NationStates Jolt Archive

In spirit, anyway...

This is rich. Columnist Don Surber of the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail reports that the West Virginia Legislature, dominated by Democrats, has a plan to invest $5.5 billion in pension money for state employees in stocks and bonds:

With their $5.5 billion pension bond proposal, Democrats in West Virginia are promising voters that Wall Street will average better than 7.5 percent returns annually for the next 30 years. Most of that money will be used to shore up the teacher pension plan.

If Wall Street is good enough for their teachers, then it should be good enough for my kids, who will face 30 percent cuts in their Social Security when they retire.

President Bush ought to visit West Virginia and endorse this pension bond plan--and double-dog-dare Sens. Bob Byrd and [Jay] Rockefeller to denounce the $5.5 billion pension bond as a "risky scheme."


Seconded!

Do you not recognize the many critical differences between this and Bush's plan for Social Security?

Or are you deliberately obscuring them?

No, I don't recognize any fundamental differences in the plans. Except, maybe, transitional costs with Social Security. The end result is the same...pension funds based on payroll taxes that are invested in the market.

-- Oh yeah, and the state is promising that the returns will be better than what Social Security yields.

Maybe this will get a little more interest this afternoon.

Adding to the material, I saw an interview a few weeks back that was pretty funny. A girl, blonde, of course, was asked about the plans for Social Security reform. She said something like, "I don't care much about Social Security reform because it probably won't be around when I retire". The interviewer actually pressed a little by asking for her thoughts on the idea that she could keep her own money in the market. That answer was even better. She replied that "I don't want that responsibility. I want the government look after my retirement money."

What an idiot. Too bad there are so many more like her.

Maybe this will get a little more interest this afternoon.

Adding to the material, I saw an interview a few weeks back that was pretty funny. A girl, blonde, of course, was asked about the plans for Social Security reform. She said something like, "I don't care much about Social Security reform because it probably won't be around when I retire". The interviewer actually pressed a little by asking for her thoughts on the idea that she could keep her own money in the market. That answer was even better. She replied that "I don't want that responsibility. I want the government look after my retirement money."

What an idiot. Too bad there are so many more like her.

A fool and their money eh? Why do you disparage so much those who cannot take care of themselves? If this woman is incompetant with money, KNOWS she is incompetant with money and works to make sure that there are saftey nets in place so that she (and by extension all the others like her) can live through their retirement; why is this bad?

Not everyone is good with money, and those who are smart enough to realize this are not deserving of your ridicule.

You seem to think that the social saftey net is entirely about profiting each induvidual to the greatest extent possible...when of course that's not true. It makes no such claim, its a safety net, not a profit margin for investors; its there to insure that if something goes wrong the poor don't suffer and die.

If you are unwilling to help those who are poor their entire lives, who have lost everything in the private sector, or those like this woman here; perhaps you should argue against the very idea of charity as well. Because you are attempting to compare your investment accounts to a social charity; its a flawed comparison from the start!

The governmental social saftey net exists because far more people are poor than the generous and charitable can take care of. Far more people need help in their old age than there are services to help them in the private sector. Those who need help are sometimes hard to reach, or reluctant to seek help, and the government can reach those before private citizens can if the social safety net is in place.

So which do you hate? The poor themselves, the network that helps them live, or the very idea of charity? That's an unfair statement right? But no different than you mocking a woman who has the decency to understand her limitations...

A fool and their money eh? Why do you disparage so much those who cannot take care of themselves? If this woman is incompetant with money, KNOWS she is incompetant with money and works to make sure that there are saftey nets in place so that she (and by extension all the others like her) can live through their retirement; why is this bad?

Not everyone is good with money, and those who are smart enough to realize this are not deserving of your ridicule.

You seem to think that the social saftey net is entirely about profiting each induvidual to the greatest extent possible...when of course that's not true. It makes no such claim, its a safety net, not a profit margin for investors; its there to insure that if something goes wrong the poor don't suffer and die.

If you are unwilling to help those who are poor their entire lives, who have lost everything in the private sector, or those like this woman here; perhaps you should argue against the very idea of charity as well. Because you are attempting to compare your investment accounts to a social charity; its a flawed comparison from the start!

The governmental social saftey net exists because far more people are poor than the generous and charitable can take care of. Far more people need help in their old age than there are services to help them in the private sector. Those who need help are sometimes hard to reach, or reluctant to seek help, and the government can reach those before private citizens can if the social safety net is in place.

So which do you hate? The poor themselves, the network that helps them live, or the very idea of charity? That's an unfair statement right? But no different than you mocking a woman who has the decency to understand her limitations...
I hate the idea that the government can take my money and give it to those who won't take care of themselves. People have the responsibility to themselves to plan for the future. I certainly don't feel sorry for those that are too stupid to do so.

I hate the idea that the government can take my money and give it to those who won't take care of themselves. People have the responsibility to themselves to plan for the future. I certainly don't feel sorry for those that are too stupid to do so.

I see. Interesting. Thanks.

I see. Interesting. Thanks.
You're welcome. I just happen to identify with the ant in the fable, not the grasshopper.

investing social secirity in the stock market is not a new idea, infact it has been done in a certain south amercian country (brazil i think...saw a program on it a while back) with incredibly good results. the problem is that noboody in america(politics) is willing to touch this sacred cow because of of the stigma surrounding it. while there may be no concrete plans in the works as of yet, one has to applaud bush for having the balls to even take on the issue.
there are lots of programs still in exhistance today in the USA that were never meant to last this long, some of them even coming out of FDR's "new deal" program, and as such they are facing issues due to thier extended use.

-snipage-

You seem to think that the social saftey net is entirely about profiting each induvidual to the greatest extent possible...when of course that's not true. It makes no such claim, its a safety net, not a profit margin for investors; its there to insure that if something goes wrong the poor don't suffer and die.

If you are unwilling to help those who are poor their entire lives, who have lost everything in the private sector, or those like this woman here; perhaps you should argue against the very idea of charity as well. Because you are attempting to compare your investment accounts to a social charity; its a flawed comparison from the start!

The governmental social saftey net exists because far more people are poor than the generous and charitable can take care of. Far more people need help in their old age than there are services to help them in the private sector. Those who need help are sometimes hard to reach, or reluctant to seek help, and the government can reach those before private citizens can if the social safety net is in place.

So which do you hate? The poor themselves, the network that helps them live, or the very idea of charity? That's an unfair statement right? But no different than you mocking a woman who has the decency to understand her limitations...

Unfortunately, the government is not honest about social security then, because at present, it is treated as a retirement plan/pension.

If it really is a safety net for the old, it should be means tested and the benefits level should decrease towards zero as the wealth of the recipient increases. Also it should be paid out of the general fund, and there should be none of this "trust-fund" garbage (which is ficitonal anyway). Finally, benefits should set regardless of the time in work of the recpient.

This is the complete opposite of today, where it functions as an inefficient earnings related pension. (So it can't be much of a safety net anyway).

As it is just an ineffiecient ERPS, why not try and improve the rate of return. (Which is fucking miserable anyway). It's not like the government isn't already forced to spend the social security paylroll reciepts anyway.

(Al Gore and his lockbox, what a dickhead).