Jay Bookman

By Deborah Heisman

January 9, 2009 7:09 AM | Link to this

My blood runs cold when I heard the naysayers start babbling about how the 401(k)s are failing. What a bunch of crap! As investors we have been through this before and we will go through this again. If you are uncomfortable with investing your retirement money in the stock market, every plan is mandated, by law, to offer a money market fund and fixed income funds. Stop your whining.

Take this opportunity to POUR money into your retirement plans and don’t fall for the stupidity the wonks are feeding you.

Don’t fall for the fallacy that there is a wizard with the SS Administration that can invest your money for you better than you can yourself.

Social Security does not “invest” in anything, per se. It is more like a Ponzi Scheme that moves money from one group of people to another. When the money runs out you will be very glad you have your retirement plans, whether you have a 401(k), a 403(b), a Roth IRA or a Traditional IRA.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 9, 2009 7:13 AM | Link to this

“It is more like a Ponzi Scheme that moves money from one group of people to another.”

Liar.

SS is a successful insurance program that’s worked precisely as intended more than seven decades ago—it’s provided a safety net for retirees that they can build upon. if anything, it should be expanded so that it provides something approaching what publicly funded pensions give retirees in other civilized nations, i.e. around 60% of average income in retirement, rather than the paltry ~40% SS provides to this nation’s retirees.

You want Ponzi schemes, look at what the banking “industry” (ha!) has become.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 9, 2009 7:16 AM | Link to this

Hell. Mr. G and I are looking at a two bedroom cardboard box with a view of the overpass.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 9, 2009 7:29 AM | Link to this

Jay

You made Daily Kos today!

Congrats!

By Bud Wiser

January 9, 2009 7:30 AM | Link to this

I only wish that I had every dime I “poured” into (or had taken from me, if you prefer) Social Security during my working career, and could invest it myself.

I would even today gladly do the same and sign away my rights to ever file for SS when eligible, just because of the government fools that run that program.

Alas, that will never happen.

Government has been into the business of redistribution of wealth since SS was conceived, only now it will accelerate at an exponential rate with the socialists in charge.

Face it, America, the dream that was America, the idea that one could pull oneself from poverty to success by hard work and then reap the rewards of that, that concept is dead. When the government makes the decisions of how much of your money they want, versus how much they think you should keep (because some deadbeat might need it worse than you, and enough deadbeats means enough votes, and enough votes means we stay in office so we can take more of your money, etc, etc, etc), they own you.

You are the new slave class - the working stiff, but with a caveat; if you decide to quit work, let us have all you own, become dependent solely on us, and we will take care of you. It has worked for decades with a certain Democrat Party constituency, so they have decided to spread the misery nation-wide.

Little children scream for joy when they take the fast slide downward at the playground.

What kind of scream will yours be when the Democrats, lead by the Chosen One, make that big push on your behind to go down the economic slide to ruin with all of these bailouts, giveaways, and ‘stimulus’ packages?

Enjoy the ride down.

By Copyleft

January 9, 2009 7:38 AM | Link to this

Ahh, thanks for that refreshing perspective, Bud.

Remember, people: It’s better to starve and die, shivering under a bridge, in your old age than accept the idea that society should provide even subsistence-level support for the elderly.

Because THAT’s what freedom’s all about!

By spankmonkey

January 9, 2009 7:42 AM | Link to this

I love it. The wingnuts have held the reins of power for 13 of the last 15 years, what did they “do” about SS, bedides make it a boogeyman to scare seniors into voting Republican in 2000 and 2004. What did the wingnuts do to fix any of this??? NOTHING.

Now it’s Bill Clinton and Barney Frank’s fault, all of it…

Where was all the bleating when Dubya was giving away economic stimulus checks??? Funny how they only seemed to come around election years, yeah funny how that worked…

Wingnuts are funny funny folks, and some of you here are the funniest…

ew

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 9, 2009 7:43 AM | Link to this

Mornin’, Mrs. G. Sorry to hear that.

Between a battered-all-to-hell 401(k) that will have time to recover and SS, we’ll manage something better than that cardboard box. I’ve been as aggressive as humanly possible over the years to put a chunk of my income into retirement investments; nobody, not our troll @ 7.09, nor the lying skank-ho’ Neal Boortz, needs to tell me that.

But as Jay correctly points out, the vast majority of us need to fund something that’s dead certain to be there. No investment-fairy will guarantee that stocks, bonds, or other market instruments whether US or foreign based will hold their value.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 9, 2009 7:44 AM | Link to this

But what does it tell you when people are not comfortable enough to retire with only Social “Security?”

And don’t think it is immune either, the feds are going to have to take more of your money or reduce benefits, because it is headed for it’s own special little meltdown.

Whether you hide from it or not.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 9, 2009 7:50 AM | Link to this

By DB, Gwinnettian January 9, 2009 7:13 AM “It is more like a Ponzi Scheme that moves money from one group of people to another.” Liar. SS is a successful insurance program that’s worked precisely as intended more than seven decades ago—it’s provided a safety net for retirees that they can build upon.

Social “Security” is a federally mandated Ponzi scheme for the weak and lame, dullards too addled to plan their own future.

Is it any wonder the libs are the ones who get all excited and agitated when you talk about their 900 dollar a month bonanza?

wow

By TW

January 9, 2009 7:57 AM | Link to this

However, this is a damn fine illustration why it would have been foolish to tie Social Security benefits to the market.

Exactly, which is why we should never elect anyone who might even suggest such a thing. Someone like that could really trash our economy if they ever got elected. Even worse, such ignorance might even do something as stupid as invade a country by mistake and end up killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention the losses of our military and the financial toll it would take on the country.

Good thing the American people aren’t stupid enough to elect such a fool.

Whew…

By GodHatesTrash

January 9, 2009 7:57 AM | Link to this

Po Fo, when you say Buttgeyser, you’ve said it all.

One of the best RightWingnut SNs ever. Kudos.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 9, 2009 8:00 AM | Link to this

Paul: Excellent recommendation on the MoccaMaster. The true measure of quality is that I am drinking up all my coffee about an hour earlier than I usually do. And I haven’t even tried any of the tweaks yet.

The only thing I like better on the Krups is the brew through lid on the thermal carafe, if you set it on a timer and want to catch a half hour more sleep, the lid keeps the heat in.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 9, 2009 8:01 AM | Link to this

“You made Daily Kos today!”

Huh. I rarely make the pilgrimage to the Orange Satan, so thanks for the heads-up. here is linkee.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 9, 2009 8:08 AM | Link to this

Andy, in the interests of reaching across the aisle, I will second your advocacy for thermal carafes @ 8.00.

I used to think such things were crimes against nature, that real coffee pots had burners and if you didn’t get the coffee in time before it had been cooking for two hours and tasted like roasted guinea-pig fur, that was your own damn fault.

But we’ve had such a configuration (albeit on a more pedestrian Mr. Coffee) for a year or two and I won’t ever go back, now.

By GodHatesTrash

January 9, 2009 8:11 AM | Link to this

Many, if not most, of our “captains of industry and finance” are swindlers (Made-off, et. al.) and snake-oil salesmen (Nardelli, Paulson, etc.), or addle-pated lunatics (like Swilling and Lay) that swallowed their own bull feces. You are damn fools if you think that these clowns aren’t going to take advantage of the rules (and lack thereof) and you and your hard-earned money to feather their own nests.

All of the $$ invested in the stock market since the late 1990s is gone with the wind, my friend.

Congress, too, is full of charlatans and fools, but they have the power to tax and print money.

By Shawny

January 9, 2009 8:14 AM | Link to this

401k investments should be viewed as long term. Yes, they are down now, particularly if you invested in higher risk funds or specific stocks. But over the long haul, they are better than SS. Look at how much you pay over your lifetime into SS and how much you are anticipated to get out. Do the real math as to the rate of return. It is negative.

To suggest that 401k investments are bad and use the single data point of today’s DOW level is ignorant.

The real problem is when someone is close to retirement level and has their 401k into risky investments instead of bonds. That is poor planning. If you are far away from retirement, leave your 401k alone…it will come back and still be better than any negative investment in SS.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 9, 2009 8:16 AM | Link to this

Again, trusting financial advice from anyone who was a part of or supported Bush and his failed conservative economic is just plain dumb.

By Taxpayer

January 9, 2009 8:19 AM | Link to this

Half of these little whining Republicans that moan and groan about how much there life sucks only say these things because that’s what Rush or Neal or Hannity or one of their other programmers have instructed them to believe. They’re clueless little uneducated children that need someone to tell them when to whine and what to whine about. Now they think that Social Security is either some sort of Ponzi scheme or a redistribution of wealth when in fact it is neither. You pay money into the system from your working wages and when you retire, you have the opportunity to collect from this insurance program an amount that reflects your years of contributions. Yes, it has its bugs that need to be addressed and Obama has said just that but it basically does the job that it was originally intended to do.

401ks are the relatively new retirement savings vehicles on the landscape. They are basically a replacement for company, defined benefit plans. They essentially provide a tax-deferred savings/investment program for employess and employers to use that are “controlled” by the employee. The employee has the choice in most cases (this was a problem at one time with retirement contributions made in restricted stocks by companies such as Enron but I think the laws have changed to eliminate most of those problems now) of investments that meet their desired level of risk or at least “risk” as we were [mis]led to understand it. For, now there’s the current Wall Street meltdown and AAA-rated, mortgage-related securities from hell and, as Paul Harvey would say, “the rest of the story.” Oh, if only half of you people only realized what’s been going on and just how thoroughly you’ve been duped and used by the unscrupulous and greedy…wait a minute…more than half do realize and that’s why these scoundrel Republicans are being voted out of office. At least that’s a start on the road to recovery.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 9, 2009 8:27 AM | Link to this

Shawny, please don’t put words in Jay’s mouth. He never suggested that 401k investments are bad. Nor do I.

Quite the opposite: “I don’t think you can blame that on a flaw in the program.”

You would think that conservatives would be delighted with SS as it is—intended to reproduce only about 40% of working-years income, leaving income earners to either live with less, or invest aggressively to make up the shortfall.

Why you think this modest safety net is a bad thing I really don’t understand. Not unless the point is to simply dismantle every effective government program out there. What’s next, the interstate highways? privatize the DoD?

By Copyleft

January 9, 2009 8:35 AM | Link to this

Hey, does anyone remember when corporations used to offer something called “pensions,” rather than 401(k)s?

Corporate America is sure hoping you don’t….

By h ryder

January 9, 2009 8:36 AM | Link to this

If you are unwilling to take a risk than you have no legitimate grounds to complain when people who did take the risk reap the rewards. I am irritated by people who want all the desirable things in life but do not and will not put forth the effort or take the risk, over a period of time much greater than a single day, to EARN rewards. “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”-Truman

By AJC/DNC Management

January 9, 2009 8:42 AM | Link to this

By Taxpayer January 9, 2009 8:19 AM You pay money into the system from your working wages and when you retire, you have the opportunity to collect from this insurance program an amount that reflects your years of contributions.

Bullcrap.

Current retirees are paid with money collected from the workers of today.

Social “Security” is Bernie Maddof with his own army.

~~~~~

“All those nice pro-life, gun-owning young Democrats recruited to run by Rahm Emanuel will never have any real influence now,” says Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. “They were useful in getting Democrats a majority but now they’ll be in the back of the bus.”-WSJ

Or under the bus.

By Bosch

January 9, 2009 8:46 AM | Link to this

I have a very simple solution - never retire. That’s my plan.

Retirement is for wimps. We are Americans people. Remember the Puritan work ethic. Those Puritans worked until the day they died, and so should we all.

Retirement, whatever.

Mrs. G.,

You and Mr. G and Joe can come live with us. You can help us with the old people and Joe and my dog will get along swimmingly I’m sure - they can tromp around in the back yard and you can introduce my dog to BBQ porkchops. It’ll be swell. Does Joe like cats? I mean, not as a snack, but is he cool with them? There’s also a big possum that’s taken up residence in my garage - big nasty sucker.

By Swami Dave

January 9, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this

Jay:

Were you to have been allowed to invest the 15% of your earnings in some other vehicle that was directed by government mandate to fund payments to current recepients through the Social Security system, you might be upset to look at your balance after this most recent correction. However, what do you expect to feel when the grand, national-scale, Madoff-style ponzi scheme that truly is the Social Security system collapses upon itself under the weight of fewer workers (“new recruits”) proportional to retirees expecting benefits that they provided when “they were on the bottom”.

In this case, all good ponzi schemes either (a) change the payout structure (“marketing plan”) to change the rules of how much and to whom money is paid and / or (b) increase the fees (in this case, taxes) on the ones at the bottom. In either case, it is simply an attempt by the originator of the scam to string along as many of the participants for as long as possible for it eventually collapses.

For the record……..

Were you to have been allowed to invest the 15% of your earnings in a stock index fund instead of having it used to pay benefits to current retirees with the promise that it would be there for you too upon retirement, you would have still been better off TODAY (January 09, 2009) even after the economic downturn than you would have been assuming Social Security’s “rate of return”.

For every theoretical $1000 invested in 1988 at the average 2% “return” from Social Security, it would be worth $1485. That same $1000 invested (prior to our most recent downturn) at the average 8% (the average yearly growth rate of the stock index historically) would be worth $4660 now. Assuming you lost half the value in the most recent downturn ($2330), you would still be 50% better off than you would be under the “guarantee” (that, we all know, really isn’t).

Continuing to perpetuate this outright theft and scam upon current workers (especially younger ones just entering the labor markets) is, in my opinion, unjust and immoral.

Ms. Godzilla:

I won’t hold my breath expecting to hear that -I- made the Daily Kos today. I am comfortable with though since I wouldn’t waste my time wading through the bitter, collectivist, enviro-nut blather that is swilled as “content” there anyway. Being the good American capitalist, I’d much rather spend time on my own website that generates revenue for me smile.

Have a good one all.

-Swami Dave

By Bosch

January 9, 2009 8:49 AM | Link to this

Jay,

And yeah, congratulations on the Daily Kos thing. But don’t go getting all national on us. That happened once over at Luckovich’s blog and we wound up with RB afterwards.

By Shawny

January 9, 2009 8:52 AM | Link to this

One data point does not make a trend. Yes, we are in a big downturn, but just like the climate, it is cyclical.

If you take the money you put and will put into SS, and put it in moderate risk investments until nearing retirement age, you will have much more available than if you simply allow SS to give you what they wish.

To say ‘gotcha’ to the capitalists is short sighted and incorrect.

By lovelyliz

January 9, 2009 8:53 AM | Link to this

The only people who wold benefit for investing Social Security $$$$ in 401(k) like programs are the fat cats on Wall Street (apology to my fat cats at home Scarlet & Pandora) who rake in bonuses even when the market tanks.

When Social Security dollars invested in the way our 401(k) plans are experience the volatility such as what we are seeing today, the taxpayers would be left paying the tab. Old people vote in greater numbers than just about any other demographic and politician listen to them. They won’t be left with worthless SSA accounts thus leading to taxpayer bailouts. They Neroes on wall street would against be fiddling while the rest of us get burned.

By Curious Observer

January 9, 2009 8:55 AM | Link to this

It’s interesting that all the rightists condemn Social Security, but the companies and corporations they own certainly haven’t minded subtracting the system’s anticipated income from the estimate of retirement income provided by any defined benefit plan that still exists. In other words, when it’s to their advantage, they’ll take Social Security into account. Otherwise, it’s a “Ponzi scheme” etc.

It’s an insurance plan, dummies, not a savings plan. It was put in place because millions of people had no other means of providing for themselves after they were no longer able to work. Its benefit levels are stacked in favor of lower income workers, and that’s the way it should be.

And the plan will still be there when the younger workers who cry about it today start to retire. I too once moaned about the level of SS taxes I paid and assumed that the plan would disappear. But my SS benefit now arrives faithfully in my checking account on the fourth Wednesday of every month, and it’s far, far above the $900 level that some blogger here sarcastically mentioned.

The solution to the funding shortfall is simple: remove the cap on earnings subjected to SS tax. Why should a poor slob who makes $30,000 per year see all of it subjected to the tax, while an executive making $200,000 per year have only half exposed to the tax?

Social Security is not a 401k plan or any other savings plan at all. Those who argue against it are engaging in a fallacy for the sake of making their point.

By Joey

January 9, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this

Jay; Based on reading some of the comments here, I think you may have accidently done a dis-service to some of your readers. The readers who see you as and advisor.

It is easy for some readers to conclude that you are recommending that people do not invest in a 401(k) or IRA or other tax defered investments. Or that you are recommending that they cash in their tax defered retirement program.

I know this is not what you intend. But many people are not good at reading and comprehending.

In my view you need to clarify. State clearly that you are not abandoning your 401(k). That you are not advising people to cash in their retirement investments.

By NRB

January 9, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this

As others have pointed out, social security is a scam and a ponzi scheme. If we were allowed to keep and invest the money that the government steals from us, we’d still be better off even in times like this.

And anyone who is close to retirement (5-10 years) should mostly be invested in bonds and money market, not stocks, to help avoid situations like this.

If you were dumb enough at age 60 to have 95% of your portfolio in stocks, than wtf do you expect.

As for me, I have 30+ years to go and have actually INCREASED my 401k contribution right now because as Warren Buffet says: buy low, sell high.

But leave it to useless Democrats to take this situation to whine about capitalism, the free market, etc. etc.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 9, 2009 8:59 AM | Link to this

swami

what COULD we do to get you to hold your breath? for 8 or 10 minutes….

That was a bitter, collectivist remark on my part.

Bosch

Thanks….but the cardboard box would be so very portable (paperboard winnebago’s could be all the rage). One week an underpass, another week an abandoned factory….we could see the USA in our Boxolet.

Yes, Joe likes cats as long as they don’t sleep in his bowl. For snacks he prefers bunnies, snakes and the tails of the local lizards. Why just the tails I wonder?

By lovelyliz

January 9, 2009 9:00 AM | Link to this

The only people who would benefit for investing Social Security $$$$ in 401(k) like programs are the fat cats on Wall Street (apology to my fat cats at home Scarlet & Pandora) who rake in bonuses even when the market tanks.

When Social Security dollars invested in the way our 401(k) plans are experience the volatility such as what we are seeing today, the taxpayers would be left paying the tab. Old people vote in greater numbers than just about any other demographic and politician listen to them. They won’t be left with worthless SSA accounts thus leading to taxpayer bailouts. They Neroes on Wall Street would against be fiddling while the rest of us get burned.

By Taxpayer

January 9, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this

Andy,

What words of mine, precisely, are you claiming to be “bullcrap”?

By sunshine and thunder

January 9, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this

JAY

Oh, yeah. Social security is just fine. It’s much riskier putting money in the stock market than it is to put it into Social security and have congress steal it for the general tax fund and use it to buy votes.

I know what you’re going to say, there are IOU’s in the SS trust fund. So I borrow money from my savings account, put it in my checking account, spend it and put an IOU back into my savings account.

Great way to fool yourself.

By Bosch

January 9, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G.,

I think you’re on to something! But the offer still stands. :-)

By CommunistAJC

January 9, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla, Daily Kos? Wow, that is a huge achievement. What a joke.

Bookman, looks like you and many other so-called journalists dropped the ball on the financial meltdown. Way to go Jay.

Survey: Reporters dropped ball covering meltdown.

Jan 8 03:52 PM US/Eastern By DAVID BAUDER

Sixty-two of 100 journalists surveyed by Abrams Research, a firm started by former MSNBC chief Dan Abrams, criticized the media’s work, suggesting there was an over-exuberance about the economy and a failure to connect the dots as troubles began.

“That’s a very telling and interesting number,” Abrams said Thursday. “Some of the comments we got were really fascinating. I think there’s a lot of self-examination going on within the financial media about what happened and why.”

The journalists questioned over the past few weeks, mostly reporters from organizations such as CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and others, were promised their identities would be kept confidential in return for their opinions.

They split almost evenly on who deserved the most blame for the crisis: 45 said banks and 44 said regulators. Only two believed that the media was mostly to blame, and nine pointed their fingers at consumers.

Said one journalist: “Everyone dropped the ball. But the media does not have nearly as much blood on its hands as the financial industry and government.”

Another reporter said that, just like in the dot-com era, basic rules of gravity were ignored. What goes up, must come down.

“I blame myself in part,” one reporter said. “I wrote about many of the components of the bust, including the opacity of derivatives (where does the risk go?), the extremely low interest rates that fueled housing, and declining lending standards. But I failed to put it all together and see how really, really bad things would get.”

Yet there was a substantial minority that resisted blame being placed on the media.

“The media, like real life, is full of a diversity of opinions and stories,” a journalist wrote. “The warning signs were there, and stories were written about the looming dangers. I find it offensive that there’s a notion that the entire business press can be criticized for a failure to see the future once we’re in a troubled climate.”

The survey found that 42 of the journalists believe at least three Fortune 1000 executives will be indicted during the coming year for their roles in the financial crisis. Abrams said he was surprised that the number was so high; 27 of the journalists believed there would be no indictments.

“Unfortunately, stupidity and venality aren’t criminal offenses,” one journalist wrote.

Only 30 of the journalists said they thought the current situation will come to be known as a depression. Thirty-one of the journalists said the recession would end by the beginning of next year; most believed it would stretch longer.

By Ray

January 9, 2009 9:10 AM | Link to this

FDR established Social Security as a voluntary, tax exempt program to benefit those who would use the money for retirement income. But the essential thing that killed that dream was turning the money over to the Congress and politicians to “manage”. Such a large amount of money is too large a temptation for our “stalwart lawmakers” and soon legislation was passed to use the funds for other purposes and IOU the recipients as best they could.
Now the money is gone, spent on the great society, welfare, a war we should never been in and given away to under deserving nations around the world in the guise of “improving our image”. Call it what you will, a Ponzi scheme, poor management, outright theft…… whatever…. now it is taxed and certainly not voluntary. But our “stalwart lawmakers” don’t contribute, now do they? Think that they know something that you don’t?

By Ben

January 9, 2009 9:11 AM | Link to this

SS is a Ponzi scheme by definition. The money you pay in is not invested wisely and returned to you in your retirement. It’s spent by Congress however they feel like spending it, because they know they jsut need a new generation of suckers to buy in. Just like a Ponzi scheme, it fails if there are no new people joining. How is that not a Ponzi scheme? If a business ran SS, the CEO and Board would all be in jail for massive fraud.

On a different note, if you care enough about your retirement to spend five minutes doing research, you’d know that you should have almost nothing invested in the stock market in your last few years before retirement. The risk is too high. Anyone over 50 who was depending on the market for their retirement deserves what they got for not following the most widely distributed piece of advice regarding retirement funding out there.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 9, 2009 9:12 AM | Link to this

Actually Bosch,

We created a family financial emergency plan. We feel our young adult children need more protection than we do. If things get really bad, Mr. G and I would use all of our resources to keep them afloat and live with them. (There are advantages, my northern italian son in law is a great cook)

By CommunistAJC

January 9, 2009 9:12 AM | Link to this

Jay, SS is dead. You can think your wonderful government for its demise. I’ve made a ton of money in the stock market over the past few years and pulled my money out when things started to get shaky a year ago. When FDR created SS he did not intend it to turn out the way that it did. Government can not be trusted with our money. By the time this next administration is done I can safely say that SS will not exist at all. Start learning Mandarin comrade.

By Taxpayer

January 9, 2009 9:14 AM | Link to this

Copyleft,

Please don’t be talking about all company pensions in the past tense. I like my pension the way it is — in the current tense.

By Ray

January 9, 2009 9:16 AM | Link to this

FDR established Social Security as a voluntary, tax exempt program to benefit those who would use the money for retirement income. But the essential thing that killed that dream was turning the money over to the Congress and politicians to “manage”. Such a large amount of money is too large a temptation for our “stalwart lawmakers” and soon legislation was passed to use the funds for other purposes and IOU the recipients as best they could.
Now the money is gone, spent on the great society, welfare, a war we should never been in and given away to under deserving nations around the world in the guise of “improving our image”. Call it what you will, a Ponzi scheme, poor management, outright theft…… whatever…. now it is taxed and certainly not voluntary. But our “stalwart lawmakers” don’t contribute, now do they? Think that they know something that you don’t?

By Bosch

January 9, 2009 9:23 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G.,

Like I said, my retirement plan is to never do it, but part of that plan is also being nice to my kids.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 9, 2009 9:33 AM | Link to this

“FDR established Social Security as a voluntary, tax exempt program to benefit those who would use the money for retirement income.”

Brit Hume? You’re posting here, now?

By The Attorney/Surgeon Corporal

January 9, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

Greed, greed, greed:

Most people have their 401(k’s) in risky growth places they shouldn’t.

Mine has always been in conservative growth funds and not only did I not lose a penny, it has steadily gone up even during this crisis.

By jasper

January 9, 2009 9:36 AM | Link to this

I just received my SS statement this week telling me how much I’ll receive per month if I work til’ I’m 87. I had a great laugh.

Anyone within 5 years of retiring should be shifting their portfolio to the safest instruments. And certainly at any sign of volatility, get out of equity markets. You don’t gain but you don’t lose. These signs were clear last January. How can you just throw money into an investment and not pay attention. You either go through life smart or life is hard. If you would just give up TMZ twice a week and spend that 30 minutes on line with your 401k, you’d be feeling good right now.

And if you’re relying on SS as the cornerstone of your retirement, you should probably start developing a taste for gubmnt’ cheese.

By Taxpayer

January 9, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this

Companies like AIG and so-called opportunity funds were the ones running the Ponzi schemes, you bunch of Republican nutcases. Why do you think we are stuck with bailing out Wall Street. If we don’t, then half the state and local government pension plans across this nation would go belly up right along with all the private investor’s 401ks and their so-called “safe” bonds derived from AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities and the last thing you smart-a$$ know-it-all Republican politicians out there want after you sorry buttocks are swarms of angry retired teachers and other retired government employees that rely on that pittance of a pension that they were promised. By the way, where are those politician’s pension funds invested? Hmmmm. Current and future Social Security recipients are the least of your problems. If you don’t believe me, then bust AIG, Morgan Stanley, and all the rest of these companies and their rotten [mis]managers and quit printing money as though everyone had a money tree in their back yard. GO FOR IT, if you really want to know what a depression is like.

By RealityKing

January 9, 2009 9:44 AM | Link to this

Those who depend on the government are generally disappointed, if not worse..

By getalife

January 9, 2009 9:44 AM | Link to this

Andy,

Where are the pro Obama posts?

Are you a welcher?

By The Attorney/Surgeon Corporal

January 9, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this

ABC News January 09, 2009 8:37 AM

By RICK KLEIN

With the rollout comes the blowback. And with them both comes the presidential-sized challenge for the not-yet president.

It turns out you don’t have to look very hard to find the fault lines in President-elect Barack Obama’s bid for a massive stimulus bill. He tried to scare Congress into acting quickly on Thursday — and more pressure is coming Friday and beyond — but there’s still no measure to act on, or even the outlines of one.

Now there may not be one for a while. For the moment, at least, he’s got more to worry about on his left than on his right.

By RealityKing

January 9, 2009 9:53 AM | Link to this

2.6 million less jobs last year, 2% up from 2007’s record low of 4.7% unemplyment. Ohhhhhh the humanity…(eyes rolling)

By getalife

January 9, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this

The unemployment numbers are in and it is 7.2% but much higher for those that have been unemployed for a while.

Not to worry about SS but should worry about keeping your job.

Jindal has thrown away globalization and is running ads every hour telling Louisianians to buy local.

By RealityKing

January 9, 2009 10:06 AM | Link to this

8% is considered the historical average unemployment rate. Well, it was.. Of course theres no telling what the progressively new definition of average unemployment will be. As is the case with the progressively new difinition of a recession. Which apparently we’ve been in for a year now. But then again.., that progressive definition of a Bush recession will make this year an Obama depression.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this

By the way, if you’re bored, you can count all the number of times that armchair pundits, in this very thread:

1) Insult average American citizens

2) Make up stuff about American history, specifically FDR’s vision

3) Make up stuff about FICA being an “investment” program

4) Reveal a typical-eleven-year-old’s wisdom of macroeconomics… assuming that eleven-year-old’s been sniffing glue since 2nd grade.

5) Boast that they sure as dad-gum heck never got themselves caught up in this financial meltdown, boy howdy, they saw what was happening and moved their vast, throbbing, manly, tumescent porfolios out of the market and into cash at precisely the right moment! Suckers! (see also Item #1).

I’d love to hang out here some more but, well, I’ve seen SS discussion theater this play out approximately twelve kajillion times before on the Internets, and I still have to help pay for Dick and George’s Excellent Eye-rack adventure.

Later.

By Davo

January 9, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

Social security has worked so well that now our benevolent leaders have a new panacea for us…Universal Health Care!

The govt knows your too stupid to plan for your future. Why would you think you can manage your day to day wellness?

Don’t worry about the otion to opt out of either of these exceptional programs…you can’t. But that’s the beauty of our new system of govt. You can call it by whichever name you prefer; ‘Social Contract, Compassionate Conservatism,….Socialism’. You don’t even have to know that both parties are in on it, all you need to do is stop thinking and start spending.

Remember that push to privatize SS about 4 years ago? Who saw all the problems coming with that arrangement?http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul215.html

By Taxpayer

January 9, 2009 10:22 AM | Link to this

I wonder just how many people really even have a clue as to how bad this credit crisis is or could have been or even will be. Most people don’t know what “risk” has the potential to be (to be all that it can be, that is) until they’ve seen what 200:1 leverage ratios in a down market can do, for example. “We don’t know how you define ‘risk-adjusted returns,’” says Joseph Dear, executive director of the $82 billion (assets) Washington State Investment Board, a heavy investor in opportunity funds. “We feel we are properly compensated for the risk we are taking.” Dear doesn’t offer net figures to back up those feelings. Few will admit, as Charles Grant of the $58 billion Virginia Retirement System does without offering specifics, that the performance of their opportunity funds has been “mixed.” Wittingly, or otherwise, many pension funds have become complicit in a legally sanctioned cover-up .

By The Attorney/Surgeon Corporal

January 9, 2009 10:26 AM | Link to this

Where were the pro-Bush posts?

By getalife

January 9, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this

From now on since Andy, AJC/DNC Management, etc.. welched on our bet, his new name is welcher.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 9, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this

By getalife January 9, 2009 9:44 AM Andy, Where are the pro Obama posts? Are you a welcher?

al-Gitmo: OU won that game by 8 points, I told you that I do not have comply with the decisions of the AcornCC referees.

The very first drive of the game, the Fla DB got to the receiver, knocking him out of bounds, a full 5 seconds before the ball got there, no pass interference was called.

They called a touchdown for a guy laying on his back 5 yards from the end zone.

FT.

That game was rigged, totally, by the BCS, they did not want to hear Texas whining about OU being number 1, a team that they beat.

Besides which, I did post one pro Oblahmi comment-

I love Oblahma because no one will return Republicans to power quicker than he will.

And I meant it too.

By getalife

January 9, 2009 10:54 AM | Link to this

Okay welcher.

I thought you would welch and you proved me right.

By getalife

January 9, 2009 11:06 AM | Link to this

I think Obama is throwing a hail mary at the economy but Congress will not move as fast as the Wall Street bailout.

Like I said from the start, this will not end well and a spark like the Oakland shooting does not help.

Obama wants the people involved, so the very least you can do is write your reps and tell them to pass the plan as fast as the Wall Street bailout.

By AmVet

January 9, 2009 11:06 AM | Link to this

Gangster capitalism. Thank the head plutocrat, Shrub, for his “ownership” society”.

getalife, ANYONE who truly thought that OU would win that game probably predicted a McCain victory as well.

The Boomer Laters weren’t even the best team in their conference. Texas was. And Oklahoma’s karma has been for shiite since the gimme win over Oregon and that Boise State debacle in the Fiesta Bowl.

As for the welcher, he has been making up his own reality since…well, I guess forever.

NEVER trust a neocon/BushCo apologist to keep their word. Ain’t gonna happen.

Now the lurking troll girls can bust me for ranting off topic!

Eleven more days.

By tcoach

January 9, 2009 11:06 AM | Link to this

Management,

You also have to be willing to bring up the horse collar tackle of Rainey in the 1st half.

That is a fifteen yard penalty that was not called and also caused a severe injury to the Florida running back.

You speak of being honorable and acting with dignity.

You make it look as if you do not believe your own words if you do not also apply the missed calls to those that went in favor of OU.

By TW

January 9, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

Being that Simple Sarah apparently couldn’t handle Tina Fey, guess those with brains were right about her not being ready.

Besides, she’s better off in Alaska - snow hides white trash.

By tcoach

January 9, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

getalife, Obviously the bailout did not work, so why should I write my rep to spend more of my tax dollars on something that is not going to work?

By Copyleft

January 9, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

Ahh, you gotta love the insanity of the wingnuts: If reality doesn’t match up to what you wanted, just deny it and go live in the fantasyland where you were right!

By getalife

January 9, 2009 11:19 AM | Link to this

tcoach,

The Wall Street bailout did work. It is still at 8000 and other big banks did not collapse.

His plan is investing in real projects, creating real jobs, so if you don’t want to support that so be it.

By getalife

January 9, 2009 11:26 AM | Link to this

Amvet,

Yes, the welcher does not dwell in reality and is not man enough to pay his bets.

SEC dynasty that I would not bet against but I pay my bets and not a welcher.

By tcoach

January 9, 2009 11:28 AM | Link to this

When passing the 700 billion baiout they told us it was to free up credit.

Has that happened? NO

Banks are still failing. Two just in the last month in the town I grew up in.

Maybe you were talking about national banks though.

Guess my son will just love that trillion dollars he and his classmates will have to pay off when they are grown though. Gives him something to look forward to.

By catlady

January 9, 2009 11:31 AM | Link to this

So very funny how Ms. Palin thinks the differential treatment of her and Ms.Kennedy-Schlossberg is due to “class.” Whooo, boy, I can’t agree more. Some have class, and some don’t. This woman is a gold mine for late-night comics!

By Swami Dave

January 9, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this

Ms Gozilla:

Were I to offer the knee-jerk reaction assuming malice on your part, I would make some pithy quip about your request as evidence of the patterned practice by many liberals to attempt silencing dissenting voices whom they are unable to engage and effectively challenge within the arena of debate.

But since I know you were only joking, I’ll just laugh it off like you did. As for what you can “do” to get me to hold my breath for 8-10 minutes; there’s nothing you can do. But look at the positive, nothing is what liberals (or at least the beneficiaries of their collectivist policies) do well! -smile-

Have a good one.

-Swami Dave

By Midori

January 9, 2009 11:37 AM | Link to this

BREAKING NEWS: Illinois House votes to impeach Blagojevich, sets stage for Senate trial

on MSNBC’s web site.

By catlady

January 9, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this

getalife, how do we know the bailout worked? By your reasoning, it is because, without it, it would have been so much worse. But how do we know that? We don’t have a comparable control group economy to compare it to.

By getalife

January 9, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this

For Paulson and his friends, it did work.

Don’t blame me, blame the gop.

By Taxpayer

January 9, 2009 11:45 AM | Link to this

The Republican party is promoting abstinence for their members as a means of avoiding having their children and their children’s children pay for the Bush administration’s massive debt. I say, Good plan. Keep up the good work.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 9, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

By tcoach January 9, 2009 11:06 AM Management, You also have to be willing to bring up the horse collar tackle of Rainey in the 1st half. That is a fifteen yard penalty that was not called and also caused a severe injury to the Florida running back.

His fingers did not get inside of the shirt or shoulder pad and the cameras clearly showed that.

He used brute OU strength to bring down the weenie from Fla, he should have tackled the referee too, that was their real opponent.

And for all you other whiners, you sure have got some nerve considering what Al The Klown is doing in Minnesota, since when do you punks concern yourselves with honoring legitimate outcomes?

Go pound sand.

By tcoach

January 9, 2009 11:53 AM | Link to this

Management, same as the camera’s showed the first touchdown was indeed a touchdown, except in one camera angle, and that was wishy-washy at best.

As one who is deeply involved in athletics I assure you that there are errors made by officials every game against both teams.

It is usually the losing team that says the refs were bad.

Look up football rules if at any point, any point of the ball crosses the plane of the goal-line it is a touchdown.

Should be mad at “Big Game” Bob Stoops for calling the same running play twice in a row inside the 2 yard line. Or the center who got pushed into the ball carrier on the first goal line stand. Where was his OU strength?

By getalife

January 9, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this

welcher,

You whine more than Palin.

You lost, it’s over, move on.

By ByteMe

January 9, 2009 12:02 PM | Link to this

getalife: you knew he wouldn’t be man enough to go through with any bet with you unless he won. It’s his nature. We all know that he’s a small person.

By ByteMe

January 9, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this

… and I don’t mean height.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 9, 2009 12:06 PM | Link to this

Look up football rules if at any point, any point of the ball crosses the plane of the goal-line it is a touchdown.

He was laying flat on his back and his arm swung backwards, notice how homey Florida Fox didn’t use freeze frames for that call?

O.K. I’ll pay off-

I love Oblahma because when China starts a war with us it will be very, very good for defense industry stocks, at least until we surrender. Hopefully, I’ll be gone by then. XXXOOOXXXXOblahma

By catlady

January 9, 2009 12:06 PM | Link to this

Amen, get a life. The bailout worked for some people and their friends. For the common schmuck (like me) it is like being gored by an ox. Over and over.

By Taxpayer

January 9, 2009 12:08 PM | Link to this

Grand Old Poobah, Phil Gramm and his legislative legacy just keeps on giving. What a scumbag! …The business is lightly regulated, with rules governing the conduct of companies set by the municipal securities board. Municipal bond underwriters are prohibited from making campaign contributions to “buy” the business of bringing bonds to market. But no such rules govern the conduct of a type of professional who appeared in the industry about a decade ago — specialists who work with financial derivatives, like swaps and options…

By Midori

January 9, 2009 12:08 PM | Link to this

Andy - exactly what is Al Franken “supposedly” doing in Minnesota?

By AJC/DNC Management

January 9, 2009 12:11 PM | Link to this

I love Oblahmasan because he will have the federal government pay for abortions and this means there will be fewer pinkos in America, XXXOOOXXXOblahmi

By tcoach

January 9, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this

So again getalife what makes you sure this bailout will work?

Is it because it is Obama’s idea?

How do you feel about a lobbyist for defense secretary deputy?

Management, Come on his arm swung back after it crossed the plane. Did you notice he fumbled the ball in the endzone as he hit the ground?

I see no mention of the less than brilliant playcalling inside the 10 yard line.

2 goal line stands, getting points may have changed the game. That is not the ref’s fault.

By AmVet

January 9, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this

Things in Norman haven’t been the same since Switzer left.

But the player payroll is smaller now.

By Redneck Convert

January 9, 2009 12:20 PM | Link to this

Hi, everybody, it’s me, Redneck Convert, on a lunch break from hauling beer all over the place so you drunks can quench your thirst when you want to.

I see this big Swiss bank is closing the secret accounts of about 30,000 U.S. people and sending them checks for what they put in. When the people cash the checks the IRS will be there to see weather they paid taxes on the money. I bet AJC Commie is about the unhappiest guy on the planet right now.

Anyhow, don’t fool with this Social Security stuff. The best way to save for your retirement is stocks in beer cos. That’s where my 401k is. You will never loose money that way. This state has more drunks than Carter got little liver pills, and they will buy beer even if the fambly starves. Some of them get on this blog when they finally wake up in the morning. Even Sister Dusty sometimes gets soused on some cheap wine.

Have a good day everybody.

By For States rights

January 9, 2009 12:37 PM | Link to this

Hey Bookman….one more day of you cutting and using someone’s elses work with a short of, I guess, your own. Do the really pay you for this???????? If they are ride the gravy train as long as you can because if they ever let you go no one else is gonna hire you. You have nothing but other peoples work to show a potential employer.

By getalife

January 9, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this

Good stuff as usual RC.

tcoach,

So again getalife what makes you sure this bailout will work?

Nobody knows. It’s a hail mary and creates jobs.

How do you feel about a lobbyist for defense secretary deputy?

The lobbyist industry is legal pay to play bribery and should be made criminal.

By sunshine and thunder

January 9, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this

Great thread. And predictable.

Brain dead democrats are all here to defend a system that would have all of its administrators in jail were it private.

Not only that but they spend more time knocking down the very people who are going to have to pay for the bailout that Obama’s is trying to sell us.

Meanwhile Obama is using focus groups to help choose specific words to help describe the bailout. Seems he knows his consituency is stupid.

By Davo

January 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Link to this

It’s all coming to an end.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

Investment advise for for 2010; Guns, ammo, and canned goods.

By Jake

January 9, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this

If you’re under 40 your parents ran up $3T in debt during the Reagan years, but I don’t think any of us have paid back a penny of it so quit whining about busting your children and grandchildren. Bookman writes that from time to time but it’s simply not true. The greatest liklihood is it doesn’t ever get paid back. Also one positive of this crisis shows there will be SS for a long time to come, not the opposite. If they bailed out insurance companies and banks they will have to bail out the 50M baby boomers. We’ll just vote ourselves the money although there may be a few slight changes. So don’t worry,the sky isn’t falling just yet.

By Davo

January 9, 2009 1:48 PM | Link to this

Sorry…wrong link

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/09/obama-krugman-idea/

By bj

January 9, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this

Wouldn’t want anyone to have to take any personal responsibility for any of their own “stuff” now would we. Then you’d be forced to pay attention in school-(and even demand better education from your schools.) I didn’t read ever last word of this dribble but it sounds like your are glorifying the virtues of the biggest ponzi scheme in history-that would be the Soc Sec Adm. Surely you jest?

BJ

By bj

January 9, 2009 2:37 PM | Link to this

Wouldn’t want anyone to have to take any personal responsibility for any of their own “stuff” now would we. Then you’d be forced to pay attention in school-(and even demand better education from your schools.) I didn’t read ever last word of this dribble but it sounds like your are glorifying the virtues of the biggest ponzi scheme in history-that would be the Soc Sec Adm. Surely not?

BJ

By Dept of Truth and Justice for All

January 9, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this

(Note: do not release before 1/21/2009)

This notice is to inform the American people of the rather lengthy list of thousands of known defects with the Bushwhacker 2000.

Since the Bushwhacker was placed in power by the Supreme Court after his failed attempt at a legal election in 2000, the Bushwhacker has committed crime after crime against humanity. All of those defects that have been uncovered to date will be listed once the Bushwhacker has been locked out of all government facilities. Stay tuned….

By Copyleft

January 9, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this

defend a system that would have all of its administrators in jail were it private.

Err, yes. Just like a justice system, or an armed force.

Some things are the province of government and off-limits to private operators. Duh.

By Pat

January 9, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this

I think Bud Wiser and his compatriots are wise men. Let them all remove their SSI deductions from their paychecks posthaste, and invest it themselves. Better yet, let’s make sure every rightwinger who worships at the altar of unregulated capitalism does the same, and is specifically excluded from government benefits of any kind. Then in old age, when some of them become kingpins but many more become paupers, it’ll be an amusing spectacle to watch the losers in the “winner take all” system eating catfood and begging for scraps of compassion from their fellow Ayn Rand devotees. Good luck with that one folks.

By Eric

January 9, 2009 3:31 PM | Link to this

Such risks and downside ought to signal the end of “required” enrollment in company 401k plans!! Why should I be required to invest in funds I disagree with and could ultimately disappear? Sounds like a scam between government and Wall Street!! Where is the ACLU and other watchdogs when you need them?

By sunshine and thunder

January 9, 2009 4:06 PM | Link to this

PLEASE

Just read something once in a while. There is a perfect example of what you flaming moonbats are talking about when you say you’d like to see us conservatives privatize our retirement plans and lose everything.

The city of Galveston, Texas opted out of the SS system when it still could. It has invested its employees’ retirement funds in conservative ways with low risk.

The employees of Galveston actually can retire with some money because they have far outperformed the SS trust fund over the years.

DUH!!?

By Dept of Truth and Justice for All

January 9, 2009 4:14 PM | Link to this

Galveston went the way of Atlantis. Hail, Atlantis. Only a flaming rightwing moonbat would want to go the way of Galveston in order to get a retirement program. Davy Jones has a locker full of such losers.

By Taxpayer

January 9, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this

“Trust me.” Sure. How many times have we heard that line before. Nothing is safe after the Republicans have had their way with eliminating all controls from Wall Street — not even super safe money market funds. September, 16 2008, The fund said that because the value of some investments had fallen, customers now have only 97 cents for each dollar they had invested. This is only the second time in history that a money market fund has “broken the buck” — that is, reported a share’s value was less than a dollar. The last thing this country needs is more “help” from the Republican party. The best help they can be is to not help any more. Just stay out of the way and bring coffee when needed.

By sunshine and thunder

January 9, 2009 4:41 PM | Link to this

Dept of Truth and Justice for All

And only a left wing thundernut would deny the truth when it hits him in the head.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

January 9, 2009 5:23 PM | Link to this

Frontline did a good story on this a while back[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/world/401k.html]

$01ks weren’t created to be a primary source of retirement income. They were intended to defer taxes for upper income people. Companies quickly figured out how to substitute them for defined benefit plans.

By @@

January 9, 2009 5:36 PM | Link to this

jay, suckers are on a stick for a reason…..

to avoid the mess once the good part’s gone.

Hold on tight to “the schtick”.

By Dept of Truth and Justice for All

January 9, 2009 5:45 PM | Link to this

Bop, Bop, Bop on the Head. Hail Atlantis and it’s latest immigrants from Galveston. Galveston Oh Galveston, I can hear your….Galveston is dead money. All washed up and blown away or was that all blown away and washed out to sea.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

January 9, 2009 6:33 PM | Link to this

Frontline did a good story on this a while back

By danjonglee

January 9, 2009 7:11 PM | Link to this

me thinks if we raise retirement age to 85 den problem be solved,,,,,,

By hewhoasks

January 10, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this

“Invest it myself…”

That only works when it’s rare. If all the FICA money were invested in financial markets the markets would become less attractive, would provide smaller yields. That would worsen when large numbers of people began withdrawing funds after retirement. They’re markets.

Look at what Bush actually said when he was pushing “private accounts.” PARTICIPANTS WOULD BE FORBIDDEN ACCESS TO THEIR PRINCIPAL DURING THEIR LIFETIMES. Bush said it in at least Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico (check the White House web site.” Bush (not being very astute financially) said retirees would have to live on the “interest” (dividends aren’t really “interest.”)

Look at “personal accounts” for what they really are: a means of destroying Social Security in steps (Bush described only the first step, made it look safe and innocuous.) That’s bad enough, but what is worse is that putting the general retirement money (that is, the money collected by FICA taxes) into financial markets would eventually destroy those markets, harming all classes of investor, retiree and otherwise. The real devastating problem isn’t what the current decline in stock values has done to 401(k) and other similar plans, it is what putting general retirement money into financial markets (largely the stock market) would do to the stock market (and, of course, to the retirement plans based on the financial markets.)

Every mutual fund that outperforms the market ends up sinking back to the market average, once large amounts are invested in it. It happened to Magellan, it happened to Vanguard Windsor. Large funds can’t outperform in the way smaller funds can. Perhaps the “personal account” quasi-mutual fund would deliver average performance, but it is almost certain that were there to be such a fund (or group of funds) it would pull that average down.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Overall, the stock market is a zero sum game. There is a vast difference between millions of people having huge paper profits and those millions of people being able to cash in those paper profits. Only the first to cash in will get the huge returns (remember, of course, that Bush made it clear that retirees could not cash in.) Once a significant number begins to cash in the stock prices will fall. Figure out what will happen when they do, and the reason for the fall is widely recognized. (It will become a crash.)

Bush pushed a government-mandated, government-controlled bubble scheme. It’s folly to claim that’s in any way better than a Ponzi scheme (which Social Security is not.)

By Hillbilly Deluxe

January 10, 2009 5:55 PM | Link to this

To hewhoasks

Very well said. I would only add that Social Security would be in better shape if it hadn’t been raided over the years for other things.

By Chad Harris

January 10, 2009 9:05 PM | Link to this

S&T—

You’re at it again. You’re consistently avoiding any issues and you’e hurling 3rd grade level insults.