A simple reason why Bush's SS plan is stupid

[Seeker]

"I don't really care if his plan is good or not"

The battle-cry of the Bush supporter!!

Thanks, now I understand US politics.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


A Bush's solution is... to burden the economy twice as much? There is no getting around the fact that Bush's solution costs $2 trillion and doing nothing costs $1 trillion. That's twice the cost even a child knows that's a bad deal.

Bush's solution includes putting money into the private economy that will enchance its growth, while at the same time reducing the burden on the working by the natural growth in the retirement accounts.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Kidicious


SS is insurance, so they still get a benefit.

This makes no sense

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Bush's solution includes putting money into the private economy that will enchance its growth,

The money comes from the private sector except what is borrowed from foreign buyers.

while at the same time reducing the burden on the working by the natural growth in the retirement accounts.

?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang


This makes no sense

SS is insurance against growing too old and not having money to live on. Blacks who contribute to SS get this benefit.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Bush's solution includes putting money into the private economy that will enchance its growth, while at the same time reducing the burden on the working by the natural growth in the retirement accounts.

Most trained fund managers can't beat the market average so how well do you think Joe 6 pack is going to do on average? Also there is the mentioned problem of that extra $1 trillion dollars in debt which Bush wants' I'm guessing the drag of that $1 trillion in additional debt will be greater then any increases caused by individual accounts. It is simply wreckless to rack up an additional $2 trillion in debt just so Bush's backers in the financial market can get even richer.

[Ned]

Oerdin, if you simply put your money in conservative mutual funds, one will on the average earn around 10%. Bonds earn around 5%, but they are tax free, normally.

I think people will be limited in the things they can invest in so that they don't pull an Enron on themselves.

Regardless, making 10% on one's money is better than making nothing.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Personally, I'd cut benefits and raise the retirement age.

Raising retirement age, yes... but I'd cut the subsidies to the farmers and other subsides on food prices.

I mean, a quarter of Americans are super chunky - why not give the same money but let food prices raise to more natural levels?

EDIT: One big difference between bonds and stocks - bonds are fixed term. You know you`ll get your money back (otherwise Federal govt would lose all financial backing overnight).

Stocks need careful watching day to day and even minute to minute to get the best price back. There CAN be a higher return than bonds - but it's not guaranteed. Something like 80% of stock trades lose small amounts of money.

In other words - who pays for the people to watch the stock markets and trade at the right times, eh?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, if you simply put your money in conservative mutual funds, one will on the average earn around 10%.

What low risk, 10% return mutual funds are you talking about?

[pchang]

http://flagship3.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/FundsSnapshot?FundId=0085&FundIntExt=INT

VTSMX from Vanguard

10.5% annualized total return since inception

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by pchang
Actually, older blacks suffer from heart disease and diabetes at a greater rate than the rest of the population. So, they do die younger (even after correcting for the gang violence).

On average non-whites do die earlier:
about 5 years earlier.

        TOTAL                   WHITE                  NONWHITE

 STATES           TOTAL    MALE   FEMALE  TOTAL    MALE   FEMALE  TOTAL    MALE   FEMALE


UNITED STATES    75.37   71.83   78.81   76.13   72.72   79.45   71.25   66.97   75.39

Hope it works correctly.

The Website is here:
average life expectancy by state

ACK!

[pchang]

Your stat is true, but if you break it down some more you will notice that Asians live longer.

[Tuberski]

No, I didn't read it right, it's a 5 year difference.

ACK!

[DanS]

What Boshko is missing is that the obligation (i.e., debt) is the same under both scenarios (current v. Bush proposal). The only difference between the two is that the debt in the current system is implied by what has been promised by the government, while Bush's plan makes the debt explicit and runs it through the bond market.

Now you might say that the promises of the government aren't even good enough to wipe your bottomside with and therefore it isn't "debt." But if you start saying that, then I would suggest that you seriously examine the magnitude of the shaftitude for yourself once your turn comes around to retire.

There are no free lunches.

[Tuberski]

But in the old plan, I will see SS, in Bush's, I may not.

ACK!