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.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (139096)	9/28/2008 8:01:21 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 173976

yeah right

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (139096)	9/28/2008 8:13:23 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 173976

Scrambled Nest Eggs By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Friday, September 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT Entitlements: Barack Obama and a think-tank guru suggest that the financial crisis proves the folly of allowing private retirement accounts. To the contrary, having that money in real named accounts is still a good idea. "If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would have had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week," Obama claimed while campaigning recently in Florida. "Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement every American deserves." Echoing that charge, Henry Aaron, senior fellow in economic studies at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, said: "As American financial markets are hammered by a financial storm more frightening and more damaging than Hurricane Ike, it is worth imagining what the world would have been like had President Bush's Social Security proposal been enacted and been effective for a couple of decades." As FactCheck.org points out, both Obama's claims and Aaron's fears are false and unfounded. The Bush plan would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. Current retirees would not have had their benefits changed by one penny. Under Bush's plan, which is entirely voluntary, workers would have been able to invest less than a third of their Social Security in private accounts. Unless they freely chose a riskier choice, they would have had their investments put in "life-cycle portfolios" that would automatically shift from high-growth funds to more-secure bonds as retirement approached. No one was going to throw momma from the train. When Obama tried to scare granny in Florida, the Dow Jones still stood 305% higher than it was at the start of the 1990s. Year to year the stock market looks risky, but over time it outperforms "safer" investments. It certainly outperforms Social Security. According to Princeton economics professor Burt Malkiel, from 1926 until today, yearly market returns have averaged about 10% before inflation and 7% after. That includes the Great Depression, World War II, Vietnam, Watergate, the '70s oil shock and even 9/11. A personal retirement account is no more risky than a system that has required repeated increases in tax rates and the amount of income taxed. Since its inception, the Social Security tax rate has climbed from 2% (1% each for employee and employer) to 12.4% (6.2% by each). The amount of income subject to the tax has been raised repeatedly, to the point where nearly 80% of U.S. families pay more in Social Security payroll taxes than in income taxes. While Washington frets over a $700 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Heritage Foundation estimates that Social Security will have an unfunded liability over the next 75 years of more than $29.9 trillion — with a "t" — in 2005 dollars. This is safe? Fact is, Social Security is all trust and no fund. The money a beneficiary receives comes from the paychecks of his children, grandchildren, friends and neighbors. There's no stash of your cash in an account with your name on it that nobody can touch. But with private accounts there would be. This money would be invested in the economy, providing both needed capital and liquidity. Currently it's just poured into the Treasury, where it becomes a slush fund for earmarks and bridges to nowhere. What exactly is wrong with letting younger workers put away some of the money they earn into real accounts containing real money with their name on it, a tangible asset producing a greater rate of return, and which can be passed on to their heirs or to anyone they choose? Obama calls it dangerous. We still call it empowerment — and real security.