iamatwork, That last line killed me,LMAO!

Wit brings up a good point with social security, what did they say the interest rate was in it's present account? 1 or 2%
That means if we had control of a part of our SS, we could put it in an average bank, and come close to tripling our interest. If you wanted a little more risk, you could place it in a mutual fund with a 50 year average of 14% and have 7 times what you'd get with the govt. This isn't for everyone, there'd surely be millions instantly lost in the stock market if they allowed it, but 2% of what you pay on SS security a year is not a whole lot in most cases, and after a couple years of people wasting their few hundred to a couple thousand dollars, i believe most would figure it out and make smarter investments.
I forgot the exact numbers I used when I calculated the potential earnings for an account with 500 added every year at an interest rate of 14%, but I remember being amazed at the earnings after a 30 year period. This is probably not the miracle answer that everyone looks for with SS, but i guarantee that we're better off investing our own money at a 6-8 percent bank interest rate than leaving it in the infamous lockbox to earn 2% a year.

David-

The reason it is sooooo amazing when you increase that interest rate over time, is called compounding. Going from 2% to 6% the first year is threefold. The next year it is higher than threefold. By year 50, its ridiculous. Your example of a mutual fund providing 14% return a year on average factors to be a heck of alot more than 7 fold return.

Your point is a good one. You can actually have a system with far less money going into it (sound familiar as the baby boomers start retiring) but end with greater funds in the end.

BTW (backlash)- when you put money in an IRA or 401k, do you envision it going into a big vault and just sitting there? Any idea what banks do with it? Please don't take this the wrong way but one of the healthiest things for the economy you can do is put money into vehicles like this. That money is lent out to businesses for expansion, r & d, etc. and immediately goes back into the economy in the form of purchases of goods and services. When you give that money to Gore instead for your retirement fund, the majority of it sits and does nothing. That is the reason they achieve a rate of return below that of inflation. If you take inflation into account, we are losing money everyday by the gov't handling it. Its about time someone fixes that.

Steve

What's that word, "Security", doing in Social Security? Could that be the reason for the pitiful rate of return? It's called rate and risk. High risk, high return (possibly). Low risk, low return. It's not that difficult to understand. Banks, CD's, the Stock Market all offer much higher rates of return because of the risks associated with them. The only risk faced by depositors into the SS Trust is from politicians.

And wit45, you know as well as I do that we can all (or at least, most) make a case for putting our money into investments that provide a much higher payoff than Soc. Sec. , but that's not the point. If your investments fail, the populace doesn't want to see you homeless and starving, which is why SS exists in the first place. If SS is your ONLY income source, you'll be close to homeless and starving anyway.

I know that if you were a politician, and you said "Let's abolish Soc Sec because if you can't get a better deal somewhere else, you're an idiot", you'd be out of office the next election.

How has your portfolio done recently? Unless you're a master tactician, the market's been pretty ugly lately. In other words, it's lacked any "security". Of course, the market is there for anybody who wants to invest in it. I don't think draining funds from Social Security to let people invest is the right thing to do.

By the way, the studies I've seen show that dollars in the hands of a middle-income consumer are kept in circulation at a much higher rate than dollars in the hands of the upper-income consumers. Of course, that was quite a few years ago, but I believe the trend still holds true.

BTW, wit, not all us liberals are lazy pot smokers, and I take offense at your insinuation. I can tell from that same post, that you are very interested in promoting your own welfare. Any interest in promoting the general welfare?

Fish on........

I will continue to promote the general welfare by employing lots of people in a high wage industry. ($16-$28/hr) I will also promote the general welfare by setting a good example of what hard work and perserverence will get you in life and teaching self reliance. For 25 years now Chile has had privatized SSI and it has shown overwhelming returns. The Bush plan also limits the investment options as I hear it. Much like a 401K.

If middle income consumers must "keep a higher percentage of their income in circulation" then why does your guy want to pick and choose who gets a tax cut based on his approved activities. At least Bush wants to treat everyone equally. Has the left abandoned the idea of treating people the same???????? By the way, my portfolio is only up about 15% year to date. I know it isn't much but it is better than 2%.

There's an article in todays seattle pi that talks about Microsoft millionaires going bankrupt because of the plunging stock value of Microsoft. This is a good example of why individuals should not be allowed to invest social security. http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/optn20.shtml

If microsoft millionaire's are going broke because Microsoft's decline in the market then THey must have been very POOR money managers. DanS, my portfolio has actually grown over 50%. So I'm very pleased with the year overall. I give all my credit to Bill&Hillary along with their sidekick AL. I sure wouldn't give credit to my brilliant portfolio mngr. because he is a very wealthy Rep. who only thinks about making more money with money..

Dan S., your philosophy and 'tude is close enough to mine that I can just read from here. And you are more issue educated than me anyway. Go bro! --- Wit45, you are right, I've been a little too mouthy to you so I appologize for that. Understand though that it isn't as personal as it sounds (I don't even know you). It's more a situation of political frustration. You of all people know how easy it is to get heated up over politics! BTW, do you actually keep a count of the number of posts critical of you? Lighten up. Ain't no big deal. - RT

Steelyhorn,

I applaud your potfolio's performance. The point I was trying to make is that the DJIA and the NASDAQ would not both be down so much from last year if EVERYBODY'S portfolio had performed as well as yours. The market is risky, which is why a 50% gain is possible. I'm just not sure it's wise to put "security" money into insecure investments. JMHO

Fish on..........

[This message has been edited by Dan S. (edited 10-21-2000).]

DanS, First off I don't want anyone to think that my good luck in the stock market had anything to do with my market wisdom. The only thing I'm willing to do is be very aggressive and trust the people you put to work. It could just as easily be down 50%. I wouldn't be were I'm at if I didn't assume risk..As I get older you can bet my last dollar that I will become much more conservative with my pesos.

Reeltruth- I only make a habit of keeping track of that type of thing from people who repeatedly engage me on issues,(i.e. yourself and Dan S. among others) and it is a loose accounting at that. My point was to help you see that you were making a personal attack rather than an affirmative argument for your cause. Personal attacks tell me that you are out of substance and are conceding the point.(otherwise you would just be mean-spirited)

I would like to revisit my question from earlier. Please, someone, define for me the term "rich". How much money do you have to have to be rich. Also, what is wrong with being rich. I don't know too many poor people with employees.....Would you not agree that without fishless days, catching fish would lose some of its luster? I happen to believe that by moving through being poor one is better able to appreciate being wealthy. Perhaps the glory of accomplishment is lost on left-leaners.

Backlash- I will say it again, the bottom 46% of wage earners pay NO federal income tax and as such cannot benefit from a tax cut. What you seem to be advocating is taking money from the richest 1% and giving it to the "bottom of the food chain". Is that what you want, the redistribution of wealth???? If so, what if someone thinks he needs your car because he can't afford one? Will you let him take it or will you call a cop?

Yea , Gee , lets vote for Gore!!, after he's in office he will side with all the poeple who want to stop hunting and make owning firearms harder than it is , then after that he'll focus is beady litte eyes on US!!, the fisherman!, Why not? , after guns are banned why not steelhead and salmon fishing , hmmmmm? , they are a fish with small numbers to what they used to be and a hot topic for controversy, it whould be as easy as saying, "we stoped hunting, so why not fishing?". If you are a Hunter , voting for gore is like lighting the 2nd amendment on fire. Remember This: Hes just a non-grabass Bill Clinton!

------------------
PETA = People eating tasty animals!

Charles