Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Social Security Reform

Feb 19, 2004 11:45AM PST

It has been asked why Bush deserves to be re-elected. Aside from the compelling National security issues, high among them on my priority list is Social Security. I favor letting Americans opt to save for our own retirements. There appears to be some momentum building for this, and I believe under Bush it will FINALLY come to pass.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040129-082817-6880r.htm

Evie Happy

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
So, if the Republican plan were amended to require
Feb 23, 2004 4:53AM PST

no load funds, you'ld agree that the plan should be approved?

- Collapse -
Re: So, if the Republican plan were amended to require
Feb 23, 2004 12:48PM PST

Hi, KP.

No load funds, and funds only -- perhaps with some failsafe so that perennial losers like the now-defunct Steadman Funds (which amazingly managed to lose 85% of their value from inception to liquidation, entirely within the longest, strongest bull market in US history!) aren't eligible "investments." The "funds only" is to prevent brokers churning accounts or talking clients into riskier invstments than they're comfortable with, both persistent problems in the brokerage industry. But in that case, yes, I'd support such a change for a portion of the money -- I'd probably be willing to go as far as 20-25%, rtaher than the <10% the Republicans now propose. But I'll bet you they wouldn't agree to those caveats, because it wouldn't cut in the investment brokers that are now among their biggest contributors, and would cut the profits to mutual fund families (though they'd still be making a heck of a lot more than they do now!)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
In other words you want government CONTROL...
Feb 23, 2004 11:18PM PST

over their investments so they can't "gamble" on a slightly riskier but highly profitable investment.

Don't quibble Dave, say it like you mean it.

They (wage earners) are too stupid top handle their own investments without being locked into a set of rules that makes leaving it all up to SS the only way to go. For their "own good" they can't be allowed to handle their own investments.

- Collapse -
Re: In other words you want government CONTROL...
Feb 24, 2004 3:00AM PST

Hi, Ed.

No, I want government REGULATION. What's your next plan -- abolish the Securities and Exchange Commission?

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
NO! (just major portions of it!) (NT)
Feb 24, 2004 6:09AM PST
- Collapse -
There's something you kinda glossed over Dave.
Feb 21, 2004 10:33AM PST

Just what is are the Republicans willing to do that you are opposed to? It looks like you get to keep your money, and will be able to draw on it anytime you want. I'ld take that deal anytime.

- Collapse -
Re:There's something you kinda glossed over Dave.
Feb 21, 2004 12:07PM PST

Hi, KP.

My objection is that the wealthy will generally pay lower commissions and fees for their private savings accounts than do the poor, and that many of the poor may be attracted into nominally high-yielding "investments" (such as subordinated debentures, heavily advertised on our local Clear Channel news radio station) where there's a strong likelihood that the entire principle may be lost. I've already given details in several of my posts -- please read them!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
So, a good Democrat can set up a fund for the poor
Feb 21, 2004 2:59PM PST

which can give them all the advantages that the wealthy have. You're saying the poor listen to right wing stations like the 'Clear Channel' (I base that on someone's assertion that the Clear Channel supports President Bush)? Further, that they'll base their investment decisions on advice they get there? That's a whole lot of assuming that the 'poor' cannot be trusted with their own money. That says more about Democrats than Republicans.

- Collapse -
naivety has nothing to do with education or wealth
Feb 20, 2004 11:29PM PST

look at yourself for example.

Rhis post of yours affirms the fact that you did not actually bother READING the article or understanding it.

A POINT that should be made here is that no one, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, etc. is really concerned with or in need of your "approval" and your mention of it is a wee bit egotistical.

Read the article--skimming misses most of it.

- Collapse -
Re: naivety has nothing to do with education or wealth
Feb 21, 2004 12:16PM PST

Hi, Ed.

I DID read the article, and it doesn't address this issue at all. And naivity is strongly correlated with both education and wealth, though unfortunately there are many who are both educated and wealthy who are also naive -- if there weren't there wouldn't be so many rich financial con artists! But the main thing that's needed is investment knowledge, and to some extent experience. Those who have never had money to invest in their lives, and therefore have never had the need to be knowledgeable about investment, are EXTREMELY unlikely to be anything but lambs for the slaughter if suddenly allowed to make their own investment decisions. Furthermore, standard investment industry pratice is to charge lower fees to those with larger accounts. At a minimum, all privatized SS investment accounts should be charged the minimum fees, on the premise that IN THE AGGREGATE those accounts will more than exceed the minimum amount. Otherwise, my account will be charged a much lower fee than that of they guy who sells me my hamburger, and that's not fair. Odd that the party that objects to the graduated income tax being unfair doesn't seem to think that size-based fees and commissions are unfair. The only difference in two is that graduated income taxes hurt the rich and powerful, while graduated fee schedules help them. Just another example of how the republican Party is really only concerned about helping the top-end folks and corporations, while using clever slogans and ad campaigns to argue that black is white. Hmmm -- guess I better not take that logic further, lest I violate the TOS!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
My understanding, although I'm just starting to look into this, is
Feb 21, 2004 3:08PM PST

that many plans charge a percentage of asset value, like 1%, for their services. Their fees are not graduated based on size. I'm sure that a SS privatization will quickly generate automatic contributions to mutual funds where the fund as a whole is charged a fee. Thus, low fees should be available to everyone. Employers will probably offer several choices of plans just as they do today for 401ks. Think 401ks are bad for the poor employees?

- Collapse -
Re: My understanding, although I'm just starting to look into this, is
Feb 23, 2004 2:33AM PST

Hi, KP.

I detail the graduated fee scale (mainly commissions and "loads") here.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Dave, it took me about two minutes (I hadn't been there before) to go to Vanguard
Feb 23, 2004 5:08AM PST

and find:

Account fee

Vanguard charges a custodial fee of $10 a year for each IRA mutual fund account with a balance of less than $5,000. We automatically waive this fee if you have assets totaling $50,000 or more at Vanguard in any combination of accounts?IRAs, employer-sponsored retirement plans, brokerage accounts, and annuities.

No sign of $29.95 per trade, and no graduated fees unless you call ten bucks a year a graduated fee. I also looked at 'Quick and Reilly'. Umm Dave, they look like a full service broker trading individual stocks with cadillac services. I thought your poorly educated working person wouldn't be going to such a place.

- Collapse -
Re: Dave, it took me about two minutes (I hadn't been there before) to go to Vanguard
Feb 23, 2004 1:01PM PST

Hi, KP.

First, Vanguard is hardly typical of the investment industry -- it's the single lowest-cost mutual fund family around. Secondly, the $29.95 I was discussing is for stock trades, not mutual fund purchses. Finally, try looking at the loads on Class A shares of major fund families like AIM, American Express, or Federated.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Your opposing privatization without considering mutual funds!
Feb 24, 2004 2:35AM PST

Unbelievable! You're quoting numbers for individual stock trades through a full service broker, and using that as a basis for opposing privatization? I guess we always have to read the fine print in your posts.

Care to tell me why you're ignoring low cost mutual funds?

- Collapse -
Re: Your opposing privatization without considering mutual funds!
Feb 24, 2004 3:09AM PST

Hi, KP.

AFAIK, the Republican privatization plan is not restricted to mutual funds -- it would also allow brokerage accounts, hence my concern. Also, you and I are smart enough to use low-cost mutual funds, but they don't advertise nearly as much as the ones with higher expenses and loads. Hence those who aren't investment-savvy are likely to be sucked into funds with high loads, high expenses, and possibly poor performance.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
So, you're opposed to the Republican plan because it does not restrict a free choice?
Feb 24, 2004 4:18AM PST

That really is what the Dems are about isn't it? Dictating to people what they can or cannot do! Do you think the low cost funds are not going to advertise if there's a huge market for their services? Do you think that a poor person should be prevented from investing in a fledgling IBM? How about a Microsoft in 1980? Still think you know better?

- Collapse -
Re: So, you're opposed to the Republican plan because it does not restrict a free choice?
Feb 24, 2004 4:39AM PST

Hi, KP.

Investments are always regulated -- many of the con men are flying in the face of SEC regs or whatever. And when a government program is involved, its entirely approrpiate that there be a higher degree of regulation to protect the innocent from being exploited by the unscrupulous.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
IOW yes, you oppose individual free choice. The gov't must choose.
Feb 24, 2004 5:01AM PST

The people are too dumb.

- Collapse -
So your argument boils down to ...
Feb 22, 2004 12:09AM PST

osmosis ot heredity?

Those who have never had money to invest in their lives, and therefore have never had the need to be knowledgeable about investment, are EXTREMELY unlikely to be anything but lambs for the slaughter if suddenly allowed to make their own investment decisions.

Since you pride yourself on your investment acumen you are saying by implication that you led a priviledged youth and learned investment strategy by osmosis OR that such investment knowledge is genetically inherited.

We both know that is not what you mean but what you are saying is equally ingorant and assumes up front that less weal to do persons are incapable and need to be "looked after". That is a very patronizing attitude and typical of the Liberal agenda. If YOU or I can learn to invest monies wisely there is no reason to assume that the little match girl couldn't if, instead of taxing it away from her she was left with the money strictly for investment.

What you really appear to dislike about any privatization plan is that it removes some governmental control and puts that control back into the hands of the wage earner.

- Collapse -
Dave: I resent very much that
Feb 22, 2004 9:45PM PST

three of my prior posts have gone into cyberland. Once you close a thread LEAVE IT CLOSED. I am sick of reading the crap of the "privileged " few who never seem to be denied access. AND THIS INCLUDES THOSE WITH A RED M.

That said..if i were a company I would not want my 6.2%
invested someplace else. So I would gather that the 6.2% that worker A can use comes from his contribution only. Talk about uneven playing fields!

And no matter what the sophistry used thats the way it is going to be!

How about some reforms such as not making SS taxable,not making SS funds available for buying ETOH from farmers. ? And what would be so terrible about deficit funding SS until fiscal stability is arrived at? After all we deficit fund everything else it would seem including Halliburton.....!!!!

- Collapse -
Re:Dave: I resent very much that
Feb 23, 2004 2:37AM PST

You can resent all you want, but generally we only delete the specific thread "branches" that have gone astray, unless the problem begins with the root message.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Software issue, Gearup
Feb 23, 2004 4:33AM PST

By closing posts do you mean that you see the "No further replies to this post will be accepted." message at the end of the post?

This is a software limitation and can be gotten around by changing the 5208 in the address line to 5224 and hitting Enter. That will allow you to post a response.

Hope this helps!
Cindi

- Collapse -
Re:Software issue, Gearup
Feb 23, 2004 5:04AM PST

Cindi..what happened was the "count" went up but the posts did not appear. Then the "No Further ..." came up. Apparently you are right. it is a software issue and those who were aware of the work around were able to avoid it. Thanks though. Appreciaste your input!

- Collapse -
Re: Software issue, Gearup
Feb 23, 2004 12:41PM PST

Hi, Gearup.

I'm glad Cindi thought to mention that, and sorry I didn't think to -- I thought that problem and the workaround were such common knowledge by now that it didn't even occur to me that's what you meant!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I dunno Dave ...
Feb 19, 2004 9:01PM PST

... I think the poor immigrants of my parents generation would be insulted by your portrayal of the poor. Also, it's obvious you didn't read the article because those who still want to count on the government for their retirement can still opt to do so. It's a toss up as to which government program has done more to keep the black community down in this country, welfare policies that encourage illegitimacy and dependancy or social security that discriminates against blacks who have a shorter lifespan. It robs them of the ability to pass down the wealth accumulated in a life time down to the next generation. Putting the money in a good old fashioned bank account and/or a few CD's and bonds is better than the return we get from the Fed. And as for those who wouldn't be able to save enough, then social security is welfare for the elderly, and let's call it what it is.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Evie, it's just a nit I know, but SS doesn't come from the 'Fed',
Feb 19, 2004 11:26PM PST

which is how we usually refer to the Federal Reserve Bank. Happy

- Collapse -
Don't come down too hard on her for that
Feb 19, 2004 11:34PM PST

After all, George W. Bush didn't even know Social Security was a federal program until Al Gore told him it was.

Wink

- Collapse -
Should have said FedS ...
Feb 19, 2004 11:37PM PST

... IOW, our return from the Federal Government (or to be more precise from their management of our contributions) compared to our return from the private sector is pathetic! Something like <2.5%?!!!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Right on! (NT)
Feb 20, 2004 2:17AM PST

.