Re: NYT: Bush to Propose Vast Cuts in Medicare

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:27:10 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hfhlu1l9cv8q0htoajo4q5dmdidnunggbm@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:38:26 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:abdiu1tvc6rkhuabdgrs7ttfi7dhl16kbc@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:16:57 GMT, "MichaelC"
<mikecraney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Thumper" <jaylsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p75iu1pcre7o5pisavkseu1rpqgu8l6a7p@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:31:34 GMT, "MichaelC"
<mikecraney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Thumper" <jaylsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aauhu15ihtssas5djodkhtccpqfn1s93qg@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:57:16 GMT, "MichaelC"
<mikecraney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Sid9" <sid9@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Uo2Gf.731$697.371@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MichaelC wrote:
"Sid9" <sid9@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:SmSFf.72$S03.46@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Sid9" <sid9@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:RsNFf.21090$vp6.5434@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
js wrote:
No, Sid, it will not. At least not at the current benefit
levels.


Current levels can be paid until 2028

And after that?

from AARP:

"...The most recent Social Security trustees' report shows
that
the
system can pay all scheduled benefits until 2042..."

In 2042 baby boomers born in 1950 will be 92 years old and be
passing out of the system.

It seems to me that there's not much of a rush to resolve the
problem.

Although removing the salary cap that benefits the wealthy
only
will
solve most of the imaginary problem


This is just another bush,jr lie intended to strike fear into
Americans so his friends can loot SS

Unfortuanately for your position, Bush is using the same
numbers
originally developed by Alice Rivlin under Clinton.

Mike

bush,jr's cure is wrong.
If these are Rivlin's numbers bush,jr's "cure" is certainly not
her
proposal

Let's not mix issues, here, lest it obscure the search for a
solution.
The
*point* here is that SS is has a long-term imbalace of 10T,
"tweaks"
that
bring in 10 billion here, or 20 billion there, don't fix the
problem.

Next issue. Would a private component to SS "fix" SS? Over time,
sure,
but
it would crash the budget in the meantime.

Privatization does not fix SS. It destroys it.
Thumper

I don't start from the assumption that SS has to be "fixed." If a
superior
solution that makes for a better retirement for retirees can be had
by
a
new
and different system, I'm willing to consider it.

Mike


What system could that be?
Thumper

Lots of possibilities, actually. The problem with SS is simply that the
interest it returns on invested capital isn't very high and the
goverment
can't afford to increase the amount it returns. A better system would be
a
lockboxed account where a small (20%?) of the funds in it are exposed to
the
private markets, the rest buys actual government bonds. If something
like
that was phased in alongside SS, using additional withholdings (instead
of
using part of the 12.5% suggested by Mr. Bush) a new system that returns
better than SS would be phased in in a little over half a century. (You
could also means test some sort of goverment contribution, perhaps).



Many argue for privatization, but, speaking as one who lost
about $300,000 in the crash, only half of which has come back,
I'm not at all keen on trusting any more of my money to
privatization.

Kind of hard to believe that anyone would have lost that much money in the
latest stock market correction, especially since the market aveages is
about
at the same level that they were prior to the crash....unless of course
you
had a total portfolio that was worth a whole lot more than $300,000,
because
how much you lose is also a function of how much you have invested it
seems
to me....




Well yeah, of course I did, but $300,000 was still a lot. The
Nasdaq index as a whole is still today is less than half where it was.

"Of course you did" what....? It seems to me how much you lose is all
relative. I remember a long time ago when I was planning to go to Vegas to
do some gambling. My wife called from work on the day I was suppose to fly
to Vegas. She told me that one of her co-workers just won (I think) around
$200.000. Now as a long time gambler, I know that no one (other than
someone who hits a big jackpot) wins that kind of money, especially playing
craps (which was what she was playing) making $5 bets. To win that kind of
money, you have to be making some pretty sizeable bets in the first place.
so, I asked her how much was she betting? The reply was, my wife did not
know, but did know that at one time she was down something like $20,000.
That was all the explanation I needed. So, back to my question, which if
you do not want to answer I can perfectly understand, but what percentage of
your total portfolio did $300,000 represent?



Oh yeah, it's relative. I still ended up net positive, but I would
have ended up $300,000 richer if I'd sold out in 1999. That
would be $300,000 in real money, not relative money. Plus
interest since 1999. Minus the half of it that's come back since.




Also if a company collapses and another company rises to take
its place in the index, that doesn't help your investment in the
original company though the "index" recovers.



Only if you have a sizeable amount of money invested in the company that
collapses....


I did lose $50,000 in just one company. That's more than
anyone should invest in one company to be sure. Of course,
advisors always say one should read the prospectus and make
one's own calculations. Unfortunately, I depended on
Merril-Lynch for that, since they were pumping the company
all the way up and down. I'm sure that if I had made my own
calculations, there's no doubt I would, with all my experience
and accumulated wisdom, have come to sager conclusions
than they did. Why would I think otherwise? How silly of me
to think I couldn't do better on my own than Merril-Lynch.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NYT: Bush to Propose Vast Cuts in Medicare
    ... Many argue for privatization, but, speaking as one who lost ... Kind of hard to believe that anyone would have lost that much money in the ... had a total portfolio that was worth a whole lot more than $300,000, ... that doesn't help your investment in the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: NYT: Bush to Propose Vast Cuts in Medicare
    ... Many argue for privatization, but, speaking as one who lost ... I'm not at all keen on trusting any more of my money to ... that doesn't help your investment in the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: NYT: Bush to Propose Vast Cuts in Medicare
    ... Many argue for privatization, but, speaking as one who lost ... Kind of hard to believe that anyone would have lost that much money in the ... latest stock market correction, especially since the market aveages is about ... that doesn't help your investment in the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Wall Street performance since inauguration
    ... more than an hour the simple point that SS is not an investment ... No money is invested. ... "behind" since the very first recipients of SS did not pay a dime into ... "Social Security is a mandated supplemental retirement system in the ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • "Stock market rally under President Barack Obama will continue through the end of the year. "
    ... giving money managers increasing confidence that the stock market ... oversee $60 billion as chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank ... Investors are returning to stocks faster than in the last bull market. ... the New York-based hedge-fund manager who earned $2.5 ...
    (soc.retirement)