Bush wanted to let Americans put a small portion of their money into stock index funds. Capital would have flowed into stocks, stabilizing them, and some of this would have flowed into the banking sector, stabilizing it. Now, we have frozen markets and collapsing 401-k savings. We’re screwed.
Once again, the Dems demagogued us into the poorhouse.
“Bush wants you to eat cat food!” they screamed. And the dumb bastards voted for Socialism.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Bush wanted to let Americans put a small portion of their money into stock index funds. Capital would have flowed into stocks, stabilizing them, and some of this would have flowed into the banking sector, stabilizing it. Now, we have frozen markets and collapsing 401-k savings. We’re screwed.
Once again, the Dems demagogued us into the poorhouse.
“Bush wants you to eat cat food!” they screamed. And the dumb bastards voted for Socialism.[/quote]
Yer Europe is being eaten alive by Socialism dirty bastards are about to ruin the whole of Europe.
Give it 2-3 years for right wing goverments to spring up all over Europe.
Already happened in Austria but Europe didn’t allow him take office (democracy?)
Privatizing SS has been the kiss of death for quite awhile. The trend is pretty clear. Money is better spent by the gov’t than the free market.
People seem oblivious to the fact the they are the free market. So we have somehow come to the conclusion that we are all idiots and can’t manage our money or decide what goods and services we actually need. gov’t better do it for us.
I thought this had been proven wrong many times over at disasterous cost, but maybe I am missing something.
What is the difference between Social Security and Bernie Madoff as investment programs?
(Latest report is that investigators couldn’t find evidence that Madoff had ever invested a penny. All the “dividends” his clients received over the years actually came from new money put in from new clients.)
Answer: Madoff couldn’t force people to become new clients. Therefore the point at which the base of the pyramid couldn’t keep expanding was reached sooner.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Already happened in Austria but Europe didn’t allow him take office (democracy?)
[/quote]
Gargl?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What is the difference between Social Security and Bernie Madoff as investment programs?
(Latest report is that investigators couldn’t find evidence that Madoff had ever invested a penny. All the “dividends” his clients received over the years actually came from new money put in from new clients.)
Answer: Madoff couldn’t force people to become new clients. Therefore the point at which the base of the pyramid couldn’t keep expanding was reached sooner.
[/quote]
I think the main difference is that Madoff was a greedy bastard whereas still more than enough people believe that SS is a public good that absolutely justifies coercion.
I like greedy bastards waaaayyyy more.
Imagine still if his Lifetime Savings Accounts plan had been enacted. $5000 investment each year for an individual that is never subjected to capital gains and can be withdrawn freely. Basically a Roth IRA that you don’t have to wait until retirement to pull money out without penalty. The stock market would gain 50% instantly if such a plan was put in place today. It would double if cap gains and corporate taxes in general were also greatly reduced.
[quote]orion wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Already happened in Austria but Europe didn’t allow him take office (democracy?)
Gargl?[/quote]
Yep, give it 4-5 years and the BNP (right wing) will be WAayyyyy up in between the 2 dumbasses of parties.
Britian’s immagration is getting out of hand, the English are nearly outnumbered in their own country !
[quote]300andabove wrote:
orion wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Already happened in Austria but Europe didn’t allow him take office (democracy?)
Gargl?
Yep, give it 4-5 years and the BNP (right wing) will be WAayyyyy up in between the 2 dumbasses of parties.
Britian’s immagration is getting out of hand, the English are nearly outnumbered in their own country ![/quote]
But when did it happen that someone did not become something in Austria because Europe did not approve of it?
The last time they tried that we had the FPOE in the government and before we elected Waldheim.
So, if history is any guide, telling us who not to vote for practically ensures a landslide victory for that person.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“Bush wants you to eat cat food!” they screamed. And the dumb bastards voted for Socialism.[/quote]
You say this as if we aren’t socialist already.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Bush wanted to let Americans put a small portion of their money into stock index funds. Capital would have flowed into stocks, stabilizing them, and some of this would have flowed into the banking sector, stabilizing it. Now, we have frozen markets and collapsing 401-k savings. We’re screwed.
Once again, the Dems demagogued us into the poorhouse.
“Bush wants you to eat cat food!” they screamed. And the dumb bastards voted for Socialism.[/quote]
If money had flowed into the stockmarket following bush’s proposed social security plan, how would it have altered
That most on this forum seem to believe led to our current global recession? It seems like, if anything, people putting more money into the stockmarket would have prolonged the boom and heightened the pain felt at the bust. And people would blame Bush for destroying their savings.
Agreed.
Private actual INVESTMENT for retirement would be (and is) drastically superior to the Social Security Ponzi scheme – look at the results Galveston, TX has enjoyed, for example – and a phase-down of the SSI scheme in favor of privatization would be a good thing long term. (Which is what retirement investment is about.)
But Otep’s points are all correct, I believe.
That said, unless about to cash out for retirement the only losses experienced in stock-based investment accounts are in terms of expected future earnings of companies, and the percentage of resulting dividends that retirees will be allowed to keep (instead of taxed) is now lower due to, among other things, taxation changes.
But still the return, in terms of dividends paid, for just any fairly-normal index fund could hardly be inferior to what SSI will turn out. Regardless of current valuation of the stocks in terms of today’s sale price.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
So we have somehow come to the conclusion that we are all idiots and can’t manage our money or decide what goods and services we actually need. [/quote]
No, just some people are idiots…like those who over extended themselves and are now getting bailed out. Buy another boat, car and HDTV…no problem.
(wait a minute…who is the idiot ? ME…the one who lives within his means).
[quote]therover wrote:
dhickey wrote:
So we have somehow come to the conclusion that we are all idiots and can’t manage our money or decide what goods and services we actually need.
No, just some people are idiots…like those who over extended themselves and are now getting bailed out. Buy another boat, car and HDTV…no problem.
(wait a minute…who is the idiot ? ME…the one who lives within his means).
[/quote]
agreed. i meant we in the collective sense.