StrangeSox

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:38 AM) See: Sweden It's not free money to invest as much as choosing what bundle of stocks your money will be invested in to, add in a phase out into secure bonds gradually as you near retirement and it's not risk free but it's more choice and not terrible. Well, not very familiar with it, so went looking for some reports. Most were Cato and Heritage exulting the change, but here's one from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Page 39 starts Sweden. Here's their view of the partial IRA plan: Since then, they've pared back the number of choices. Still, you're left with the inherent risk of investment, while social security is meant as insurance. We already have IRA and 401(k) and other tax-exempt retirement accounts people can use for investment in addition to SS.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) I thought the assumption was that if you gave everyone a choice they'd (rightly) choose to save/invest on their own and then lose it all, costing society a great deal down the road? If that's not the assumption, and the assumption is that the majority of people would be fine and wouldn't lose it all, then that makes my argument stronger. No. It's an insurance system. If too many people opt out, regardless of how well they do, the system will collapse for those left in it. The assumption is that it would cause SS to collapse, that most people would do mediocre at best and it'd probably be a net loss to society, elderly poverty would increase, and a small handful in the investment industry would make billions. More like in the 40's, I think. Anyway, how much do you think you really can invest and save at that level? You're living hand-to-mouth as it is. How are you going to fund investment for retirement? You mentioned an opt-out minimum, if it's set that low, why bother with a limit at all? What are the odds it's going to be better than what SS provides (which is far different from the "only 2% returns!", since it ignores many other factors)?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) There was absolutely zero analysis in that article, other than "don't trust what the evil Republicans tell you." It wasn't a financial analysis, it was a look at the concepts of what Social Security is and why comparing it to investments doesn't make sense, along with why the "8% annual returns!" and such are bad-faith rhetoric..

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) I think you could privatize social security in ways that would benefit those who want to have a choice and reduce some risk. Since it's more insurance than investment, you need everyone at the safe and secure level. Allowing opt-outs for risky investment throws off the balance.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) Well, there are idiots everywhere, in every facet of our society, but that doesn't mean we should preclude people from having the choice. By your logic the government should be in charge of EVERYTHING because there's ALWAYS the potential for risk and loss. You keep assuming that everyone who doesn't have a bunch of money (or loses it) is stupid or dumb. That is simply untrue, especially when their are so many dishonest financial "investments" and advisors and garbage products out there. SS isn't an investment, it's security. It's meant to provide some amount of fall back so that people aren't left destitute if their investments don't pan out or they have the bad luck of retiring during a prolonged economic downturn (like, uh, right now). Uh, yeah, there's a $106k limit on FICA. There's your automatic opt-out. That still ruins the SS calculus and destroys the system. And it's still, ultimately, a giant windfall for the investment industry.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) You just answered your own question. You and I wouldn't be the only two people taking our money out. MOST people would, especially when convinced they could be and should be making more money elsewhere. The con artists would come out of the woodwork with bad investment advice for the plethora of people who trust them, and most would wind up losing money, and a lot of it. They'd collectively collapse the entire system, and the last safety net they have to rely on for retirement would be gone. As bad as it is now because its underfunded, imagine if they wound up with nothing, which would happen to a lot more than you think...it'd create an entire era of welfare recipients that have no other choice since their SS is gone the way of the dodo. first bold: it's not that underfunded. I think I've read that the cost of extending the tax cuts about $250k permanently would be roughly equal to the current systematic SS shortfall (and SS still has a 2.-something trillion dollar trust). Alternatively, you could raise the regressive cap. second bold: a lot of the people who want to privatize SS would also like to do away with welfare.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) I'm assuming it, just like you're assuming the majority would opt out. I didn't assume a majority. I don't know where the tipping point it, but like any other insurance product, I'm sure it's much less than 50%+1. This is an older article from 2005, when Republicans were pushing to privatize SS, but it lays out the basic problems with the Republican rhetoric and conceptions of Social Security.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:04 AM) Nope, explain it to me, with an explanation of how a minority of people taking out their contribution (while also not receiving any payments later) will greatly screw the rest of society. Where did this magical limitation come from?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) I love how we're throwing out terms like "them" and "they," not "me" or "I," which is precisely the problem. I'm not arguing we scrap the "safety net" for "them," I'm saying let me take my portion out and put it to something else. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) Do you understand how SS works?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) How is me taking out my SS contribution and using that money to invest on my own at the expense of everyone else? Do you understand how SS works?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) What kinds of problems exactly? So because some stupid people will spend their money we should deny other people the option of investing THEIR OWN MONEY as they see fit? If that's the worry then put up some sort of requirement for opting out of social security (i.e., must be invested in something, can't just be spent as cash). Yep, the great Republican meme of "poor people are poor because they're stupid and blow their money instead of investing!" Yeah, sorry. My grandpa had a good job, was cheap his entire life and invested in 'safe' options. Even with that, and with his pension, and with SS, my grandma's expenses are still too much. Opting out would destroy the system, sorry. LOL, I love the racial subtext here (that's what the fair lending laws are about). edit: bankers made s***loads of money off of these loans, not a good counter-example to more financial industry handouts.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:44 AM) Ah yes, the "people-are-too-stupid-for-their-own-good-so-government-should-do-everything-for-them" argument. Ah yes, the "social safety nets are a good thing and we shouldn't try to enrich a very small number of (already very wealthy) people at the expense of everyone else" argument.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) but it would to some, which is why we should be given a choice. It's an all-or-nothing thing by nature, and it would harm way more than it would help while enriching a very small handful of people. Sounds like a pretty terrible idea to me.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:14 AM) Organizations all over this country deal with relationships in the work place. yeah but you don't have gay dudz lookin at ur weiners in normal workplaces!

Right, what Y2HH is saying. Privatizing SS would be a huge handout to money managers/evil, nefarious Wall Street Bankers, but it wouldn't benefit an overwhelming majority of people.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 12:45 AM) Devin Hester, you are ridiculous. A bunch of people yesterday were talking about DeSean Jackson being the best return man in the NFL. Um, I think they may be forgetting about record-setting Devin Hester. The one time the Vikings finally punt to him tonight, he breaks it for a TD. He's unreal at times. To be fair, anyone with decent speed could have had that return. All he did was run straight ahead and was untouched. Credit goes to the Bears special teams blocking for that one, which has been excellent for years.

Man, MNF is already a huge Favre blow-fest. The announcing may be unbearable.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 06:45 PM) Saw this as well. And that Cutler is crippled when you take his first option away. Does he not remember his own career? In the spirit of food, I had a chicken Philly. Outstanding. He had a similar quote riping Cutler a week or two ago about the defense carrying him, it's in this thread somewhere. I guess he doesn't remember being a s***ty QB.

LOL, Trent Dilfer hates that Bears' offense. Just said their "good not great" defense can't carry their "pathetic" offense, 10-6 team at the best.

...bonus check please come soon!

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 05:47 PM) prices around me are falling rapidly, 30% off, 40% off, it's crazy. I can't account for it, but i don't think it's good for the economy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) I don't believe that's possible. And if it was, it's still worth it. Their bean alfalfa sprouts were bad. The one in Lockport has just been buying them from the local Jewel for the time being, though. http://www.salmonellablog.com/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:53 PM) The general public that doesn't serve and won't have to "deal" with the changes? Does their opinion matter in this debate? I mean, i'm fine with DADT being repealed, but at the same time I think the opinions of military personnel matter a lot more than you or I. Well, the point was addressing what Y2HH was saying, not making an argument that it should be repealed because most people think it should be repealed. IMO opinion really doesn't matter at all as far as civil rights are concerned. But anyway, yeah, that's the cover McCain and Co. were using. The military report found that it wasn't an issue there, either. Most didn't have a problem but assumed a larger percentage of other soldiers would.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:22 PM) I'm not saying I'm right and you, anyone else here, or that study is wrong. This is merely my observation and how it's affected me, and the people around me. In my experiences that graph is bulls***. However, you may find the exact opposite. Well, you're making pretty declarative statements like "prices ARE rising" and calling me and NSS idiots and retards. That sounds like you're saying we're wrong, and this sounds like a backpedal. But they don't rely on anecdotes and gut feelings or common sense. Because all of those things are extremely vulnerable to cognitive bias. These graphs are based on national data and trends, on large sample sizes. Your personal experiences are based on a relatively limited number of data points in a very limited geographical area. So, yeah, your personal experience may or may not reflect national data, but that's not a reason to doubt national data.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) When it comes to finance and economics, especially in how it affects me/my family, I tend to prefer the "think for myself method" rather than reading what others claim and taking it at face value, so long as they attach a study or graph. I get that this board is obsessed with fact checking, white papers, studys, graphs, and polls, and in some cases I see this as applicable, and I see it as necessary. But when it comes to finance and it's effects on people from the top down, I do tend to quickly dismiss things that don't match with the reality around me. Graph says inflation is 0. World around me says otherwise. You do realize that that is really bad reasoning, right? That individuals are susceptible to all sorts of unintentional biases, and that humans are known for having very high rates of false positives for pattern recognition?