|
Deteriorata posted:A lot of boomers about to retire lost a shitload of money from their 401(k)s in the market crash of 2008. Putting their Social Security funds in the market is the last thing they are interested in. Putting a nail in that coffin was probably the only good thing to come out of the crash.
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Bush's proposal was from 2005, and boomers were specifically exempt. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35231-2005Mar14.html quote:A majority of elderly voters have turned against the plan for private accounts, even though the White House has assured them it would have no impact on their Social Security benefits quote:In this month's poll, 68 percent of adults 18 to 29 years old said they support investing some Social Security contributions in the stock market. That support falls with the respondents' age, to 60 percent among those 40 to 49, 53 percent among those 50 to 64, and 37 percent among those 65 and older. I think your demographic analysis is flawed.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Now that we're back in "the stock market flies upward eternally regardless of the actual economy" mode again, I wouldn't be surprised that under-informed young idiots want to put at least some of their future in it, especially when every other way to have a future is being systematically choked off by lovely policy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I think your demographic analysis is flawed. Well I did say that it didn't work. People near retirement had no actual incentive to vote for it either. From the same article you quoted: quote:"I personally wouldn't get a whole lot out of it, really," said the 46-year-old director of science and technology for Dow Corning Corp.'s specialty chemicals business. "It's not relevant to me."
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well I did say that it didn't work. People near retirement had no actual incentive to vote for it either. From the same article you quoted: The fact that the older the respondents were, the less likely they were to support it, and the highest support was with the young suggests your entire analytical framework is backwards. Older people know and appreciate the value of Social Security and tend to be very protective of it, not just for themselves but for their children, as well. They understand how much their kids will need it when they are old far more than their children do themselves. This has been true since the very beginning of Social Security. Sorry, but your attempt to portray Boomers as cartoon villains is not grounded in reality.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
The only older people opposing it in that article gave "what's in it for me" as their reasons. Not one of them said that the stock market is too risky to gamble the future of the next generation on. You could have at least picked a better example. Is it really a controversial statement that the boomers have voted to lower taxes for themselves and gut the infrastructure and social programs set up by their parents anytime a program stops benefiting them personally?  VVVVVV Fair enough VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:19 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The only older people opposing it in that article gave "what's in it for me" as their reasons. Not one of them said that the stock market is too risky to gamble the future of the next generation on. You could have at least picked a better example. It's at the end of the article quote:But the strategy may backfire, homemaker Smorodin said, noting that her mother has grown incensed about the issue. By and large, the elderly do understand the president has promised not to touch their Social Security checks, according to polling. Though part of Bush's problem was that his plan sucked rear end even if you wanted to be able to put your money in the Stock Market instead of Social Security. It was just going to phase up to 4% of you Social Security taxes going into a private account. That's like .4% of your income, which is hardly something to get you fired up to overhaul the system.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
If you want to take the Boomers are selfish fucks angle remember this- they're the ones taking care of and burying their elderly parents. They know how much it costs to keep them living independently or at least out of the lovely nursing homes, and how lovely those homes are. If anything they want to make sure their kids are well off enough to do the same for them. The privatization scam only goes over well with people who aren't old enough to understand death.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:If you want to take the Boomers are selfish fucks angle remember this- they're the ones taking care of and burying their elderly parents. They know how much it costs to keep them living independently or at least out of the lovely nursing homes, and how lovely those homes are. If anything they want to make sure their kids are well off enough to do the same for them. The privatization scam only goes over well with people who aren't old enough to understand death. It also helps when those parents were kids/adolescents during the great depression and saw directly how the stock market can take everything, as well as how well a government can do when it gets its poo poo together. Boomers coming on the later end of the boom had parents who either weren't old enough to remember how bad things got or how the government stepped in, or bought into the really religious/philosophical side of the cold war and thought McCarthy was right to hold his hearings. At least that is my view of it, consider it pure speaking-from-rear end opinion rather than cited facts.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Now that we're back in "the stock market flies upward eternally regardless of the actual economy" mode again, I wouldn't be surprised that under-informed young idiots want to put at least some of their future in it, especially when every other way to have a future is being systematically choked off by lovely policy. Woah hey, let's not go overboard with this. The stock market is still a fine place to put retirement funds when you're young, just because you can weather the crashes easier and continue to buy in while prices are still low. The issue is continuing to put your money in the stock market as you get older. You're supposed to move and more into bonds to secure your gains as you age. Putting more than a small amount into stocks when you're ready to retire is sheer madness.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Woah hey, let's not go overboard with this. The stock market is still a fine place to put retirement funds when you're young, just because you can weather the crashes easier and continue to buy in while prices are still low. Yeah, one of the most basic pieces of retirement advice is "start with stocks, finish with bonds." Not that you balance 100% in either at any point, but the general idea is that you have the time ahead of you to recover from risks while you're still young, but as you get older you want to have more and more of your savings held in safer* investments like bonds so you have a "floor" if 1929 or 2008 happens again and aren't stuck losing 75% of your portfolio value at age 50. No investment is truly safe, though you can avoid all but the most apocalyptic risks (trade-off: very low returns) by sticking to bonds like Treasury notes. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 15:50 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Woah hey, let's not go overboard with this. The stock market is still a fine place to put retirement funds when you're young, just because you can weather the crashes easier and continue to buy in while prices are still low. You're assuming that you're diversified. A social security stock account would presumably have let you pick your own stocks, which would definitely lead to many people going entirely bust by going all-in on GM or the like.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Isn't the Social Security Trust Fund already invested in the forms of Treasury Bonds? It may yield low returns overall, but purchasing these bonds would allow interest rates on these bonds to go down (effectively lowering the cost of borrowing) while financing our federal government, as much of a win-win as you can have.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Isn't the Social Security Trust Fund already invested in the forms of Treasury Bonds? It may yield low returns overall, but purchasing these bonds would allow interest rates on these bonds to go down (effectively lowering the cost of borrowing) while financing our federal government, as much of a win-win as you can have. Sure you can trust that T bills will always be safe, just like how Social Security will be there for today's kids  Sure you can trust a government program, ask an Indian Sure American government is a market stabilizer, just like how you can still get penny candy All heard in one class sitting.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Clay Aiken's primary just got a lot more interesting, as his opponent just died.
Ballz fucked around with this message at 22:09 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Clay Aiken's primary just got a lot more interesting, as his opponent just died. And yet Ruben Studdard will STILL win somehow.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
So, um, what happens if the recount shows Crisco won? Do they shrug and say, "welp, let's go with Aiken," or do they have to roll with him on the general ballot?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:So, um, what happens if the recount shows Crisco won? Do they shrug and say, "welp, let's go with Aiken," or do they have to roll with him on the general ballot? Depends on North Carolina law, I think. Anyone here familiar with the particulars of NC election law when a candidate dies? I looked through and couldn't find anything.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:NO UNION BUG. BURN THEM.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Depends on North Carolina law, I think. Anyone here familiar with the particulars of NC election law when a candidate dies? I looked through and couldn't find anything. It may also depend on party rules.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You're assuming that you're diversified. A social security stock account would presumably have let you pick your own stocks, which would definitely lead to many people going entirely bust by going all-in on GM or the like. Well, my reply was mostly meant for OneThousandMonkey's (seemingly) blanket statement of "under-informed young idiots" putting money in the stock market for retirement. My point was, there's nothing wrong with retirement plans stashing money in stocks. Unspoken was my belief that you don't put social security, a concept which contains the word "security" in the name, into a volatile fund prone to crashes what is wrong with Bush's brain  Thankfully that got shot down. Get a Roth IRA and diversify funds into it though, it's pretty rad!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Clay Aiken's primary just got a lot more interesting, as his opponent just died. Clay Aiken has been taking campaign strategy tips from Frank Underwood, I see.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:So, um, what happens if the recount shows Crisco won? Do they shrug and say, "welp, let's go with Aiken," or do they have to roll with him on the general ballot? Crisco was planning to concede tomorrow anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Gary Peters starts the operation to introduce his opponent in the MI Senate race to voters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Wd6dx-yuo
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You're assuming that you're diversified. A social security stock account would presumably have let you pick your own stocks, which would definitely lead to many people going entirely bust by going all-in on GM or the like. Not to mention be managed by payday loan scumbags who fleece people who don't know any better with ridiculous loads, maintenance fees, and the like.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
No, generally big finance companies muscle out the payday loan guys whenever possible.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Gary Peters starts the operation to introduce his opponent in the MI Senate race to voters. Wow. That's cold blooded. She bulldozed 8 mile even though she lived there. Good ad.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Depends on North Carolina law, I think. Anyone here familiar with the particulars of NC election law when a candidate dies? I looked through and couldn't find anything. News site that I read said that the party gets to pick a replacement when the candidate dies after being nominated.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:No, generally big finance companies muscle out the payday loan guys whenever possible. You don't see a lot of Charles Schwab offices in West Baltimore.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:You don't see a lot of Charles Schwab offices in West Baltimore. Good thing most of the country isn't West Baltimore.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
So it would play out like out like the rest of the finance industry; the big boys screw the upper-middle class, the banks screw the lower middle class, and the payday loan companies fight over who gets to screw the poor.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
sullat posted:So it would play out like out like the rest of the finance industry; the big boys screw the upper-middle class, the banks screw the lower middle class, and the payday loan companies fight over who gets to screw the poor. Not if that sweet, sweet, Social Security money was up for grabs. Payday Loan wouldn't stand a chance when the big boys come to the trough.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Not if that sweet, sweet, Social Security money was up for grabs. Payday Loan wouldn't stand a chance when the big boys come to the trough. Exactly. Just like how check cashing stores are dying to company pay debit cards associated with big banks. Which still get pretty big rakes in fees while charging nowhere near as much overall as check cashing places.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Finished my mail-in ballot and mailed it Saturday. I voted straight Green Party with the exception of one Peace & Freedom, one Democrat, and one independent. Thanks to California's glorious blanket primary system, my oh-so-wasted 3rd party vote won't be an option in November. Long live the democrats, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
AYC posted:Finished my mail-in ballot and mailed it Saturday. I voted straight Green Party with the exception of one Peace & Freedom, one Democrat, and one independent. Depending on the district you might get two Democrats to choose from! If you have a nearly full Green slate with P&F candidates thrown in I suspect this is the case, too.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
I live in a city where the Dems dominate and the GOP runs a token loser when it feels like it. I helped run the campaign of a Buddhist who ran as a Democrat but had a very Green-like platform. I would consider going to the Greens, but our local party has a big link to "THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINE DANGERS" on its website. I really wish I could find a cadre to help me purge those people.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Their anti-science tendencies make me uncomfortable, but they enough positions I agree with to overlook that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
AYC posted:Their anti-science tendencies make me uncomfortable, but they enough positions I agree with to overlook that. I'll take the ACA over single payer if it means preventable diseases don't return. Basic scientific truth is a little more important than fighting over how left one can be.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
AYC posted:Their anti-science tendencies make me uncomfortable, but they enough positions I agree with to overlook that. I want to remind everyone that the Green Party has always been a reactionary party that has never established it's policy based on well reasoned arguments. It's all about promoting countercultural cargo-cult liberalism that leads to tons of horrible things like anti vaccine poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:I'll take the ACA over single payer if it means preventable diseases don't return. Basic scientific truth is a little more important than fighting over how left one can be. Can I see a citation for this? IIRC single payer is much better with preventable diseases than America's health care system. Though we might want to take this to the single payer thread.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:12
|
|