SOCIAL SECURITY

[TheVictors]

Its stupid to think that the US population is smart enough to manage that money for retirement. Most americans are in debt and you think giving them their retirement is a good idea?

Social Security has not contributed one dime to the debt, never missed a payment, is solvent for 27 years at least(with below average projections for taxes and GDP growth) and projected after that to at least cover 80% of coverage with no tweaks or completely solvent if we raise the income cap.

What the fuck is wrong with some people?

So people are in debt so they shouldn't manage their own SS, correct?

So the government is in debt so they SHOULD manage OUR SS?

Doesn't make sense to me. There needs to be options.

On a per person basis you are in $48,061 debt because of the federal government. Besides a mortgage, the general public is not putting themselves in that type of hole.

Well the 'average' US household has about $17,000 is short-term revolving credit card debt alone, so you can't say we're not trying! And I bet that $17K at oh, 7.99% compunded makes that $17K a lot closer to $48,061 in real money.

 

[tsmith7559]

So people are in debt so they shouldn't manage their own SS, correct?

So the government is in debt so they SHOULD manage OUR SS?

Doesn't make sense to me. There needs to be options.

On a per person basis you are in $48,061 debt because of the federal government. Besides a mortgage, the general public is not putting themselves in that type of hole.

Well the 'average' US household has about $17,000 is short-term revolving credit card debt alone, so you can't say we're not trying! And I bet that $17K at oh, 7.99% compunded makes that $17K a lot closer to $48,061 in real money.



so the governments $50 Trillion is what compounded, in your math world?

 

[TheVictors]

your post doesn't make any sense. what are you ranting about?

 

[tsmith7559]

how is $17,000 in revolving debt equate to $48,000?

 

[TheVictors]

Do you have a credit card?

 

[tsmith7559]

yep

 

[Michchamp]

tsmith is an example of why social security should not be privatized.

 

[TheVictors]

I'm guessing you don't carry the "average" balance of $17,000 per year but if you did, and your card had a relatively lower rate of 7.99% annually (the average for all variable rates is actually 14.5%) you'd be paying $1360 per year in interest (using the most basic math possible, which CC companies do not do).

$17,000
$18,360
$19,720
$21,080
$22,450 ...

If you carry the average CC debt, you are paying $5500 over 5yrs if you only make your minimum payments.

Being the average for merely credit card debt, there are certainly those with higher household debt levels when you consider other loans or debt, car financing.

Leaving out any mortgage debt, I think you can fairly argue the "average" household has done its best to rack up as much debt as the government has done for them. My original reply to Sparty was simply to illustrate the relatively irresponsible nature of the "average" household when dealing with finances. Behaviorally, both the government and individuals have behaved irresponsibly ...for the most part.

So would I rather have control of my SS nestegg? Yes. Is some factoid about the average debt per capita "due to the government" a persuasive argument in bashing "government" and endorsing the "private sector?"

not really.

 

[tsmith7559]

tsmith is an example of why social security should not be privatized.

I dont need Social Security.....
I hope you dont either

 

[tsmith7559]

I'm guessing you don't carry the "average" balance of $17,000 per year but if you did, and your card had a relatively lower rate of 7.99% annually (the average for all variable rates is actually 14.5%) you'd be paying $1360 per year in interest (using the most basic math possible, which CC companies do not do).

$17,000
$18,360
$19,720
$21,080
$22,450 ...

If you carry the average CC debt, you are paying $5500 over 5yrs if you only make your minimum payments.

Being the average for merely credit card debt, there are certainly those with higher household debt levels when you consider other loans or debt, car financing.

Leaving out any mortgage debt, I think you can fairly argue the "average" household has done its best to rack up as much debt as the government has done for them. My original reply to Sparty was simply to illustrate the relatively irresponsible nature of the "average" household when dealing with finances. Behaviorally, both the government and individuals have behaved irresponsibly ...for the most part.

So would I rather have control of my SS nestegg? Yes. Is some factoid about the average debt per capita "due to the government" a persuasive argument in bashing "government" and endorsing the "private sector?"

not really.

compute the $50 Trillion of unfunded liabilities the govt currently has and lets decide who's in worse shape

 

[tsmith7559]

Good, lets keep the party that blew up that debt out of office, vote not republican.

who's the party that just cant stop spending money?

 

[TheVictors]

Oh shit, Obama spent $50Trillion dollars?!


Fuck, I didn't know that. I assumed "the government" meant all of the government and the decades of debt spending we've experienced, globally and that any "average debt per person" would sort of, you know, assume that there was this "government debt."

I didn't realize it was Obama's fault. Stupid socialist.

 

[tsmith7559]

Oh shit, Obama spent $50Trillion dollars?!


Fuck, I didn't know that. I assumed "the government" meant all of the government and the decades of debt spending we've experienced, globally and that any "average debt per person" would sort of, you know, assume that there was this "government debt."

I didn't realize it was Obama's fault. Stupid socialist.

Did I say Obama spend the money, NO...government has and that's why I posted this thread dumb dumb. Why the fuck do we give 13% of our income to the government so they can spend it and then ask us to make up the difference.....

back to my request.....
I see the numbers are a little big for ya?

 

[redandguilty]

why would people be opposed to having it privatized?

However you think it would be done, is probably not how it would be done. If the government ever decides to pump such historic amounts of cash into private investments, you can bet big investment firms will have some opinions on how that can best be achieved and you can also count on them having a say in the process.

What possible harm can come from that?

 

[mhughes0021]

Social Security and the military are the biggest money sinks in our country. Obama gets slammed for spending too much....and then he gets slammed for doing things like pulling the military presence out of the middle east. AKA....republicans are dumb and dont know what the fuck they want.

 

[TheVictors]

Oh shit, Obama spent $50Trillion dollars?!


Fuck, I didn't know that. I assumed "the government" meant all of the government and the decades of debt spending we've experienced, globally and that any "average debt per person" would sort of, you know, assume that there was this "government debt."

I didn't realize it was Obama's fault. Stupid socialist.

Did I say Obama spend the money, NO...government has and that's why I posted this thread dumb dumb. Why the fuck do we give 13% of our income to the government so they can spend it and then ask us to make up the difference.....

back to my request.....
I see the numbers are a little big for ya?

Well, if you do this little trick with all the zeros in $50Trillion, you can basically just use 3rd grade multiplication as I did already. So if you know the average interest rate for this $50Trillion and the compounding terms and so forth, I can.

I doubt it's 14.5%

Governments get the hook up from one another when dealing in Trillions. I usually only deal with Billions or Millions but the calculator trick is the same, just fewer zeros.

 

[Michchamp]

Does anyone think this is an unreasonable assumption: <blockquote>Certain people - mainly self identified republican voters, or "libertarians" as they prefer to be called - have no problem with deficit spending when a Republican was in the White House; only when a Democrat is in office.</blockquote>All the deficit spending, and associated debt ceiling increases from 2001-2008 was OK... but in January 2009, we crossed the line... what a strange coincidence.

We are supposed to believe that those well-regarded economists in the Tea Party were monitoring gov't spending all along, and according to their calculations, in January 2009, the deficits became unsustainable.

All just crunching the numbers. Nope. Nothing to do with politics.

 

[byco42]

Well, you know ... all those NO WAR signs vanished off people's lawns as soon as Obama was inaugurated, too. Politics is politics, and it's what we seem to be comfortable with.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, you know ... all those NO WAR signs vanished off people's lawns as soon as Obama was inaugurated, too. Politics is politics, and it's what we seem to be comfortable with.

So... you agree the hoopla over spending (only domestic spending of course, defense spending is never enough) is nothing more than politics?

 

[msuspartan]

Well, you know ... all those NO WAR signs vanished off people's lawns as soon as Obama was inaugurated, too. Politics is politics, and it's what we seem to be comfortable with.

Very true, but I am sure a solid majority of Americans are ready to end the 2 wars in Middle East and outrageous spending in Washington, regardless of party affiliation.

From what I hear most Republicans have said Bush did spend too much. Even Hannity and Bill O have said this.