longer and taking out more than they put in.

[Texsox]

Enron was sad, and they are paying now.  But a lot of those people had their entire savings on ONE STOCK.  That's pretty darn stupid.

 

Maybe the better approach to this is education.  Part of high school economics classes should be about spending, saving and investing.  Actual, practical stuff.

 

It was an employee stock option plan and similar. Kind of like all the mods are retiring on our shares of soxtalk.com

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I have to agree with everything here, of course there are exceptions. If you were working for Enron, how would you know you'd suddenly lose everything?

 

Couples trying to raise a family on $30,000 a year won't be eating caviar, but they shouldn't be eating dog food, when they retire.

 

But if you cannot depend on the United States of America to fulfill it's social security promise, how can you depend on the stock market?

 

 

I dont buy that Enron BS for 1 second. If you're dumb enough to plow your life savings into the stock of 1 single company then you almost deserve to get wiped out. Anyone who knows anything about investing knows that you have to diversify or you're going to pay the price at some point.

 

On your second point, long gone are the days when a single bread-winner can raise his family. Thats just a fact of life. To raise a family comfortably and still provide for retirement wifey's gonna have to get a job, that is unless you're making a great salary on your own.

 

If you cant afford to raise children then is it so bad to hold off until your situation improves?

 

On the last point, I trust my money split between large/mid/small cap mutual funds far more than I trust a shaky government program to provide for me later on. Stock market returns, despite all the ups and downs, are far and away better at providing a good rate of return over the long term.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Enron was sad, and they are paying now.  But a lot of those people had their entire savings on ONE STOCK.  That's pretty darn stupid.

 

Maybe the better approach to this is education.  Part of high school economics classes should be about spending, saving and investing.  Actual, practical stuff.

 

 

The best class Ive taken in all my years of schooling was my Applied Econ course in my Jr year of High School. All we did that whole year was talk about money and investing and it made us stand up and take notice.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I know it's an ackward analogy. But the government is supporting you either way. Any savings is a Ponzi scheme of sorts. To pay interest in the savings, you have to find someone willing to borrow the money at a higher price than you return.

 

 

 

 

Thats not exactly true. In a mutual fund you pool your money with others and buy shares of various stocks. In turn, the performance of the stocks determines what your rate of return is, not the infusion of new monies from other people.

[Texsox]

I dont buy that Enron BS for 1 second.  If you're dumb enough to plow your life savings into the stock of 1 single company then you almost deserve to get wiped out.  Anyone who knows anything about investing knows that you have to diversify or you're going to pay the price at some point.

 

On your second point, long gone are the days when a single bread-winner can raise his family.  Thats just a fact of life.  To raise a family comfortably and still provide for retirement wifey's gonna have to get a job, that is unless you're making a great salary on your own. 

 

If you cant afford to raise children then is it so bad to hold off until your situation improves?

 

On the last point, I trust my money split between large/mid/small cap mutual funds far more than I trust a shaky government program to provide for me later on.  Stock market returns, despite all the ups and downs, are far and away better at providing a good rate of return over the long term.

 

Before 401k, there were pensions. People stayed at the same company for decades and retired with their GE Pension, Sears, whatever. Those pensions were most often investing in the company. Many of the Enron losers, were in a similar situation, they were getting options which they took advantage of.

 

But that is such an extreme case, I wouldn't even consider it in the overall scheme.

 

Fortunately we are so far removed from the depression that everyone has confidence in the stock market, and I'm certain it would never crash again.

[Texsox]

Thats not exactly true.  In a mutual fund you pool your money with others and buy shares of various stocks.  In turn, the performance of the stocks determines what your rate of return is, not the infusion of new monies from other people.

 

I said savings, like a bank passbook. Different animal. I was considering the least risky of investments.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I said savings, like a bank passbook. Different animal. I was considering the least risky of investments.

 

 

Gotcha.