Politics and AMT

[Unregistered]

SS privitization

This is important to those of us in our 20's and 30's (I'm 27) because SS is not going to be there in 30 years. There is no way the current structure can stay in place and be solvent enough to pay me and my peers. If I could take my SS money and invest it in low risk index and bond funds I could generate enough of a return by age 50 that I could retire for life. Can SS do that for me? Absolutely not. It is a mathematical certainty that investing in the market, sensible, diversified investing, will not lose money over a 10+ year period. I don't disagree that something needs to be done in Washington, but those who believe our representatives won't listen are exactly the ones who keep the status quo going.

JoshinNC

[John of PA]

Oil and Social Security

More oil in Colorado? and add to that all the oil in Russia, I think were going to be OK. When Iraq stabilizes, and I believe it will be sooner than we think; they will flood the world market with oil and drop the price (but demand from India and China will stilll keep the price historically high). Social Security will be fine, but not as good a deal as retirees now have. There are many "cards" the Govt. has not played yet, and can if they need to.(this is from my MS Tax Retirement course professor who participated in the negotiations in DC.) The biggest one is simply, if one has other retirement income, they don't get a Soc Sec. check. Not fair, but it would save the system. Also a continuing of raising the retirement age; and also continued increses in medicare premiums withheld from Soc Sec.(medicare is already broke). Now add to all this, the fact that more and more baby boomers are not making it to age 65. Check the obitiuiaries, about 1/4 of the listings are under age 65. People really are not living longer; only people who die of old age are living longer. So the sad news is, we Americans are not taking care of ourselve. (diet, rest, excercise) and as a result, Soc Sec will be saved by millions never reaching age 65. Let us not be in that group.

[JON]

Social Security SAFE

you have to be kidding. What country do you guys live in. Here is some news-the Congress has seen fit to borrow the funds for the last 30 years. The rate of return is stipulated, low, and never earned or paid. What planet have you guys been living on. The proposal did not offer any method of investing in FL property, but even if it would of and the property was hit by a storm it still would be better off then being robbed and given pieces of paper as promise of repayment. The reason for trying to get the money out of the loans was a chance at getting a return better that - whatever it is already. You are right we should leave it the way it is if worthless pieces of paper are stronger than the US economy. If the loans are stronger than the economy than we can all work for the government, because that is the only place to get you pieces of paper.

[jainen]

Gee, I don't agree

>> they will flood the world market with oil<<

Gee, I don't agree with this post. Our long-term history in Iraq has been to keep that oil out of the market. We destroyed the production infrastructure in the Gulf War, then enforced sanctions so it couldn't be rebuilt. When Russian, French, and German engineers began to work there, we bombed it again and put in our own people who very pointedly did not restore the facilities. Iraq has never been a major source of oil for us, and it is our Asian and European competitors who would most likely benefit from cheap Iraqi oil. So other than the political rhetoric, what has actually happened to make you think the American government, which is full of oil profiteers, will ever allow Iraqi oil to "flood the world market"?

[veritas]

It's so! And, now; I'm speechless too. After all those apple-polishing compliments, after all my boot-licking commentary re your pedestrian observations, what do I get? Nothin'! I tell you what, it's absolutely true what they say--gratitude has a short life. You, sir, can can go climb on your Harley and ride swiftly away. If I still had my 70s-era Honda 125, I'd do the same (by the way; do you happen to know if they still make those? I'd like another one--yes, yes, I know--it's a scooter to you hog-wallowers, but I liked it anyway).

Okay, back to biz. Look, I'm talking about keeping the average unsophisticated soul from frittering away his nest egg and/or keeping charlatans from looting it. You're talking about the source of the money. Yeah, I know Stevens of Alaska is a grafty ol' cigar-smokin', back-slappin', back-scratchin', backroom pol, but those people have always been around. No question that he and others are overly fond of "the other white meat," but how to curtail their appetite for pork chops is another question. As far as funding SS, they're not going to vote against rounding up the money from somewhere. What would be the political future of any politician who voted not to support SS? It'll be there when people retire--all they have to do is not start running panic-stricken for the doors.

I have been properly chastised for my comments, pedestrian as they may be. I like to think of my comments as pointed sort of like a drive-by shooting.

I like the hog-wallowering term and plan to use it as an apt description for my recreational activity. Actually my wife asked me this morning what we were going to do today. My response was "hog-wallowering dear". As far as Honda's, well we refer to them in a somewhat disparaging term as "Metrics". I might add my first two wheeler was a Honda CB 160 which I enjoyed greatly.

Now if I may return to the disussion on social security. What kind of system is it when a individual pays into a system for years and just before retiremnet date dies. What is left to the heirs? Where is the fairness in receiving $250 for dying? Would it be reasonable to assume that most individuals in this predicament are on the lower socio-economic scale and probably of the african-american race?

We must have privitizatiion in order to save the system and to restore fairness and security for future generations. Those that wish to stay with the existing system should be able to. Those on social security or are near retirement will be protected.

Austraila, Canada, England all have some form of private accounts. The money invested can not be touched other than for retirement or disability. At death there is wealth to pass on to heirs. I can't see a downside to something as common sense as taking money away from politicians and putting capital into the hands of private individuals giving them ownership and responsibility. I cannot accept we as a nation must submit ourselves to a system so inherently evil. Winston Churchill said "The price of greatness is responsibility" let us be a nation of resposibility.

[Black Bart]

Blessed are the responsible (investors),

social security. What kind of system is it when a individual pays into a system for years and just before retiremnet date dies. What is left to the heirs? Where is the fairness in receiving $250 for dying? Would it be reasonable to assume that most individuals in this predicament are on the lower socio-economic scale and probably of the african-american race?

We must have privitizatiion in order to save the system and to restore fairness and security for future generations. Those that wish to stay with the existing system should be able to. Those on social security or are near retirement will be protected.

Austraila, Canada, England all have some form of private accounts. The money invested can not be touched other than for retirement or disability. At death there is wealth to pass on to heirs. I can't see a downside to something as common sense as taking money away from politicians and putting capital into the hands of private individuals giving them ownership and responsibility. I cannot accept we as a nation must submit ourselves to a system so inherently evil. Winston Churchill said "The price of greatness is responsibility" let us be a nation of resposibility.

for they shall not be forced to "go Canadian."

Okay. Sorry. Your previous comments weren't that bad--I was in a huff.

You've got some good points here, i.e., the lousy $250 death benefits, benefits die when you die, nothing for heirs, etc. Too, I didn't know that retirees could stay with the old system if they wanted.

I still have my doubts that the average person could/would take care of it. Re: "can't be touched other than for retirement or disability"-- can't a broker touch it if authorized? They could also give it such a workout that there'd be nothing left of the principal, much less appreciation, dividends, or interest. But that's a smaller worry than picking a bad investment vehicle. How many people do you know that consistently make money in the market? I can count mine on one hand. The thing about SS is that, even if you lose your shirt everywhere else, there's alway a check coming next month.

[veritas]

The naked truth

One proprosal would allow individuals to put all their private savings into treasury obligations rather investing in the market. The other choices would probably be something like the thrift plan federal employees can particpate in. You would have aggressive, moderate and conservative choices which would change based on age. So for example someone just entering the work force would invest more aggressively as they reached middle aged move towards moderate and then at or near retirement conservative. The broker could be someone like fidelity (please not some government agency) which has very low expenses. And since the funds would have enormous amounts of funds the expenses could be kept very low. Another option at retirement would be to annuitize the funds so a guaranteed amount could be received monthly for investors lifetime. Maybe a small portion of the expenses could be used to purchase insurance for those who did make poor choices?

p.s. what do you think of my new tagline?. I can't take entire credit for it.

[John of PA]

>> they will flood the world market with oil<<

Gee, I don't agree with this post. Our long-term history in Iraq has been to keep that oil out of the market. We destroyed the production infrastructure in the Gulf War, then enforced sanctions so it couldn't be rebuilt. When Russian, French, and German engineers began to work there, we bombed it again and put in our own people who very pointedly did not restore the facilities. Iraq has never been a major source of oil for us, and it is our Asian and European competitors who would most likely benefit from cheap Iraqi oil. So other than the political rhetoric, what has actually happened to make you think the American government, which is full of oil profiteers, will ever allow Iraqi oil to "flood the world market"?

Jainen,
I did exagerate. It's from this weeks Kippinger Washington Letter, that as the economy stablized in Iraq, Iraq will substantially increase production of it's oil (not flood the market, they were my words) which would have a stablizing effect on the world oil price, which would benefit everyone.

[jainen]

It may be true

>>a stablizing effect on the world oil price<<

It may be true, but I don't see and for all their fine words I don't think Kiplinger sees it either. There is simply no evidence. It ignores all the oldest and newest historical trends. And I can think of plenty of people who would not benefit from "stable" oil prices. You can too, and in fact we are probably both among the large population of the world who would be devastated if Iraqi oil became a major economic player.

[Black Bart]

Back to the Beatitudes: Blessed are

This is important to those of us in our 20's and 30's (I'm 27) because SS is not going to be there in 30 years. There is no way the current structure can stay in place and be solvent enough to pay me and my peers. If I could take my SS money and invest it in low risk index and bond funds I could generate enough of a return by age 50 that I could retire for life. Can SS do that for me? Absolutely not. It is a mathematical certainty that investing in the market, sensible, diversified investing, will not lose money over a 10+ year period. I don't disagree that something needs to be done in Washington, but those who believe our representatives won't listen are exactly the ones who keep the status quo going.

JoshinNC

the Republicans, for they shall inherit low-risk index funds.

Yes, and this is important to those of us in our 60s and 70s (I'm 67) because we need money too. I first heard that speculation (SS won't last) around 1980. Since then I've lived through three previous crises vis-a-vis Social Security and each time the politicians rounded up the money--declaring: "Social Security Is saved!" Although I was puzzled after the second time; wondering just how many times it was possible for it to be "saved;" I began to take it in stride and now I fully expect it to be "saved" again by a new generation of politicians. You'll get the last word on it--I won't be around --but I think it would be a safe bet. How about posting the results on your message board (or whatever's extant) 30 years from now? And to put your money where your mouth is, send fifty bucks to your favorite charity in 2036 if you're wrong. I'll send fifty to Children International right now, just in case I lose.

From your stance on all these questions, I take it you vote with the party straight down the line. I'm a moderate Republican (a fence-straddler you'd probably say)--I like some of Limbaugh's positions, but the Word of Rush is not the same to me as the Word of God (on occasion he defends the indefensible). Put another way, his credo is: all things Republican; all things alright. You sell insurance, so you've got to be a pretty smart guy (my agent says he can't do taxes and I say "You can read an insurance policy--you can do taxes!"). I myself get in out of the rain. But anyway, I'm curious, do you have any thoughts on these or other issues that run contrary to the party position? The liberals frequently label us "fanatical, right-wing zealots" for that, just as we label them "knee-jerk liberals" when they respond so predictably. It just seems to me that each issue has to be examined on its merits rather than in the light of its conformity or advantage to one's political party.

To respond to your question: Can SS "do that?" No it can't. You can with your plan, but I think the average person can't and thousands of them would lose their shirts. If SS does go broke there'll be lots of hungry people roaming the streets looking for people with index fund money to take it away from them,

[John of PA]

How?

>>a stablizing effect on the world oil price<<

It may be true, but I don't see and for all their fine words I don't think Kiplinger sees it either. There is simply no evidence. It ignores all the oldest and newest historical trends. And I can think of plenty of people who would not benefit from "stable" oil prices. You can too, and in fact we are probably both among the large population of the world who would be devastated if Iraqi oil became a major economic player.

Jainen,
How would we not benefit from stable oil prices? If they do not stableize, they will just continue on a long-term trend of rising. Iraq must increase it's production to pay for it's new infrastructure. They have the resources (in oil) to do it. They are building highways they never had. Many Iraqi's for the first time in their life have public water and sewer. And may I add the death toll in Iraq is actually much less than it was before the war (when hundreds of thousands were killed by the Kurds, Sunni's and ****es fighting). Of course I don't mean to discount how horrible the current killing that's going on is. Iraq is going through a bloodshead similar to what we did in our revolutionary war. And the Iraqi people seem to be showing the resolve to stick it out and break free (a resolve that did not exist in Vietnam). There's no easy medicine for cleaning up the mess created by a bully dictator who ruled a country for many years, brutally invating a neighbor, and was responsible for close to a million of his own people being killed. I don't mean to talk like I have all the answers. I can't fault anyone for not likeing war and killing.

[jainen]

won't like it

>>How would we not benefit from stable oil prices?<<

If prices stabilize at $100 per barrel, you won't like it. If they stabilize at 100 euros you REALLY won't like it.

[Black Bart]

Very impressive.

p.s. what do you think of my new tagline?. I can't take entire credit for it.

However, chastisement is insufficient punishment for your drive-by commentary. You are herewith sentenced to 30 days on a "Metric."

P.S. Who gets the rest of the credit?

P.P.S. Can you still buy a new motorcycle that looks like a motorcycle, or do they all look like those out of a "Mad Max" movie?

P.P.P.S. Is Triumph still in business?

[Black Bart]

I'm assuming that's a

. What planet have you guys been living on.

a rhetorical question but, in case it's not, I'm in the Deneb system, third planet of Sirius, constellation Canis Major.

If the loans are stronger than the economy than we can all work for the government, because that is the only place to get you pieces of paper.

Hmmm, lemme see now...if somebody makes loans that are "stronger" than the economy, then we can get government jobs. Fine by me, but first, what's a strong loan? Are there weak loans? Does this mean you can get me on at the post office after all?

Next, government is the only place to "get you pieces of paper." Gosh, you've got me stumped on this one. Trick question? Better yet, could you re-phrase? Thanks.