OT: How to Save Social Security

Page 6 of 8  
snipped-for-privacy@fastmail.fm says...

Since I'm eligible for it, I took a long look at the program. I can get better prices from AARP, and a lot better prices from Canada. The only way I can justify signing up for it next year is if I bet I'm going to get a lot sicker in the future.

IIRC, they were some of the top corporate contributors to Bush.
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Has anyone ever heard how many times a year you can trade? How many stock, bonds will be avail. Hope you don't assume every member of the dow, nasd s&p will be avail to you. And what rate will you be paying to trade. ? Can you trade every day week month , or are you stuck into a drip type program, where they buy once a month . I don't have a problem with private accounts but have to wonder who will make the money. The old adage use to be and is still true today.... The ones who touch the money make money, not necessary the ones who own it. So until all and I mean ALL the rules are spelled out be careful what you wish for. And please the other old saying of buy and hold for a life time does not work any more. You have to be able to get in and out . These sharks on wall street are waiting for you. As for some other suggestion here on this subject, let congress get into SS and off the hog. And make congress have to balance a budget.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:18:39 -0500, O D wrote:

Errr, I'm no Wall St. slick, but my boss of about 25 years ago convinced me to invest 10% of gross pay into my own retirement - mutual funds, corporate bonds, some individual stocks - all with the help of a financial advisor. Yes, I had to watch the market and results and get out of a substantial market investment when I saw things going south (the Clinton downturn of 2000), and get back in when I saw things picking up - but all that was my responsibility for looking after myself rather than having the feds look out for me.
The net result - even after all the bubbles and bursts - is that I am now and have been officially retired. I invested 2.4% less than I paid into SS for at least 15 years less than I would have if I had worked until I was 65 am drawing about 4 times what I would if I were 65, and the principal is still growing! And this is all after I get to pay a 10% penalty for early withdrawal from my IRA's.
So, why do folks think they need government to make lousy investment decisions for their futures? It ain't rocket science - all it requires is staying with a plan and paying attention to details.
- Doug
BTW, I've been the same message my old boss gave to me to my kids and they're well on thier way to financial independence by 50 or younger.
--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anyone who tells you they have heard about these issues is blowing smoke. No bill has been introduced, no hearings have been held. There is a lot of speculating and posturing going on, but nothing matters until these things happen.
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
O D wrote:

What makes you say that? Only if one is speculating, not investing, do you want to get "in and out"...that's not to say one never rebalances a portfolio, but it's the penchant for day trading, etc., that typically leads to poorer returns for most than an informed buy-and-hold strategy over the long term.
Foregoing the thought of hitting the big winner for long term gains will end up w/ comfortable returns if not spectacular during bull markets and far reduced losses during bear periods. Again, we're talking long-term (30-40 years) retirement <investing> here, not short term speculation.
I'd wager if one simply used any of the broader market index funds balanced w/ some bond funds starting at age 25 w/ regular contributions there will be little likelihood of not being comfortable at age 65 (or well before). In essence, that's what I'd like to see done...an enforced conservative savings plan for all since it appears the bulk of the young these days are more into self-gratification for the moment than thinking of how they're going to get by later on...ideally, it wouldn't have to be forced, but that's better than the alternative of continuing the "pay-as-you (hope) go" plan of the present.
Something similar for med insurance will also need to be done eventually.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

started before 1929. Despite that, it has returned over 8% annual average for its entire life. Over 10% for the last ten years.
I should have started putting money in it at least ten years before I did :-).
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Yes, I just gave an example of one possible conservative alternative that has a high probablility of reasonable success...
Combined, of course, w/ a gradual shifting towards more principal-conserving choices as time frame for requiring the assets approaches...
OK, now question--if this choice were followed, there would inevitably be a significant amount of balances at contributor's passing...is it possibly a choice to take at least a fraction of those accumulated assets as the basis for longer-term health care financing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Uncle Peter wrote:

Giving SS benefits to folks who never paid into it or giving them more than they paid into it _is_ the problem and always has been. Social security doesn't carry anything over from year to year or invest anything, all that it takes in in a given year it pays out in that year.

Nice of you to admit it. Certainly you can invest in an IRA. But you can't invest any of your social security into an IRA.

There's something called "insurance" that you might have heard of.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:50:25 -0500, " Uncle Peter"

He would never have been president if he had.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, do nothing...maybe it's the way to SAVE it also.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Democrat politicians like to spend money and raise taxes on people who make more money. Republican politicians like to spend a huge amount of money and charge it to future generations that they do not have to look in the eye and who can't vote against them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

while republicans claim the democrats are the tax and spend people, republicans are the dont tax, but spend anyway people.
and the nation is apparantly too stupid to figure this out.
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:02:48 -0700, "xrongor"

It's about half the nation, the half that believes someone else - their children, their grandchildren, the Iraqi people, and our 18-20 yr old servicemen - should pay for what they waste & spend.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Greg, You are either very young or have a short memory. For about 60 years the Democrats kept telling us that we could spend our way into prosperity, that a certain amount of inflation was a good thing and that deficits don't matter because 'we owe it to ourselves.' That only changed when Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress of 1984 dragged Clinton, kicking and screaming to a balanced budget.
Remember that congress raises and spends all the money. There have been deficits for most of the past 70 years and the congress has had Democrat majorities for most of those years. The problem is that the current crop of Republicans are too timid to drastically cut programs that affect traditionally Democrat constituencies and feel that they have to add spending that affects what is perceived as their constituencies, thinking that will help keep them in office.
Meanwhile, both parties are empowering the government to engage in activities that are not permitted to it under the constitution, with the complicity and sometimes the encouragement and prodding of the courts.
Brian McAllister
Sarasota, Florida
email bkm at oldtech dot net snipped-for-privacy@hope.thespambots.die
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:25:42 -0500, Brian McAllister

Your post is one of those Goebbelian Big Lies: it pretends that Republicans had power when they did not control the presidency and they are little hopeless boys (and a very few girls) now that they do. Bullpucky. The largest deficits by far since WWII were during the Reagan, GB I, and GB II administrations. These are in terms of percentage of GDP. The Republicans have no intent of spending less money, only more: they realize that that keeps them in office, and since they have no intention of living up to the Compact With America, the second biggest political lie in the US in the last 60 years - the cumulative oeuvre of the GB II administration is the biggest - they will continue to increase spending and refuse to make anyone they might have to face up to to pay for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have it backwards.
Republicans love big deficits -- especially those created by tax cuts for the wealthy -- because they provide a wonderful excuse to cut discretionary spending.
Remember -- the only thing in life that matters is acquiring wealth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
and when YOU have nothing to say, call everything you dont like propaganda like you have been taught.
praise the lord and damn the yankees!!
randy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Funny, when Clinton said that Social Security was in crisis the Democrats were the amen chorus.
Bush says it's in crisis and the Dems say "Oh, no, it's fine. Bush just wants to destroy it."
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Joe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Bleau wrote:

POLITICS is a mental disorder.
-Scott
--
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And right-wing fascism is deadly to human beings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.