The real reason why the GOP wants to kill SS

[George Jung]

I am recently retired and LOVE social security! And one thing I love the most is the social contract In which I paid for other members of our society while I could work, and now younger folks are paying for me. I volunteer at Northwest Maritime Center in Port Townsend, I spend money at the Shipwrights Co-op, the Port Townsend Foundry and all the grocery, lumber, and hardware stores here, and all those workers pay some of what I spend back to me. We are all in this freaking world, and I love a system that reinforces that connectedness. I would HATE a system based on the stock market which hinges on quarterly reports, short-sighted decisions, and skimming by people who love to game the system.
Ken

So.... a Socialist, eh?

Very well put, my friend.

The Reich does not get that we are all in this thing together.

I'd disagree. They 'get it' - but don't like it- at all. The Reich wants to ability to 'take it all', and screw everyone else.

[Too Little Time]

I would HATE a system based on the stock market which hinges on quarterly reports, short-sighted decisions, and skimming by people who love to game the system.

My wife and I get $60K/year from Social Security. We are more than happy with that. I would like to see those households that get $20K/year get more. Perhaps, bring them up to the average of $40Kyear. Even if it required us giving up all of our Social Security.

But I am told there are guys with torches and pitchforks who would object to that. A whole army of them. I think the guys with torches and pitchforks are the ones that spread the rumor that the stock market is as you describe. That is despite the fact they they invest in the stock market themselves.

I am glad you enjoy your retirement. I will just suggest that most of the businesses you deal with are in business because they conduct business directly or indirectly with the businesses listed on the stock exchanges.

[sandtown]

The Reich wants to ability to 'take it all', and screw everyone else.

or to skillfully make use of a phrase I coined not long ago . . .

They don't just want more money - they want ALL the money.

[George Jung]

Yup. that's the ticket.

[Landrith]

Republicans can be the worst "Debt Scolds". The party's fundamentalists forget we don't spend and "save" money, we all in the Anglo American West spend and think we are "saving" debt. There is no gold back US dollar or even now a measurably oil backed dollar. So like the growth under Reagan was the increased "money" supply from the increased debt relent by banks at 80 to 1, spending can be a good for the masses thing if the perceived scarcity is maintained. Outspending the entire budget of the Cold War to fail to defend Ukraine and other such enterprises destroy that scarcity.

"They don't just want more money - they want ALL the money." these anti rich sentiments continue the illusion that allowed them to concentrate all the wealth. i. e. "Eight Billionaires Own as Much as Poorest Half of Global Population" https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/n...bal-population

And that is why conservative Republicans are misunderstood. Social Security was Bismark's solution to keep the poor poor and in their place. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...are-180964064/ , Iran was busy trying to implement Social Security to keep the Shah in power when the radicals overthrew his government. Individual power, wealth, and control is to be promoted. Collective benefits are not really benefits. As I am rudely reminded every time I take even "rich" people to the hospital.

[Too Little Time]

TLT doesn't seem to realize that one has to eat in the short term, for a long time. It is not something one can put off until market conditions improve. If invested in the market he recommends, at some point one will be eating one's capital.

And remember that if investments drop by 25%, they have to go up by 33% to get back to where they started. Even harder to do, if one has had to reduce the amount invested in order to survive.

I like Norman's ideas of investing to reduce fluctuation in value and maintain income, even if this results in less value in the long term.

Another thing to remember is, in the long term, we are all dead.

I finally did something stupid.

I looked up the COLA adjustments for Social Security. I had the total returns for the S&P 500. (100% stocks is always good.) Typed them into my spreadsheet. In less than 30 minutes I looked at numbers for people retiring in any of the last 30 years. I used the 4% "rule". (I don't personally use that rule, but professionals seem to like it better than any of the other plans that are touted.)

Everyone ended up at the end of 2022 in great economic condition. Only those who retired in 2022 had less than they started with, but that is short term. Even those that retired in 2000 or so, or 2008 or so.

I would suggest that you reconsider your comments. Rather than mislead through ignorance.

[sandtown]

I finally did something stupid. I looked up the COLA adjustments for Social Security. I had the total returns for the S&P 500. (100% stocks is always good.).

Does the S&P include disability and dependent insurance for survivors ??

Bad Faith alert

[sandtown]

"They don't just want more money - they want ALL the money." these anti rich sentiments.

OK, so that was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but . . .

Many wealthy folks use dark money and campaign cash to prevent themselves from being fairly taxed, even to the point of blocking funds for IRS enforcement.

A goodly number of them sure ACT as if they want all the money.

[Dave Hadfield]

Oh. I just joined this thread.

I was wondering why Republicans wanted to destroy the Space Station...

Updated.

[sandtown]

I was wondering why Republicans wanted to destroy the Space Station....

because . . . . . . . .. . . socialism !!

[WI-Tom]

Oh. I just joined this thread.

I was wondering why Republicans wanted to destroy the Space Station...

Because it's a perfect staging platform for Jewish space lasers, of course...

Tom

[Norman Bernstein]

Oh. I just joined this thread.

.

Didn’t your mama teach you to not play in the mud pile?

[Too Little Time]

Does the S&P include disability and dependent insurance for survivors ??

Bad Faith alert

I agree that your question is in bad faith. If you had good intentions, you would do some analysis of the cost in the marketplace and compare to the cost in Social Security. Perhaps provide some sort of argument.

You should do some of the work.

[Too Little Time]

Does the S&P include disability and dependent insurance for survivors ??

As I was out walking, I realized our differences.

Social Security has a large trust fund. It has not been needed to pay benefits. I am in favor of investing it in better investments than government bonds. History showed that was a better option in the past. There is no obvious reason to believe that the future would be different. The S&P 500 is one option with a long enough history and public data that the benefit is obvious.

There is no need to change what is covered by Social Security.

[Landrith]

As I was out walking, I realized our differences.

I am in favor of investing it in better investments than government bonds. History showed that was a better option in the past. There is no obvious reason to believe that the future would be different. The S&P 500 is one option with a long enough history and public data that the benefit is obvious.

I don't agree there is a trust fund as you understand it. I am remembering 60 Minutes back when there was some token investigative journalism showing a box file with notations, at best IOUs from different Fed agencies spending Treasury digital representations of currency borrowed at interest from the Federal Reserve. Back when some staffers were maintaining the charade.

I think the 'Trust Fund" that you are referring to is as spendable, investable, or real as the FDIC sticker in your bank window. FDIC having 1% of what deposits are at risk is not what is keeping the zeros in your online bank balance. It is the real politik of those who control your government. They don't want you lined up outside bank branches like the Chinese in Henan province https://www.scmp.com/news/china/poli...isis-it-may-be , they want you quiet and unafraid or suspicious so they can continue to take your grand kid's future money. On those occasional times they can't meet their obligations, the zeros haven't disappeared from your online balance, they just get added to your grocery and energy bills.

When we in the GOP wanted to get the government collected Social Security tax invested on Wall Street, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan (one of us) repeatedly shut us down. He made arguments to every interested Congressional committee that the government funds would just turn the S&P into poor performing investments with little or no return. The private sector cannot be entrusted with that much of the fiat currency.

Your Social Security is safe with all its digital zeros every day the apex financial predators want to walk the streets or return to their mansions and for no other reason. Protesters storm Sri Lanka presidential residence – BBC News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAVm9A2PVJM

[Landrith]

The thesis of this article is that the idea Social Security was "Trust Fund" was created to counter the original Republican criticism of the legislation. (Alf Landon's mansion is near where I plan to be launching my river boat this Summer). And that today the term "Trust Fund" is used unfairly by conservatives to defeat needed improvements to Social Security:

"The critics were right. Of course the Treasury spent the money obtained in exchange for the bonds in the reserve; what else could it do? Of course, the bonds were IOUs; all debt instruments are. Of course, the interest would come from the taxpayers; where else could it come from?"

The Myth of the Social Security Trust Fund
The Looted Trust Fund Myth Is a Serious Barrier to Social Security Reform
Wednesday, March 1, 2000

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of...ty-trust-fund/

[Too Little Time]

"The critics were right. Of course the Treasury spent the money obtained in exchange for the bonds in the reserve; what else could it do? Of course, the bonds were IOUs; all debt instruments are. Of course, the interest would come from the taxpayers; where else could it come from?"

I can agree with all you have said. Social Security is a fiction. But the fiction works for a lot of people.

The Trust Fund has a current value of about $3 trillion. S&P 500 value is $32 trillion. Total US wealth is $142 trillion. I could argue that investing the Trust Fund in the S&P 500 would drive other money elsewhere and that returns would be little changed.

I am willing to do away with the fiction and tax wealth to pay for the benefits that Social Security provides. It is not clear what households/businesses would do with the windfall from not paying Social Security taxes.

[Landrith]

I am not convinced the S&P 500 $32 trillion value isn't a bigger fiction. Looking at the capitalization of many "favored companies" versus real companies reliably delivering value. When a private concern fails or many fail, retirement funds are lost.

The same people breaking the law and profiting from the failure also seem to be first in line to profit from the inevitable government bail out. Compare and contrast that with the US Treasury that frequently "fails" (seen by occasional reduced demand for Treasury debt in the world markets), and just increases the money supply (prints money or adds zeros).

As long as D.C. and NYC are the biggest meanest thugs on the planet, we don't have to go through the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe or to see everything fail like in Sri Lanka, because our currency is surprisingly still being accepted for most of the stuff we need. Even Sri Lanka had to get US dollars to back up their national financial system. I guess that is what "full faith and credit" and the biggest military budget means.

[Too Little Time]

I am not convinced the S&P 500 $32 trillion value isn't a bigger fiction. Looking at the capitalization of many "favored companies" versus real companies reliably delivering value. When a private concern fails or many fail, retirement funds are lost.

The same people breaking the law and profiting from the failure also seem to be first in line to profit from the inevitable government bail out. Compare and contrast that with the US Treasury that frequently "fails" (seen by occasional reduced demand for Treasury debt in the world markets), and just increases the money supply (prints money or adds zeros).

As long as D.C. and NYC are the biggest meanest thugs on the planet, we don't have to go through the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe or to see everything fail like in Sri Lanka, because our currency is surprisingly still being accepted for most of the stuff we need. Even Sri Lanka had to get US dollars to back up their national financial system. I guess that is what "full faith and credit" and the biggest military budget means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXxC8ni4fsc gives a rational reason for Sri Lanka's problems. And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whfzA0A2xLg&t=1s gives rational reasons for The Congo's problems. The actual reasons may be different.

I am more of an invest in yourself, your kids, your own business, and then invest in publicly traded businesses kind of guy.

You referenced Landon. He has been wrong for a long time. While I realize the market can be irrational longer than I can remain solvent, I am not even thinking that the market can be irrational as long as Landon has been wrong.

If you believe that the S&P 500's value is a fiction, I am curious how long you believe that fiction has existed. I am also curious as how you invest your assets to handle your retirement.

[Landrith]

If you believe that the S&P 500's value is a fiction, I am curious how long you believe that fiction has existed. I am also curious as how you invest your assets to handle your retirement.

Unfairly to the S&P 500, my bias against publicly traded private corporations is from things like the market capitalization of Tesla compared to Ford: "At this moment in time, Tesla’s market capitalization is more than 10x higher than Ford’s" https://seekingalpha.com/article/456...ore-attractive I have generally been distrustful of the NYSE after first learning of the bail out of LTCM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-T...tal_Management. Then over the years I perceived the Fed using citizen obligations and guarantees to pick winners and losers in the capital markets (the very un Republican anti free market intervention to prop up S&P 500 corporations ostensibly to save the private invested retirement funds) Fed to prop up Wall St Shadowy committee ready to pour billions into stock markets to avert shares meltdown https://www.theguardian.com/business...eptember112001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workin...ancial_Markets

I don't even accept the retirement fiction. It did work for the WWII generation (state action to cut down many of the potential recipients called War followed up by the social planning virtue of Big Tobacco). Being a fairly non productive person, my late in life fantasy is more stone cottage freezing creek baths that works so well for the elderly in the Urals. I would prefer the island Mediterranean version, but successive generations of the nuclear family in the very mobile USA makes the non government sustained extended family support networks of a Mediterranean island or even a Somalian village unrealistic for me.

Easy for me to be an idealist without significant savings. I would like to think I would have the humanity and social consciousness not to invest in any Rockefeller connected venture or institution if I had wealth. i. e. the S&P 500 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HPfoAjjTug

[Too Little Time]

...

I passed though that phase of my life while in my late 20s.

[Gary Davis]

Dear Mr. TLT,

I read through your posts, with some difficulty and nausea, only because I'm a native Tarheel. I would really appreciate it if you could document your financial-related education, experience, and background. Without understanding from where your opinions emanate, its difficult to understand and place any veracity in what you say. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your a$$.

Gary

[George Jung]

Gosh. And so polite...

Try 'ignore' function, Gary; it's not as effective as duct tape, but... we use what we have.

HCR has a bit today addressing McCarthy's dilemma. He's basically given the far-RWW's his balls, and is now charged with coming up with a budget - but 'can't' pass a new debt ceiling without losing said balls.

The repubs are the dogs that finally caught the car - with no idea what to do with it. Twisting in the wind.

[Too Little Time]

Dear Mr. TLT,

I read through your posts, with some difficulty and nausea, only because I'm a native Tarheel. I would really appreciate it if you could document your financial-related education, experience, and background. Without understanding from where your opinions emanate, its difficult to understand and place any veracity in what you say. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your a$$.

Gary

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/201...-stock-market/
https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm

Those 3 links cover most of what I need to know about the S&P 500. That appears to be sufficient to cover the facts I relate. Back in the day - late 60's; early 70's, I did work on what is currently known as behavioral economics. I was kicked out of both the Vienna and Chicago schools of economic thought.

My comments on Social Security come from reading documents written by those who led the Social Security Administration in the past. And from reading answers that the Social Security people give to questions asked of them.

And Norman is the source of my understanding of those with torches and pitchforks.

From time to time I have had and still have a fiduciary duty to some. But not anyone here.

If you were more specific about the cause of your nausea, I could be more helpful.

Perhaps you could ask the others who give opinions to document their financial-related education, experience, and background.

[Landrith]

[url] I did work on what is currently known as behavioral economics. I was kicked out of both the Vienna and Chicago schools of economic thought.

My comments on Social Security come from reading documents written by those who led the Social Security Administration in the past. And from reading answers that the Social Security people give to questions asked of them.

And Norman is the source of my understanding of those with torches and pitchforks.

.

I have no economic training, but that didn't stop the secret anarcho-capitalist fraternity from getting me an invitation to post grad seminars furthering the Austrian School at Cornell. I didn't go. Lack of funds. lol.

Your prior post video reference to what went wrong in Sri Lanka was a little disturbing. Self guilt, no doubt. Once I hung with US Libertarian Party peeps. We thought market economics and Emancipation Capitalism was the solution. We prided ourselves on our "great successes" New Zealand and Chile. Years afterward I had the inconvenient embarrassment of adorable assistant professors from New Zealand, during the great diaspora caused by removing government subsidization of production and administrative sectors of the economy that New Zealand had for a hundred years maintained in a European stake holder or stable model. Which despite the tragedy of that lost generation may have eventually benefited New Zealand quality of life:
Why Have Kiwis Not Become Tigers?Reforms, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Performance in New Zealand https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_10_4_04_sautet.pdfhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19376529.2020.1854757

Sri Lanka ( a real torch and pitchfork situation) is better seen as a beta test of tightening the noose on serf countries as part of the IMF /WEF new global agenda of neofeudalism. Not the mistakes of Sri Lanka's own technocrats. One of the first things on IMF /WEF "to do" list is drastically cut food production/farming productivity. Hitler didn't consult Economists, the destruction of your opponents and their enslavement is a much older discipline...

[sandtown]

Those 3 links cover most of what I need to know about the S&P 500. .

Citing the S&P 500 is a deflectin.

If, heaven forbid, you are just starting out in your working life and get hit by a truck, you can get assistance from Social Security, even if your stock portfolio is just getting off the ground. 30% of all SS payments go to the disabled.

SS is INSURANCE

[Too Little Time]

Citing the S&P 500 is a deflection.

If, heaven forbid, you are just starting out in your working life and get hit by a truck, you can get assistance from Social Security, even if your stock portfolio is just getting off the ground. 30% of all SS payments go to the disabled.

SS is INSURANCE

I was asked a question. I did my best to answer it. Since I gave facts - but not opinions, about the S&P 500 on this thread, I felt that was important in covering my "financial-related education".

Blind men and an elephant. You might recall the story. Social Security serves many purposes. You can find comments describing Social Security's purposes. I prefer welfare as "general welfare" appears in the Constitution. It is not the claim that Social Security is insurance that is wrong. It is denying that Social Security is ONLY insurance that is wrong.

I would class disability and survivor payments as welfare. But if you want to claim insurance, I would suggest that old age is not sufficient to make a claim. I would suggest need is also necessary.

[Gary Davis]

TLT - So you have no formal economic training? Or training in civility? Your posts reflect that.

[Too Little Time]

TLT - So you have no formal economic training? Or training in civility? Your posts reflect that.

I did answer your questions. I think I included my education.

But you are most likely correct. Many have said I am untrainable.

If you are going to be critical of my economic background, perhaps, you could share yours.

[Corvida]

So like the growth under Reagan was the increased "money" supply from the increased debt relent by banks at 80 to 1,

Just a minor point, growth under Reagan did not increase. GDP growth per capita died, and hasn't topped 5% since Reagan destroyed our tax system and labor bargaining power. Traitors shouldn't get praise for breaking the economy.

[Too Little Time]

Just a minor point, growth under Reagan did not increase. GDP growth per capita died, and hasn't topped 5% since Reagan destroyed our tax system and labor bargaining power. Traitors shouldn't get praise for breaking the economy.

The compound annual growth rate of GDP was 3.6% during Reagan's eight years, compared to 2.7% during the preceding eight years. Real GDP per capita grew 2.6% under Reagan, compared to 1.9% average growth during the preceding eight years.

FDR appears to be the only president to break 5%.

Perhaps you have a different source.

Don't mistake my comment for support of Reagan's economic policy.

[Too Little Time]

TLT - So you have no formal economic training?

As I was vacuuming this morning, I thought about your comment about formal economic training.

The arguments I use don't depend on formal economic theories. One can check my arguments using high school math from the 60's. I gave you the data as well as the results of people doing that high school math. There are other places one can find the data. There are other places one can find the results. There is very little difference among the various sources.

I feel sorry for you and others who are unable to find their own answers. Economics, at least this area, is important to individuals.

[Landrith]

Just a minor point, growth under Reagan did not increase. GDP growth per capita died, and hasn't topped 5% since Reagan destroyed our tax system and labor bargaining power. Traitors shouldn't get praise for breaking the economy.

I am not a GDP fan. Back in my supply side days, we were in a GNP scored game. There are subtle and major differences: Why East Timor’s GNP is four times as high as its GDP https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-e...190021055.html Looking closely, GDP tends to value government workers dispensing welfare while at the time all that was negative growth to us, the granulization of what we saw as government's tax and destroy nature.

But, if I am typing something in the Bilge about the Reagan years and monetary policy, I am talking about how we on the Right have a misguided primitive fundamentalist view of government frugality. Republicans in general are not known for being monetary theorists. Reagan was telling us , like Bill Clinton was later telling us that they were cutting welfare (sounds like cutting government spending), but in reality, both were increasing government spending. And our guy Greenspan as Ayn Randian (literally sat at her knee) and small "L" Libertarian as will ever be allowed again in a Western Government was Fed Chairman under both. He was notorious for speaking economic gibberish to Congress giving plenty of cover for both presidents to say different conflicting things about government spending to different audiences. But at all times the good times in most of the memories of Bilge contributors, Government spending was increasing in order to provide the increased currency to employ more Americans at higher pay (not maxing the score on the GDP points board, but winning votes with the perceived increases in US standard of living): "During Alan Greenspan’s term at the frb alone, America’s monetary base tripled and more new money came into being than under all previous Fed chairmen combined." https://www.thetrumpet.com/3237-why-...ly-loses-value

Had mainstream Republican government frugality prevailed, it would have been completely different. Bilge rats would say it would have been Hooverism: The perils of Hooverism
Want to avoid a second Great Depression? Start by not imitating the president who made it worse.https://theweek.com/articles/909268/perils-hooverism

So when I say Ronald Reagan grew the economy with upside down sky scrapers of debt https://billofrightsinstitute.org/es...side-economics spent on the antithesis of libertarianism like a 600 ship Navy where American workers including me in the impoverished real Central America of the time, the American MidWest all went back to work, but mostly copying Kennedy's re-election strategy of steering defense contracts to factories in the urban West Coast and East Coast cities that had failed to elect him the first time around. I mean Reagan grew the economy, and then Clinton grew it some more to the point there was not enough unemployment to sustain capitalism. lol

Of course, I know that it would have been much better to have destroyed most of what scores high in GDP and return to a Gold backed hard dollar and Isolationism. Eventually, I conceded and recognized Pat Buchanan and Paleoconservatism got it right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism And that is how to win most blocked in the Bilge...

[Corvida]

FDR appears to be the only president to break 5%.

Perhaps you have a different source.

Don't mistake my comment for support of Reagan's economic policy.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ZxIA

Every president prior to Reagan broke 5% after ww2. No one since has done so until Biden, primarily due to Covid spending. Unlike prior spending it was direct, and immediate.

[Too Little Time]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ZxIA

Every president prior to Reagan broke 5% after ww2. No one since has done so until Biden, primarily due to Covid spending. Unlike prior spending it was direct, and immediate.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...over-to-obama/

But what good are statistics except to tell lies.