+- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com)
+-- Forum: General Social Media & Marketing Forums (/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Social Marketing (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Do Republicans still want to privatized Social Security with the stock market crashing for the 2 time under Bu? (/thread-8678.html)
Pages: 1 2
Do Republicans still want to privatized Social Security with the stock market crashing for the 2 time under Bu? - Love - 10-13-2012 03:07 PM
- Leprichan - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
WOW - The stock market crashed?
Do some research on the term before you try to use it again.
- dpj5 - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
Yep. You can't look at one year in the stock market and say that's how it's gonna be. You have to look at it over a long time. And in the long run, the stock market has always gone up.
- Spock (rhp) - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
Do Democrats still want to increases taxes by an estimated 15% of wages over the next 30 years so the government can keep funding Social Security and Medicare?
Btw, have you noticed that the average working family headed by a person under age 50 saves nothing at all each year? How are they going to afford a 15% of wages tax increase?
- Midnightlamp543 - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
If the government partially privatized Social Security, then a very small percentage would be invested in low-risk, low-interest investments. So, yes, I still want privatization.
What I really want is for people to save for their own futures. If you invest your money into a roth IRA, you have a tax shield. Not only that, but if you die young, the money you paid into your savings/investments can be left to your family members. And you'd probably have a lot more money for retirement if you invested for yourself.
- jakeb - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
No republican ever wanted to privatize SS. They only want to give you a personal choice. If I invested all the fdic I paid all my life in a safe bank account, I would have a better payout. No-one ever suggested forcing anyone, just giving you a choice.
- rotorhead - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
It's down what? About 5%? More like a fender bender. At least with the stock market I know where it is and have a pretty reasonable chance of getting out at least what I put into it.
That is a lot more than I can say about Social Security. I am planning for my retirement and am NOT counting on SS being there for me after paying into it for over 50 years.
If you are under 45 and plan on SS being there for you, you are a fool.
- darrin b - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
Do you know what kind of mess we'd be in right now if Bush had had his way?
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were privatized too. And how did that work out?
- gregory_dittman - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
Bush said "government bond index" as a choice. Here is something Democrats don't know about the market. The idea is to buy low and sell high. Democrats like to buy high and sell low. This is a buyer's market. Everybody buying stocks now is going to better off in 5 years than those selling stocks now and buying in 5 years.
- McShame08 - 10-13-2012 03:15 PM
Freddie and Frannie are fine examples why Social Security should NEVER be privatized. It is better to have honest people in green eye shades doing an honest days work for an honest days pay at a mere 2% overhead than it would be to have to foot the bill for profiteering CEOs and fat cats sitting by their poolside waiting for dividend checks to arrive in the mail
Thank Phil Graham (McCain's Financial Advisor) for writing the bill that allowed all this mess to happen
On November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal was to allow commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Some economists have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act