Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rocklobster who wrote (80803)	12/6/2000 11:50:15 AM
From: SliderOnTheBlack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

o/t rocklobster re: social security funding... Rock; I don't know the answer to your question. I am sure there are about 3,734 pages of Federal Regulations controlling what can & can not be done with the Social Security Funds; but that doesn't keep them from raiding it at need... ? Personally; I am against "privatizing" social security and/or allowing any discretionary investment options over even a "partial" amount of one's SS contributions. One of the primary reasons I am against it; is if we make it an "untouchable-stand alone" fund; it would not be broker & there would be nothing to fix and it would be working and will continue to work; as it was designed to do. Can you imagine; if we had Social Security Funds in a market like this ? Can you imagine; someone having say $350,000 at the start of the year - and whom was going to retire Jan 1 2001. What if they had it in a tech oriented fund & lost 1/3rd of their total net worth/retirement benefit ? What if we enter a prolonged Bear Market and they lost another 1/3rd next year; can you imagine losing 2/3rds of your entire fund & potential benefit right at retirement ? Another major concern I have; is can you imagine the "Political Pressure" to have the Fed virtually "Guarantee" the Stock Market ? The Demo's owe probably 65% of their congressional seats to the fear drilled into the retiree's in America that the Republican's are going to merely "lower the rate of increase" in benefit's (aka - draconian & massive cuts in "Demo-ese'). Can you imagine the political pressure for Greenspan to rescue & continually intervene in normal "down" markets as the AARPers went manic over a Bear Market ? We'd have Congress & the Senate paying more attention to the Stock Market than anything else. Entire elections would be determined on which party would exert the most influence on the market etc ? It would be chaos... I think Social Security should be made "untouchable, un-raidable, un-borrowable against" etc... it should be a stand alone, pristinely safe & conservatively invested fund. The Stock Market is about "risk" - Social Security is all about non-risk... providing a safety net & a supplement; if not in actuality; providing 100% of all retirement income to a vast percentage of all retiree's. What would we do if we entered a massive Bear Market and saw an entire generation of Retiree's fail to be able to even meet life's bare necessities due to a massive hit to the market ? - where would we get the money to bail out that generation ? It sounds great - surely; if the new generation starts at age 25; over 40 years there is little risk of not out-performing the present Social Security System; but I've yet to see a "phase in" type of proposal that adequately protects those say post - 55 years of age, or a proposal that addresses what we would do in the event of a multi-year bear market that dramatically impacted the markets & thus benefits ? Maybe there is a hybrid proposal out there that increases present IRA deductible limits, uses a phase in system protecting those over age 55, 58, 60 - or whatever agreed upon age is adopted; from participating in the market side of the program; and also addresses what we would do for retiree's who may potentially retire directly into a multi-year bear market ? - perhaps at age 55 there would be a mandated phase out of equities and back into a traditional guaranteed type of return, into treasuries as you propose etc... Bottomline; I haven't seen a proposal that makes sense from a safety net point of view yet...personally; I think the true "evil" that does exist on Wall Street - would be too tempted over that windfall... it would imho; merely turn into the greatest transfer of wealth in history... from reitree's who need it most - to Wall Street Bankers.