Social Security?

[Johnnyskydive 0]

AMEN!

Johnny Skydive!

[hobbes4star 0]

I belive the best solution is not to plan on SS. CYA if it pleases you. I have started multiply retirement savings because I belive SS will not be there for me when I retire. and if it is then hey it's a bonus. Plan for the worst IMHO.
but hey just my .02

if fun were easy it wouldn't be worth having, right?

[billvon 3,132]

>You have to force people to break out of a certain mindset.

Sounds like that's exactly what the democrats have been doing!

>Those who don't, bitch and whine.

oops. So -

If a republican announces an ultimatum, and says he will not compromise, he is being flexible and forcing people to break out of a certain mindset. If a democrat announces an ultimatum, he is being inflexible, and just bitching and whining. Am I on track so far?

[billvon 3,132]

>He only said any solution must include personal retirement accounts.

How about this, then -

We offer tax incentives for people to save their OWN money on their OWN so they can plan their own retirement. Then we have a secondary safety net that basically keeps people from starving or freezing to death and that's it. That way the few who invest their money foolishly have a minimal safety net, and the people who invest wisely enjoy a comfortable retirement.

Or is that not enough government meddling to make the GOP happy?

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Or is that not enough government meddling to make the GOP happy?

A little too much partisanship in your Corn Flakes this morning?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"The time is now" [to fix Social Security], G.W. Bush, GOP Convention, 2000

"Social Security reform will be the top domestic priority", G.W. Bush, 2004 Presidential debates.

So what's happening?

How about -

PRESIDENT CLINTON: For too long politicians have called Social Security the third rail of American politics. That's Washington language for it's above serious debate. This year, we must prove them wrong. (1998)

The year before his bipartisan committee gave 3 courses of action. And he has a surplus to work with.

what happened then - impeachment. bad leadership, just like his 93 attempts on health care.

What happened with Bush? Pretty much the same thing- the opposition party was content to piss on his proposal and offer jack shit in return.

The counterproposal to tax all income does nothing to stop the impending problem of more payees and payers, and gives Bush more funding for wars now. I'm rather surprised the Democrats suggest it, unless they're assuming they can find new ways to blow the excess funds when they're in power again.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Matter of perspective. I have in the past, in order to effect creative thinking, announced I wanted creative solutions, not a rehash with a slight variation to what we have been doing.

Quote

And I have often taken that very same approach. But if you waltz in and say, "I want creative solutions, not a rehash, so the solution has to be X. Now, discuss!" that might be a bit different, now wouldn't it? How would you, as an obviously intelligent and analytical performer, receive such an ultimatum?

Again, you are misunderstanding. If I walked in and said "I want us to restructure our marketing program but any solution must include increasing our Customer Satisfaction reports, I am not pre-determinng what I want to hear. I am simply setting what I feel is a necessary ingredient to the overhaul.

Quote

It's called leadership and those who know how to use leadership abilities, know that demanding better of people, gets better results. You have to force people to break out of a certain mindset.

Quote

Out of what kind of draconian leadership book do you operate? FORCE PEOPLE? How about guide, coach, stimulate, etc.?

Kind of hard to do when your political opponents have already pre-determined they are going to demagogue the issue isn't it?

Quote

Leadership? Force people?

Force?? Who said force?

Quote

Those who want to work to effect real change will respond to the challenge. Those who don't bitch and whine. In a corporate setting, they get fired.

Quote

There are plenty of great folks out there whose earnest desire to effect change is directly affected by their leadership's approaches to, well, leadership. That's why Blanchard and Deming (et al) sell so many books. And I don't recall much reference to confrontation as being a successful leadership method, in any of the related literature I've read, anyway, not to mention in practical application.

Principled Negotiation. Perhaps you should try Getting To Yes by Fisher and Ury. Here's a quickie.

Not only read it, but have it on CD.

Quote

And you're casting things in a binary fashion ("with us or against us" sound familiar?), which doesn't represent things very accurately. There's a broad spectrum of people and their motivations and their responses. As a leader, you should know that.

Finally, your analogy would at least be somewhat applicable if we were discussing an issue in which the leader was administering a discussion with individuals who report to him. In this case, if the President was addressing his cabinet with an ultimatum, then your analogy at least holds water there. But it doesn't: legislators don't have to respond to the President the way employees do to their chain of command.

Correct. They chose to demagogue it instead for political gain. Give me one example of an alternative the Democrats came up with except raise taxes.


Again, I remain unconvinced that ultimatums are a good way to stimulate healthy debate and negotiation, but I'm willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.

And again, you misunderstand. No ultimatum was given, so your whole argument is invalid.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

And if you set up a retirement account, you have less need for a safety net ie. less money. Have you ever sat down and figured out what your rate f return is on SS? It's about 1%. Think you could do better than that over a lifetime? Do you think it's fair that the govt. gets to keep all that money if you die before retirement without a spouse or children?

Quote

I think you are missing the idea behind a safety net. It is for when things don't go as planned. I am quite confident I could invest my money and receive a higher rate of return than with SS. I am equally confident that not 100% of American taxpayers could do the same thing. Hence the need for a safety net.

I'm not missing the idea of a safety net at all. If private acounts were allowed for those who know how to invest and the safety net was left in place for those who fuck up, then the safety net would require less money than it does now. How is that a bad thing?

Quote

What do I need with that money if I die w/o a spouse or child before retirement?

Gee, I don't know Chris... How about because it's your money. Radical concept, huh?

• Quote

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>He only said any solution must include personal retirement accounts.

How about this, then -

We offer tax incentives for people to save their OWN money on their OWN so they can plan their own retirement. Then we have a secondary safety net that basically keeps people from starving or freezing to death and that's it. That way the few who invest their money foolishly have a minimal safety net, and the people who invest wisely enjoy a comfortable retirement.

Or is that not enough government meddling to make the GOP happy?

That's exactly what I've been saying.

[billvon 3,132]

>That's exactly what I've been saying.

Cool! In that case, we have that now, so we're done. (They're called 401k's.)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>That's exactly what I've been saying.

Cool! In that case, we have that now, so we're done. (They're called 401k's.)

Right, and I should be able to put as much in it as I want.

edited to add. and my Social Security contributions should be reduced.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Right, and I should be able to put as much in it as I want.

It would definitely be nice to increase the contribution limits that currently exist. But the Feds don't want to decrease the amount of tax we give them.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,132]

>Right, and I should be able to put as much in it as I want.

I disagree. 401k's should be a way to save for retirement, not tax shelters for clever manipulations of your income.

>and my Social Security contributions should be reduced.

Just figure out what to cut and get it implemented.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

How about this, then -

We offer tax incentives for people to save their OWN money on their OWN so they can plan their own retirement. Then we have a secondary safety net that basically keeps people from starving or freezing to death and that's it. That way the few who invest their money foolishly have a minimal safety net, and the people who invest wisely enjoy a comfortable retirement.

So when are you running for office?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Right, and I should be able to put as much in it as I want.

It would definitely be nice to increase the contribution limits that currently exist. But the Feds don't want to decrease the amount of tax we give them.

Exactly. If I have over $2 million in my IRA plus other investments, why should the amount I pay into SS not be reduced. I have no problem continuing to contribute something for those who fuck up. Bush only proposed that as a necessary ingredient to SS reform.

So why is it a problem to set up employer/employee contributions to a portable IRA, with a safety net? History shows the return on SS is less than 1%. If someone can't do better than that then we need to take a long hard look at out public education system. Which Bush tried to reform too but the Democrats decided to demagogue that one too.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Right, and I should be able to put as much in it as I want.

Quote

I disagree. 401k's should be a way to save for retirement, not tax shelters for clever manipulations of your income.

Tax deferred is not tax exempt. So adjust the exemption a little. The point is, the Democrats weren't even willing to discuss this becasue they would rather use it as a political issue.

>and my Social Security contributions should be reduced.

Quote

Just figure out what to cut and get it implemented.

OK, how about we cut some the $Billions going out every year in SS payments?

• Quote

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Social Security does need to be reformed and I agree that the Dems aren't helping if they only criticize instead of offering alternate solutions. I just think creating private retirement accounts where the assumption of the only way to make money is in the stock markets is extremely dangerous for the uneducated masses. We already know that the Wall Street professionals are sharks willing to eat their own Mothers if it means making a buck. What's the solution? I'm not sure. I guess I'm not all that smart either. But it would be nice to see contributions limits increased.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Channman 2]

>I am equally confident that not 100% of American taxpayers could do the same thing. Hence the need for a safety net.

I think most Americans given the opportunity with some education would be more than willing to invest their money. It does'nt take alot of effort to show someone that many Equity Mutual Funds have returned well over 12% over time.

Take a position in the market and hold...great wealth can be made. Most Americans need to depend upon themselves for their future and not upon the government.

A simple rule I learned was the rule of (72). It's just a simple rule to help someone understand how money can compound over time. If you recieve a 3% return on an investment, 72 div. 3 = 24 years for your money to double. A 10,000 investment by a 30 year old would compound to about 20,000 dollars by the time they reach 54.

Therefore a 200.00 a month investment averaging 12% can grow to more than 1,000,000.00 in 30 years. Unfortunately over 7 trillion dollars of American's money is placed in accounts returning 3% or less. The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer because the poor never take the time to understand how money works and how to make it work harder for them.


Cheers

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Social Security does need to be reformed and I agree that the Dems aren't helping if they only criticize instead of offering alternate solutions. I just think creating private retirement accounts where the assumption of the only way to make money is in the stock markets is extremely dangerous for the uneducated masses. We already know that the Wall Street professionals are sharks willing to eat their own Mothers if it means making a buck. What's the solution? I'm not sure. I guess I'm not all that smart either. But it would be nice to see contributions limits increased.

There are a lot of investment vehicles that are less risky than a potfolio of strictly stocks. Balanced Funds come to mind.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I think most Americans given the opportunity with some education would be more than willing to invest their money. It does'nt take alot of effort to show someone that many Equity Mutual Funds have returned well over 12% over time.

It would be pretty easy for most Americans to make sound investment choices, with education. To think all are capable is overly optimistic, I believe.

[Channman 2]

I think you have to be pretty dumb not to at least try to understand how money works. If most Americans were given a choice of 1,000,000.00 tax free no question asked or the choice of .01 cent double every day for 31 days most would take the 1,000,000.00.

As for me, give me the .01 cents doubled every day for 31 days hands down.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Chris chris chris chris....

Once again you forget the most important facts in favor for your lefty head-in-the-clouds dreamery....

ALL Americans start equally. If they take drugs, get made homeless, starve it is all their fault. It is not OUR jobs as educated Umericans to protect the less fortunate, intelligent or fiscally sound.

It is actually UNAMERICAN according to the constitution to even suggest that human beings as a whole have the right to help from the government, only that they have the right to have rights and those are granted by God and not by humans.

As such if someone is so fucking stupid that they can't work out how to save their excess money rather than blow it all on crack then they deserve to die in abject poverty in the gutters. One simply has to look at the strength Great Britian had during the Victorian era as a shining example.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

If most Americans were given a choice of 1,000,000.00 tax free no question asked or the choice of .01 cent double every day for 31 days most would take the 1,000,000.00.
As for me, give me the .01 cents doubled every day for 31 days hands down.

I think you just demonstrated my point.

I, too, would take the $(2^30/100), but I think most would go for the easy million.

[Channman 2]

My point is once you show someone the power of waiting 31 days can bring you a return of more than 10 times the amount promised to you.

We just need to show people how it works, then they have the power of knowledge to change their lives.

But I do understand your point there will always be those that will be in need, but that does'nt mean we can't aleast try to make a difference by sharing some simple ideas.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I think most Americans given the opportunity with some education would be more than willing to invest their money. It does'nt take alot of effort to show someone that many Equity Mutual Funds have returned well over 12% over time.

It would be pretty easy for most Americans to make sound investment choices, with education. To think all are capable is overly optimistic, I believe.

I agree, all are not capable. But is it fair to those who are, to not have the opportunity to do so? Why must we be constantly denied because there are those who can't?