The Dems and the "McDonalds Effect"

Jack,
I also don't view this thread as "Senior Bashing", in fact I have to agree with a lot that you have said. I'll be 68 next month and I AM NOT drawing Social Security....yet. As I said in a previous post I'm still working full time (40 hours per week)But when (if) I turn 70 the Social Security checks will start coming without me having to apply.....once you turn 70 you WILL start receiving the checks.......thats the law.
I wish that the money I've paid into SS over the last 50 years could have been invested in a good Mutual Fund instead, I'm sure that I would be dollars ahead.

Take care. :)

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
The Gov't teat is seductive. My mom & stepfather live in Sun City West outside Phoenix. It's a pretty toney neighborhood, everyone I meet there is pretty well off (not just 'comfortable'). What amazes me is how hard over most of these older folks are in reisiting any change to thier 'entitlement', be it means testing (and thses folks have the means and pvt insurance) for medicare, or anything else that would reduce their gov't handout. Most will draw far more than they ever put in, have no shame about it or concern for the less fortunate for whom Social Security is all they have. I'm 52, started saving for retirement in my early 30's, and hope to be off the merry-go-round before 60, and I'm not counting on SocSec (though considering the amount I've put in, I sure won't turn it down). At some point some level of 'reality ' has to set in, but I wouldn't look to the 'organized' political parties, they both know too well how to create constituancies by giving stuff away, even if its stuff you and I already own. Bummer, m2
 
I read an article about how a typical worker who started paying into SS in 1948 at age 18 would have fared if he/she had done different things with it, i.e., invested in bonds vs. stocks vs. money market accounts vs. Social Security.

Bottom line, other than stuffing the money in your mattress, there is no way to do worse with your dinero than the SS Ponzi scheme. Very enlightening article. I'll try to find it.
 
Mike, I understand your frustration with the wealthy retired receiving benefits. However, they paid in just as did the less wealthy. I do believe that we'll see means-testing for benefits within the next 10 years; if you saved x number of dollars, you don't collect social security. For those who, unlike me, have been able to sock away a goodly amount for retirement, that sucks big time.

Jack 99, there's a whole slew of numbers out there with which to contrast social security.
If a twenty-year old were today to have his ss money invested in an annuity earning 7% a year, he would have at retirement an income of $70,000 a year instead of $15,000 as the system exists now. An eighteen-year old who puts just $2,000 into an S&P index fund and lets it sit would have well over a million dollars at age 65 from just that intitial investment.

What burns me is that there's no way out of the system, unless your idea of "opting out" is to be shot. So, some of us who made poor financial decisions but still paid the tax will have to accept whatever the "massuh" decides we can live on.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Social security is a welfare plan which could also be viewed as a form of insurance, but we don't like to call it that, so we pretend it's paid for by our contributions. Lots of older people would never accept "welfare," but if they're told they have a "right" to something they've "paid for" then it's no problem. I think older Americans should be kept out of poverty and independent.

To every young person griping about the contribution, ask yourself if you would be willing to have all of your elderly relatives move in with you and to support them, to buy their food and medicine? Not just the relatives you like, but all of them. Social security keeps them in their own homes.
 
bookie; It was LBJ. A lot of people vote Democratic because as they say the Dems are the party of the working class! At least they BELIEVE that it is.

This senior citizen or COF if you prefer will not be voting Gore/Lieberman you can count on that.

------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
Quite simply put , "The Dems perfected welfare into a survival tool." They give you welfare and you give them more power . We let it happen because we felt sorry for these burdens on society and thought a little help would get them through it . Now they are on the third generation of welfare , they have self esteem despite being leeches and feel that they are entitled to even more . Their leaders and politicians tell them that so they believe it .
After a few episodes of "COPS" you can see the future of things . How are you going to get someone off welfare that can't read or write at the sixth grade level ? The child care would cost $400 a week so they can earn $5.15 an hour . The Dems created a monster that they expect us to feed .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA
 
Two choices - anybody who doesn't prove he has at least the school
education of somebody who went to school for 9 years won't get a cent,
ever. Ain't nice, but at least, it will make the US have more educated
people.
 
I've been paying into this Social Securtiy thing for a long time now. It will be even longer before I will get any of it back. Let me see if I have this whole thing straight.

The government takes a very significant portion of our income each time we get paid and puts it in a big pot. When we get old the government uses this big pot of money to take care of us? Okay, it seems a lot simpler to just save our own money, but we don't have that option and we've all heard the argument that some people won't think about the future or possibly make bad investments so the government has to step in to take care of them (at our expense of course). I have known "disabled" people who draw social security and have paid virtually nothing into the program. This isn't meant to bash the handicap, just a fact.

Sure, if we are fortunate enough to have any money left after taxes, we can invest in retirement, etc, but then, if we do make good investments, they can be taxed to hell. Oh sure, there are things like the Roth IRA's and other long term "retirment" investments with "tax advantages". The only problem is the government, through their tax schemes, essentially controls what we can do with the money we save, or they simply take some of it.

Full benefits for social securty can't be drawn until the age of 65. A person born in 1950 has a life expectancy of 68.2 years. A person born in 1996 has a life expectancy of 76.1 years. The average amount paid in benefits to retired workers in 1998 was $780. Can someone explain all of this? It just doesn't seem to add up to a "good" investment.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sure, if we are fortunate enough to have any money left after taxes, we can invest in retirement, etc, but then, if we do make good investments, they can be taxed to hell. Oh sure, there are things like the Roth IRA's and other long term "retirment" investments with "tax advantages". The only problem is the government, through their tax schemes, essentially controls what we can do with the money we save, or they simply take some of it. [/quote]

... hence my conclusion that it doesn't matter what kind of "retirement account" you choose to invest in, it's mostly a scam -- because the gubmint will just change the rules to take your money when they want it.

I'm not going to bet my retirement on some pot of money that's been socked away in a bank or investment account... too dangerous (if you have it, and they want it, they'll find some way to take it). My preference is to invest in a business that will generate income long after I divorce myself from its direct management.

------------------
The value of my life, my Rights, and those of my family are incalculable;
your life and your Rights, should you choose to threaten mine, are worth exactly $.64
(delivered 240gr at a time)
 
McDonald's Effect. HA!

Jack, you're right about the premise. You're hopefully wrong about the future. Of course that's why Clinton won in 96 - because the Dems "demogogued" (i.e. BSed) the issue of social security, and scared the bejeesus out of the faithfully-voting AARPers, by lying about what the Repubs wanted to do with SS. It worked like a charm before, so they're trying it again. But this time, I think (not sure) that Bush is handling the issue in a slightly different rhetorical way (haven't followed that closely this time) which should affect the Dems ability to lie about this issue. Time will tell, but the Repubs have had 4 years to figure out a way to combat this, so I should hope they have something good. The basic problem is that Repubs say "we're going to SAVE SS; small sacrifices now to save the system for your children and grandchildren.", and the Dems have responded "they're dismantling SS and slashing your benefits - we don't need to worry about saving the system for at least 10-15 more years" - well, you're right, people do tend to vote their SHORT-TERM pocketbooks. The only gooodie Repubs have to offer is a tax cut, whereas Dems are offering the moon and stars as always - stuff they either can never deliver or if they did, it would break the budget.

------------------
What can YOU do? Take a kid shooting, join NRA & GOA, and VOTE!
-Danny Stoner, NRA Life, GOA, SAF, ORA, OKCGC
 
RHarris,

"The government takes a very significant portion of our income each time we get paid and puts it in a big pot. When we get old the government uses this big pot of money to take care of us?"

Hopefully, we can dispel this myth at least here on TFL. THERE IS NO SS FUND!! Money goes straight from my check to that of a SS recepient which makes it a pure pyramid scheme. Try to set one up yourself sometime and see how fast you end up in prison.
 
Futo, you are right. If the Republicans were smart (and they so often are not), they would play on the seniors' emotions. First, tell them that their benefits are _not_ going to change, no way no how. Then, ask them if they don't want a better retirement for their children and grandchildren. And explain to them in simple terms how it can be done. Ask them if they would be afraid to put their retirement money into a bank savings account.
Since many of them have already done so, the next step is to show them that a savings account earns 4 times the interest of Social Security.

Allay the fears, then go for the guilt. It's the Democratic strategy used against the Democrats. But the Republicans don't have the guts to try it.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top