Re: NYT: Bush to Propose Vast Cuts in Medicare


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:l39ou11bhns0qk6nfngaqd5i9q707h865r@xxxxxxxxxx
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.


And you might end up with even more money if you did not sell and watied for
the market or your investment to recover from that downtrend?



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.

Not "everyone". If Bill Gates lost $50,000 in just one company (that is a
paper lost, not a real lost) it would be a drop in the bucket. Now, if I
had lst $50,000 in one company, that would be some serious hurt....

Of course,
advisors always say one should read the prospectus and make
one's own calculations.

That only does some good, if someone understands what the heck the
prospectus is saying and someone who knows enough about finanacial
statements to make sense of what the heck is in those statements.

Unfortunately, I depended on
Merril-Lynch for that, since they were pumping the company
all the way up and down.

Whenever any of us depends on someone who job it is to sell and buy stocks,
because that is the only way they can make money, then it seems to me, we
deserve what we get....

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.

Because you cannot? You are not a financial analyst or a security analyst,
who spend everyday of their working life trying to understand the companies
they are analyzing? Because unlike someone who does that as a full time
job, you cannot keep up with what is happening to the company during every
hour that the companies stokc is traded.


.

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 ... 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: OT : Administration and SEC Assure Us, Goldman Case NOT Political!
    ... lost some money, some people made some money, and the government needs ... Those who lost money were ... Were there clients of Goldman who took the other side? ... being promoted as a good investment by Goldman and partly because they ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: The Price Of Oil Will Rise
    ... Road it all the way down then sold. ... a graduate of the Bob Wald school of investment I see... ... the inverse is that I will have my money a little longer before I lose it ... The only reason I lost it in the first ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • 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)