Texsox Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 So saving for retirement by investing will not work. If there was not a government program for retirement returning greater than market rates, no one could achieve social security type results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) So saving for retirement by investing will not work. If there was not a government program for retirement returning greater than market rates, no one could achieve social security type results? Social Security type results...aka 0 risk of loss in the event of a downturn? No, no one could do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 03:11 PM) Social Security type results...aka 0 risk of loss in the event of a downturn? No, no one could do that. So the government must guarantee a return greater than the market can achieve. The government can't invest your money to reach that goal, all they can do is toss greater and greater expense at it. And some people actually have a problem with that system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) So the government must guarantee a return greater than the market can achieve. The government can't invest your money to reach that goal, all they can do is toss greater and greater expense at it. And some people actually have a problem with that system? No...the government does not guarantee a return greater than the market "can" achieve. No one said that. And there is no tossing greater and greater expense at it. You can't possibly understand as little about OASDI as you're pretending to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 You said a Galveston type system, based on market returns on the deposited money can't match SS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Be honest with me just for a second Tex, I know it can be hard sometime. Let's imagine that the U.S. flipped to private accounts for retirement, somehow. Ignore the $20 trillion it would add to the deficit to do so. Then, 2008-2009 happens. The entire retirement system of the United States gets cut in half. Do you honestly think that the U.S. government would stand by and not be forced to add in extra money to make up for the losses of the people about to retire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) You said a Galveston type system, based on market returns on the deposited money can't match SS. You're right...a Galveston type system cannot do so...because the Galveston-type system *only* guarantees positive returns if you get the guaranteed interest return. A Galveston type system set up either with the full country in 1980 or set up anywhere right now would not be able to guarantee that the accounts would not decline in the event of a major market downturn. Galveston's accounts guarantee a several percent return in the event of a 2008 collapse. The only reason why that happens is that the program was set up when interest rates were at 15%, so it still seemed cheap. A Galveston type system, a Bush style private account system, whatever...you cannot set it up without allowing the possibility of investmentlosses. You know that. Galveston placed effectively a large bet that interest rates would decline fromm 1980 levels. They've been proven right on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 Yeah, you are correct. They just got lucky the past 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 04:32 PM) Yeah, you are correct. They just got lucky the past 30 years. If Galveston took out that policy and interest rates remained at 15%, they'd have taken enormous long-term losses. They'd probably have done like Chile and dumped their private account system in favor of the public one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 yeah, they did get lucky. The past thirty years have been pretty solid for investments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) yeah, they did get lucky. The past thirty years have been pretty solid for investments. except for all of those recessions and a lost decade+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 08:43 PM) except for all of those recessions and a lost decade+. He's actually mostly right...investments have done fine, overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 25, 2011 -> 11:28 AM) http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf basically the galveston plan is worse for anyone but "very high income" singles over time. Of course it is "worse". They aren't taking capital from the current "investors" and paying it out to the former "investors". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Good thing SS isn't an investment plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Hmmm, Maybe I should get down there so that I can get in front of the line to open up a Rick Perry campaign office in NWI? http://www.indgop.org/rickperry/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) Hmmm, Maybe I should get down there so that I can get in front of the line to open up a Rick Perry campaign office in NWI? http://www.indgop.org/rickperry/ You're a Rick Perry fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2011 -> 11:25 AM) You're a Rick Perry fan? I'm more mocking Tex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) I'm more mocking Tex. Though I would like to be able to attend these events (they have had other candidates here, and are planning on having more.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoryMC98 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Good thing SS isn't an investment plan. What.. you mean I can't get rich when I retire... WTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2011 -> 07:45 AM) Of course it is "worse". They aren't taking capital from the current "investors" and paying it out to the former "investors". Isn't this how the whole government is funded? We cut taxes, run a deficit, and "somebody else" pays the deficit plus interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) Hmmm, Maybe I should get down there so that I can get in front of the line to open up a Rick Perry campaign office in NWI? http://www.indgop.org/rickperry/ You're gonna love him when he has the nomination! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 08:16 PM) Isn't this how the whole government is funded? We cut taxes, run a deficit, and "somebody else" pays the deficit plus interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Not on the candidates themselves here, but the Caucus/Primary date shuffle has officially begun once again. The Republican primaries and caucuses are coming soon for the many candidates competing for president — and thanks to the latest move by Florida, the crunch-time will be coming up sooner than everyone has previously planned on. State House Speaker Dean Cannon told CNN earlier this week that in its Friday meeting, the state committee that will officially set the date will likely pick January 31. The committee is made of nine members, appointed three each by the governor, the state House Speaker (that is, Dean Cannon), and the state Senate President. This date would put the Florida primary a week before the originally intended date for the Iowa caucuses — guaranteeing that Iowa and other early states will move their contests even further forward, in order to beat Florida. RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski told TPM: “We’re going to continue working with Florida and other states until the deadline on October 1st to ensure they remain within the Party rules. Any state that violates the rules will lose 50 percent of its delegates.” In 2008, maneuvering over primaries — with Florida as a notable pugilist — resulted in the Iowa caucus being held on January 3, just narrowly missing the prospect of a super-early contest 2007. The New Hampshire primary was then held five days later on January 8. This year, the national Republicans worked to avoid a repeat of those early contests, with the official four early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — supposed to hold their contests in February. And all of that work could now be undone. South Carolina has already indicated they'll move their primary up again in order to jump ahead of Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 New Fox News national poll (no national primary noted again) with a big shakeup from the last poll (previous poll, 8/29-8/31, in brackets). Mitt Romney: 23 (22) Rick Perry: 19 (29) Herman Cain: 17 (6) Newt Gingrich: 11 (3) Ron Paul: 6 (8) Jon Huntsman: 4 (1) Michele Bachmann: 3 (8) Rick Santorum: 3 (4) Anyone know what Gingrich did that would have caused a significant surge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 02:58 PM) New Fox News national poll (no national primary noted again) with a big shakeup from the last poll (previous poll, 8/29-8/31, in brackets). Anyone know what Gingrich did that would have caused a significant surge? Looked sane compared to most of that bunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts