Privatizing Social Security
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3749) 14 years ago
I was going to post in the Health Care thread but I figured that we should stay on topic there and created this one.

Anyhow the Webmaster wrote in the other thread:

Sounds like a good idea. Just like privatizing social security.

My question to you would be so you feel that the Government knows better how to spend the money you worked for than you do? Social Security is beyond broken and privatization is the way to go.

Sorry but when you put money into a system that gets no return for your money and keeps bringing in new "Investors" that's called a Ponzi Scheme.

The only difference between the Government and Bernie Madoff is that the Government isn't looking at prison time for their scheme.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 2/12/2009).]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3749) 14 years ago
So, how would one put the Government is prison? Would it be a Federal prison?

Simple Bob, just give the people back more of their own money. Having the Government rely on less money for pork seems like a constricting enough prison to me.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 2/12/2009).]
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+10306) 14 years ago
>>So, how would one put the Government is prison? Would it be a Federal prison?

Probably be one of those for-profit corporate operated prisons that contract out to the government.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
Hal:

Nice work.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6169) 14 years ago
My question to you would be so you feel that the Government knows better how to spend the money you worked for than you do? Social Security is beyond broken and privatization is the way to go.



Yeah. I bet all those seniors who live solely on their SS are really sorry they couldn't invest their SS withholdings in the stock market.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3749) 14 years ago
I bet all those seniors who live solely on their SS are really sorry they couldn't invest their SS withholdings in the stock market.

Ok Wendy let's turn that statement around for a minute here. What about the people who don't live solely on Social Security? Should they be beholden to a broken system that offers no return on investment?

I still have yet to hear anybody here give me a reason why the Government knows best how to spend the money a person makes.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9506) 14 years ago
I still have yet to hear anybody here give me a reason why the Government knows best how to spend the money a person makes.

Uhmm... because otherwise there wouldn't be any roads in places like montana, idaho, utah and alaska? Because I like living in a place like the US and not one like Somolia?

What does your question have to do with SS anyways?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3749) 14 years ago
My question has plenty to do with SS. And we're not talking about taxes for roads here. I fully acknowledge that we have to pay taxes and I'm fine with that. What I don't like is the Government telling me that I have to put a portion of the money I've worked for into a system (Social Security) that offers me nothing in return. By the time I'll retire the system will be completely bankrupt and I will have lost all of that money that I've paid into over the years.

Not only that but what really burns the hell out of me is when they talk about "Reforming" SS just the very mention of "Privatization" sends the Liberals, AARP and others circling the wagons and telling me that they know what's best for my money rather than me.

Me: Can I put a little of my Social Security money into the stock market so I can have a chance of getting a better return on my money than the 0% the Government gives?

Democrats: Absolutely not. You don't want to put your money in the Stock Market you might get nothing out of it. You want to put you money into our system even though we've ran Social Security into the ground.

Me: Yeah but I could also get a a good return if I invest it wisely.

Democrats: Absolutely not. You don't want to put your money in the Stock Market you might get nothing out of it. You want to put you money into our system even though we've ran Social Security into the ground.

Repeat Democrat answer ad nauseum.

I am still waiting for somebody to tell me why, when it comes to Social Security, the Government knows better how to use my money than I do.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 2/12/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
Kyle:

You've been going to Strawman tae kwon do classes with the Rickenhawk, haven't you?

Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3749) 14 years ago
That was a good one Bob.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1588) 14 years ago
Kyle, I understand your point and your frustration. However I would like to make a few points. First, social security would have been solvent and functional for life if, number one, the government would stop stealing from it, in the form of IOU's that never get paid back. Number two SS works fine if the people that actually paid into it were the only ones drawing on it.

Lastly, under the republican plan to privatize SS Bush's hand chosen frat buddies from Wall Street were going to charge 15% to turn that money over into private hands. That amounts to skimming billions of dollars off the top.

Wall Street has already ****ed up the country and the economy bad enough. If we give them social security are they going to skim it, to buy new jets or some bonuses. By the government regulating things - in a perfect world- there is supposed to be checks and balances and oversight. Those things do not happen under privatization, although regulations and oversight have not happened in the last 16 years.

I would rather put my faith in a broken government than to give any more money to that den of thieves on Wall Street.

Your retirement may be great, I have no idea but I know many people that have lost everything in their IRA. If we had privatized SS eight years ago where would it be now? My government controlled PERS that is constitutionally mandated is doing fine. It is safe and sound out of Wall Street hands. That is not to say they do not invest some, in the stock market because they do and they take losses like every one else. But it is balanced for the long term. In my mind SS was working until politicians stole money from it to fund things, like wars.

Maybe Dubai should manage our SS.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6169) 14 years ago
Ok Wendy let's turn that statement around for a minute here. What about the people who don't live solely on Social Security? Should they be beholden to a broken system that offers no return on investment?

Rick, I think I see your point although I'm not sure what you mean by "beholden". But I don't see how separating people on that criterion could be done. Would we let people who have private plans, such as IRAs or 401ks, invest their SS as they want? Would the investing take place as a worker earns or would the investing come at the end of a worker's active work period and the whole balance would then be theirs to invest? Would there be some kind of sliding scale based on their private plan balances? What if such people are complete idiots and lose their investments? Do we just throw them to the dogs when they reach 70? I see a lot of talk about privatization but little detail. If someone would present a comprehensible plan, it would be a lot easier to evaluate it. Can you help me out, Rick?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 14 years ago
I don't think you're talking to me.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12509) 14 years ago
The best thing about privatizing Social Security, besides the cream Wall Street fat cats will take, is that it will bring about the bankruptcy of the current system much earlier! Wow, what could be better. Let's go back to those days of Herbert Hoover, with the soup kitchens and the Hoovervilles. I know I want to spend my retirement selling apples.
Top
Posted by Schmitz - Matt (+406) 14 years ago
I am the last guy to ever defend George Bush on anything, but his plan was to allow people to invest up to 3% of there contributions into Social security in another plan. I think. Something like that. So if you look at a pay stub, only 3% of that social security number could be invested. Thats a disgustingly low number. It would take several decades to turn that into walking around money. Helpful retirement money? Not ever gonna be close. Bad plan to begin with, but he was proposing a small enough number to protect the legacy of his ass down the road. If it had ever happened, and then failed miserably, like it will, the dollars per person would have been virtually insignificant to 99% of us. So bad plan with a pretty good cost control back-up plan. (Cost control in terms of legacy)
Again, not a fan of the plan, but overall the worst case scenario would have had very little impact on your pocket or mine. But it's still a case of big brother knowing better than me in regards to what my money should be doing. And if that blessed day of retirement should ever come for me, I am ok depending on myself. I would like back what I paid into social security, but that ship has sailed.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
Matt - I thought it was 3% of the 7.65% employee contribution? But I could be wrong...
Top
Posted by Schmitz - Matt (+406) 14 years ago
Your probably right Bob. But isn't that a stupid small amount of money?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
Matt: Well - let's say your income subject to FICA tax is $50,000

You pay 6.2% for social security and 1.45% for Medicare - total 7.65%
This is matched by your employer - total contribution = 15.30%.

Your total contribution (6.2% of $50,000) is $3,100 for the year

Under the Bush proposal (as I understood it) you would be able to invest 3% of $50,000, or $1,500 in alternative investments.

So that's nearly 1/2 of your contribution - $1,500 vs. $1,600.

CAVEAT - My percentages of 6.2% and 1.45% may be outdated and I'm going from memory on the other stuff - so I could be wrong.

But you get the idea, hopefully?

Wendy W. would be the ultimate source on this issue.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (edited 2/13/2009).]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3749) 14 years ago
Ok, here's how I would work it. I fully acknowledge that there are some (as evidenced by the posts here) that would like to keep the status quo and there are others, like me, who want no part of the cartel that is Social Security. So here goes.

I would implement a three-tiered system.

1. Social Security: Those who want to stay in the Social Security system can stay in.

2. The % Club: Those who want to invest their money elsewhere but also want to maintain some level of (heh) "Guaranteed Security" can choose to place a portion of their money into Social Security and can invest the rest.

3. Show Me The Door/Opt Out: This is for those that want no part of the SS scam. You pay nothing into the Social Security system and get nothing from the Government once you reach retirement age. You are free to invest as you see fit and if you make a bad investment and loose it all then that's the consequence you take.

I can see some of the argument now with the third option but if I opt out of the SS system why should I have to continue to pay a tax for it?

Again Social Security should be shown the door as it amounts to nothing more than a legal Ponzi scheme but it seems as though people would rather blindly rely on the "Good Graces" of Government rather than wanting to keep their own money.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9506) 14 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 14 years ago
Stone, at what point do you think SS would've had the opportunity to sit and save people's retirement contributions?

It was cutting checks on day 1 to people who'd never contributed a dime. They robbed Peter to pay Paul. Then they robbed Peter's sons to pay Peter, and on and on.

Luckily the growth was exponential, so the shell game worked for awhile. The demographics won't pan out in the future though. It will end. Now it's all a matter of how long we're willing to fool ourselves, and how ugly we'll allow it to get for the generation we drop it on.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9506) 14 years ago
Top
Posted by Schmitz - Matt (+406) 14 years ago
I understood that you could only invest 3% of your contributions to social security. So only 3% of your contribution of 6.87 % could be invested privately.
But it is very possible that I am wrong. It happened once. 1981 I think. (He says with tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6169) 14 years ago
Sorry Rick, I get you and Kyle mixed up. Don't know why.


Ok, Kyle. So what do you do with the people who opt out of the system? I predict that would be most young people who aren't thinking about retirement in any serious way. Also there would be many who would keep putting off opting in until it was too late to make any meaningful contributions. Again, what do we do with these people when they become too infirm to work full-time? I predict that you will say "too bad for them" and go on reading your paper. But I think we, as a society, have a duty to take care of our weakest members.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (edited 2/14/2009).]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3749) 14 years ago
Wendy wrote: So what do you do with the people who opt out of the system?....Also there would be many who would keep putting off opting in until it was too late to make any meaningful contributions. Again, what do we do with these people when they become too infirm to work full-time?

Kyle wrote:You are free to invest as you see fit and if you make a bad investment and loose it all then that's the consequence you take.

Wendy writes: But I think we, as a society, have a duty to take care of our weakest members.

Sorry Wendy but I don't buy that. I have no obligation to take care of some complete stranger in Tuscaloosa, Alabama just as they don't have any obligation to take care of me. If you opt out and make a bad investment or keep putting off until it's too late then it's tough you-know-what. It's not my duty to hold somebody's hand until it gets better. You know the consequences of opting out and that's the risk you take.

Sadly though as we've seen with the mortgage crisis people will always piss and moan and look to the Government to bail them out of their asinine decisions. I suspect that there will be some who will do the same should they opt out of Socialist Security and fall flat on their face.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 2/14/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9506) 14 years ago
Shorter Kyle: I am a selfish bastard, and that's the way I like it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4452) 14 years ago
. Show Me The Door/Opt Out: This is for those that want no part of the SS scam. You pay nothing into the Social Security system and get nothing from the Government once you reach retirement age. You are free to invest as you see fit and if you make a bad investment and loose it all then that's the consequence you take.

Here in lies the problem - somewhere along the line those stupid ass forefathers decided that that's just not what our country is about. It's a shame, because I'd love to see all those white collars turning gray in the gutter. This whole measure protects the rich, white men you aspire to be Kyle - you know, the type of people who have enough money to invest... and then hand it over to Bernie Madoff.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (edited 2/15/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 14 years ago
Wendy, there could be better middle ground, it just doesn't sell when there's partisan lines to be drawn in the sand.

You could have an option that still mandated a percentage be withheld and invested in secure investments. You could pretty easily get 3% return on long-term federally insured or treasury-based investments, and be miles ahead of where SS will get you. Then you're not totally relying on people's self-discipline, but at the end of the day they get a more fair return on what is really their money.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6169) 14 years ago
Kyle wrote: I have no obligation to take care of some complete stranger in Tuscaloosa, Alabama just as they don't have any obligation to take care of me. If you opt out and make a bad investment or keep putting off until it's too late then it's tough you-know-what. It's not my duty to hold somebody's hand until it gets better. You know the consequences of opting out and that's the risk you take.

I can see where you are coming from, Kyle, but I can also see some nasty consequences from your plan. First of all, I have had 12 years tax experience dealing with all types of people and most of them don't have a clue how the tax system works. Many of them don't even understand what FICA taxes are or why they are withheld from their earnings. To implement your plan we would have to increase the amount and frequency of financial education in our schools. Even then there would be people who would just not get it. What do we do with these people? They will become a drain on our already overburdened food banks, shelters and soup kitchens. They will increase the reliance on government welfare programs. Seniors already make up a very large segment of the population living under the poverty level. People living in poverty have a greater risk of being in poor health, being a victim of crime and developing depression. All of these increase the burden on government services. You can't make these often very dysfunctional people suddenly see reason or logic or become Warren Buffet. But having some kind of safety net can give them a dignified if not luxurious existence. Frankly, I believe that human beings need to do this for each other. It's the moral thing to do.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15423) 14 years ago
Why not a choice which you liberals claim to be all about? Those that want to stay dependent on the government and the current system can... those who want out so they can create their own retirement should have that option.

It isn't going to matter because in the next 6 months Obama will seize everyones 401k, He will do this by promising everyone a pre-august level ( when his tax policy brought the collapse) and paying them 3% interest.

As predicted, Obama is WELL on his way to becoming the worst "1-term wonder" in presidential history.
Top
Posted by Schmitz - Matt (+406) 14 years ago
Well on his way? What the hell are you watching? For less than 4 weeks! How can you claim to be an educated person and say something so patently stupid?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15423) 14 years ago
Because socialism has failed ever time it has been tried.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+590) 14 years ago
And unchecked Capitalism has brought us to the brink of ruin we have now.... There are plenty of nations in the world that have been around a lot longer than we have and have policies in place that you would label 'socialistic.' As usual Kyle, you are talking out of your a**
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4452) 14 years ago
Richard, when your money disappears because you invested with a swindler or the economy does one of these, we'll let you opt back in despite your like of contribution. I know it sounds great, take care of yourself, yay! - but be realistic, what happens to all the people who fail - Kyle would let them starve, you let them starve?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3749) 14 years ago
Kyle would let them starve

Buck, I'd let them starve because of their own mistakes. That's the nature of the Stock Market - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It's the risk you take.

And as far as me having my head up my a** Bruce sorry, but like Richard said Capitalism has worked every time and every place it's been implemented. Socialism has not.

Reckless social & pork spending has brought us to where we are now. Not Capitalism.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 2/15/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6169) 14 years ago
Richard said: Why not a choice which you liberals claim to be all about? Those that want to stay dependent on the government and the current system can... those who want out so they can create their own retirement should have that option.

There's nothing preventing anyone from creating their own retirement, Richard. I'm sure you're doing it as am I. But frankly, we are the minority. Many people will not be able to resist a bigger paycheck and those people won't save it. They'll spend it. Your Walmart executive buddies will love that but what happens when those people are 65, 70, 75. Company pensions are disappearring. Getting people to participate in their 401ks is like pulling teeth. Kyle says feed them to the wolves. But what if one of them is your sister or father or neighbor? I'm all for self-sufficiency and the SS system, imperfect as it is, at least requires some contribution from every employee.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
It isn't going to matter because in the next 6 months Obama will seize everyones 401k, He will do this by promising everyone a pre-august level ( when his tax policy brought the collapse) and paying them 3% interest.

--------------

Ricardo:

Six months and that pirate Obama will "seize everyone's 401(k)"?

Wanna bet?


You still think Obama caused the stock market collapse in August? I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Economics really isn't your forte, Ricardo!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9506) 14 years ago
And as far as me having my head up my a** Bruce sorry, but like Richard said Capitalism has worked every time and every place it's been implemented. Socialism has not.

This may come as a surprise to a large part of western Europe.

Give me some examples of countries that have switched from a different model to capitalism in the last 50 years, and then we can talk specifics. I'm not saying that there aren't any, and I'm not asking as some sort of gotcha, but I'm pretty sure that "works" is a relative term, and requires some qualification.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 2/16/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15423) 14 years ago
"You still think Obama caused the stock market collapse in August?"

Yes, Bob I do. Go study the history of the Community Reinvestment Act. You will learn what is REALLY at the root of our market chaos, and who is responsible.


"Six months and that pirate Obama will "seize everyone's 401(k)"?

Wanna bet?"

Here you go...

http://money.cnn.com/2009...2009021608

"1. We need a plan for everyone
Our current retirement system hasn't broken - it was never really a working system to begin with. No law-makers designed the 401(k) to displace the traditional pension, although that's what ultimately happened. It is named for a tax loophole that pension consultants gradually built a plan around. Under the rules, the earnings you put into a 401(k) aren't taxed, and the account grows tax deferred until you cash out at retirement. It's not a cheap program: The tax advantage for 401(k) contributions will cost the Treasury $51 billion in 2009. Add in the break for IRAs, which are largely funded by 401(k) rollovers, and it's $63 billion.

If you are a typical reader of this magazine, that tax break has been extremely valuable for you. Whether it actually encourages you to save more is another matter. Since 401(k)s became more popular, some studies have shown, higher-income people seem to have shifted their assets from taxable to nontaxable accounts rather than saving more.

Lower- and middle-income households, on the other hand, don't benefit as much from the program. They are less likely to be covered by any plan or by one that offers a generous company match. Since they pay lower tax rates, they get less out of the tax deferral. In all, about 70% of the tax benefits for 401(k) savings goes to the top 20% of earners. "Given the way 401(k)s are structured, they are virtually designed to provide inadequate retirement income for the average worker," says University of California Berkeley political scientist Jacob Hacker. So how can the system pull more people in?

Enlisting employers

One obvious approach is to ensure that more people have access to a savings plan through their jobs. This one could be an easy bipartisan compromise. Retirement experts at the conservative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Brookings Institution have together proposed an "automatic IRA." Businesses with no retirement plan would have to put a portion of workers' paychecks into an IRA unless the employee opted out.

Pension experts Pamela Perun and Eugene Steuerle have proposed a simplified retirement plan similar to one in the U.K. Employers would be required to offer a retirement plan with a match of up to 3% of salary. As part of the bargain, the plan would lift some of the burdensome administrative rules of today's 401(k).

Getting a boost from Uncle Sam

A more ambitious approach would be a government savings match similar to what you get from your employer. If this sounds like a subsidy, it is - but then, so is the current tax break. The difference is that this one would take the form of a refundable credit. Unlike tax deferrals, such a credit can benefit even people in low brackets. Gene Sperling, a former Clinton administration official, has proposed a "universal 401(k)" in which low-income workers can get as much as a two-to-one match. Higher-income families may get a 30% match.

Economist Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School for Social Research goes further. To ensure that everyone saves from the start of their career to the end, she proposes a mandatory national savings account on top of Social Security. You'd kick in 2.5% a year and your employer another 2.5%. In one version, the tax credit would be a flat $600 a year for everybody.

Of course, the government can't just throw cash around (recent events notwithstanding). Paying for tax credits would likely mean trimming or eliminating the existing deferrals. Tough sell. No one is talking about touching existing 401(k) balances. But if you are a high earner able to contribute the max to your 401(k), you'd pay more taxes under Ghilarducci's plan. Before you throw out the idea altogether, though, consider this: You weren't always in your current tax bracket. A plan for moderate-income earners could have gotten you saving consistently from the first day of your first job. It could do the same for your kids.

2. Spread some of the risk - but not all of it
In any retirement system, your standard of living will depend to some extent on the state of the economy. Traditional pensions rely on a financially healthy employer. Even Social Security, as a pay-as-you-go system, depends on the productivity of current workers. But 401(k)s stand out for the way that they concentrate nearly all the economic risk on you alone.

With that risk comes a shot at high rewards. If you have an above-average income, it makes sense to have at least some of your retirement money in the market over your career. But many retirement experts think we need a third tier of savings in between Social Security and the 401(k). It would offer a better return than Social Security but less market risk than mutual funds and other investments. Just a portion of the money you now put into 401(k)s would go here.

Working out the details of this third-tier plan won't be simple. One approach would be to offer a straight-up guarantee. In Ghilarducci's plan, the mandatory savings would go into a single government fund invested in stocks and bonds. You would be guaranteed a payment based on a 3% annual return after inflation, possibly more if the market did so well that the managers decided they could safely distribute extra gains. "Historically, that's a very achievable rate of return," says Ghilarducci. Unfortunately, it is also a modest one - over long periods, stocks have generally beaten inflation by six percentage points or more.

Boston College's Munnell thinks the Dutch retirement system might be a better model. In their national pension fund, retirees get a payment based on their salary and years of service, similar to a company pension. But the amount can change in the event of a severe market crash or funding shortfall. "If returns are low, everyone takes a hit," says Munnell. "Retirees might not get the full cost-of-living adjustment, employers may have to put in more, and workers building up benefits will accrue less."

An American solution would be different in the details. Even so, the basic principle could apply: Spread risk among employers, retirees and current workers and you can smooth out the highs and lows to make some retirement income more predictable.

3. Help us make the money last
At the end of your career, a 401(k) will leave you (you hope) with a big pile of money. But stretching those dollars over two or more decades is as big a challenge as accumulating them was.

You face two uncertainties: how markets will perform and how long you will live. Spend too much and you might find yourself a hale and hearty 85-year-old with an empty bank account. One solution is to use at least part of your savings to buy a fixed-rate immediate annuity, which creates a pensionlike income for life. But almost no one does this with their 401(k) balance.

Why? Annuities can be complex - insurance salesmen like them that way - and the expenses are higher for retail investors than for institutions like pension funds. There's also a big psychological barrier: You give up hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for a lot of smaller checks. Yet there's evidence that older retirees are happier if they have some annuity income.

A third-tier savings program could provide some guaranteed income. But even without a whole new retirement plan, there are ways to make it easier for retirees to annuitize.

Right now most 401(k)s pay out in a lump sum as a default. It's just less trouble for employers that way. But simply by switching that default to an annui
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
Ricardo:

CRA has nothing to do with our current economic crisis.

Absolutely nothing.

The bet still stands.

Ricardo, economics really isn't your forte.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (edited 2/16/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4452) 14 years ago
Kyle would let them starve!!! Hurrah!

On a more positive note, capitalism works every place every time. I am officially announcing the availability of my merry militia - those filthy beggars won't touch the money until they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (edited 2/16/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15423) 14 years ago
"CRA has nothing to do with our current economic crisis.

Absolutely nothing."

Oh my bad. I forgot that those of us who are voracious readers and can connect the dots of history, don't understand all that you guys with your head in the sand who practice economic gnosticism understand.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
Listen, Ricardo

I've forgotten more about the Community Reinvestment Act than you will ever know.

But you won't believe me, so how about the Comptroller of the currency:

The Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."**

* Remarks by John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency, before the Enterprise Annual Network Conference (November 19, 2008 ), available at http://www.occ.gov/ftp/re...8-136a.pdf



OCC? Ever hear of it, Ricardo???

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (edited 2/17/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
Here's another quote from the Fed chairman, apponted by Pres. Bush:

Late last month, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke echoed Kroszner's words and the appraisal of Fed researchers.

"Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis available data ... runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties,"


Link from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/ar...3420081203

Of course, you don't believe in the Federal Reserve, do you Ricardo?


Economics is not your forte, Ricardo! Or,

Ignorance is the most expensive commodity in Wyoming!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9506) 14 years ago
I forgot that those of us who are voracious readers and can connect the dots of history

Who would that be? Historical analysis from the right seems to be a heirarchy of fallback positions:

1 ) It's Clinton's fault
2 ) It's Carter's fault
3 ) FDR made the Great Depression longer
4 ) Democrats supported lynching
5 ) Lincoln was a Republican
6 ) Just because I spend all of my time thinking about how awful gay sex must be, doesn't mean I'd be willing to snort meth off of my gay lover's butt. Unless I was pretty sure I wasn't going to get caught.
7 ) Jefferson was an atheist
8 ) The founding fathers were Christians just like me.
9 ) Jesus.
10) Moses.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3716) 14 years ago
I know I'm late to the party here, and I haven't read most of the thread, but Stone, who do you know that has lost everything in an IRA? That seems like it would take some exceptionally bad investing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1588) 14 years ago
Levi,
I am not going to publicly name someone that has lost a good portion of there retirement. Lets just say they worked for a grocery chain that was once in Miles City. But lets not drag retired employees threw the mud. However, $100,000 seems like allot to me.

I wonder how Kevin Bacons investments are doing?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3716) 14 years ago
I'm not asking for names, I'm just wondering how you would manage to lose all of the money in an IRA.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4452) 14 years ago
Kyle wants Kevin Bacon to starve
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 14 years ago
I'm not asking for names, I'm just wondering how you would manage to lose all of the money in an IRA.

-----

It can happen if you're in a 401(k). Some employers require participants to invest a portion of their investments in Company stock. Many require that the "Company match" be entirely in stock.

If someone worked for a company whose stock tanked, one could lose a significant portion of their retirement in a short period of time.

Self-directed IRA - gotta agree with you....
Top