"As of this moment, Social Security is already in the black:
"The Social Security trust funds are projected to run short of money by 2035, at which point the program would only be able to pay about 83% of scheduled benefits"
#33 | Posted by snoofy"

The program is telling you that they are going to default on your payment - and you are claiming this is 'in the black'? You can't fix stupid.

"Been hearing from a lot of Trumpers in news articles and on social media complaining about losing their jobs, or in the case of Nebraska, losing their immigrant laborers.
#42 | Posted by ClownShack"

The only jobs that had huge slowdown were tech workers in the Bay Area - that is not Trump's core group.

As to Nebraska, you have to be ------- stupid to simultaneously whine about a majority of economic gains over the last 2 decades going to the top 10% WHILE ALSO demanding an unrelenting flood of illegals.

You realize what happens in the market system? Nebraska farmers will raise wages to attract more legal workers - the worst solution is to bring in a bunch of illegals to flood the schools and social services while suppressing wages. But, liberals have been stuck on stupid for immigration since the year 2000.

"Personally, I'd prefer to get 77% of my benefits under the current system, than 0% if and when the stock market crashes. All the while enriching stockbrokers with a cut, and who bring zero value to the process.
#28 | Posted by censored'

Of course you would - you are stupid. If you would prefer a 2% rate on bonds vs. a 12% rate on the market just because there may be some fees for brokers, you are ------- stupid.

"Why didn't they do that in the first place?
#53 | Posted by ClownShack"

Because ------- Dems conspired with Corporate GOP to flood the country with illegals. I blame the GOP as much as the Dems. The difference is the GOP has come to their senses.

"Why didn't they do that in the first place?
#53 | Posted by ClownShack"

Because ------- Dems conspired with Corporate GOP to flood the countries with illegals. I blame the GOP as much as the Dems. The difference is the GOP has come to their senses.

"Since you're cherry-picking, do a decade starting 11/1/1929.
Without an insurer of last resort, you're risking a total default.
#54 | Posted by Danforth"

SS is a perpetual program - there is no need to ever sell it in large part based on a single death or retirement need. Hence, the relevant return is the long run return - which is 10-12% vs. 2% on the SS bonds. I don't think you have an issue with CalPERS or TIAA CREF investing in the market - they would both be bankrupt without market returns. Yet, you -------- clamor for 2% bond yields. You can't fix stupid.

"Please provide the reasons why your current alias sees those returns for bonds and stocks.
Also, provide the timeframe for those stated returns. A month? A year? Two years? etc...
#73 | Posted by LampLighter"

Literally every pension fund, including CalPERs, CalSTRs, TIAA CREF, etc do exactly that. You -------- don't know the difference between personal investing and running a pension fund. That is why you insist on your 2% return - because you are fundamentally stupid.

"I've seen more like 3-4% and 8-9%, as a Trustee of a pension fund.
#81 | Posted by Danforth"

It is not even worth arguing the numbers (you are wrong) because you have already proven my point. Why is it a-okay for pension funds to invest the money and earn market rates but you -------- demand that SS is invested in 2% bonds? Tell us your rationale as to why a pension fund is different than the SS fund.

"Got any evidence of what guarantee of they promise or the future?
#82 | Posted by LampLighter"

A fund like CalPERS usually aims for a 9-10% annual return. This is result of a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, alternative assets, etc. Last year, they earned 9.3%. But again, you -------- demand a 2% return on the SS fund. You can't fix stupid.

"Nobody "requires" SS to only return 2%;

Yes, they do. It is the exact -------- like yourself crying that you don't want SS turned over to Wall Street.

"Real Trustees would've guaranteed a much more lucrative retirement, and doubtless reset the balance between SS and Medicare: less could've gone to the former, and more to the latter."

They way they do that is by investing in the market. How stupid are you?

"If we were really serious, members of Congress would have to reveal all investments to Trustees, who would then invest with that knowledge.
#85 | Posted by Danforth"

I would be perfectly fine with Nancy Pelosi managing the entire SS fund for a 1% annual management fee. It would be worth $20T+ by now.

"Well, my version doesn't include the parent company going belly up. Yours does."

The S&P 500 is going to go belly up? All 500 companies? Again, how stupid are you. Do you understand the meaning of diversification? You claim to have experience with a pension fund - clearly another lie as you are clueless.

"Who is your insurer of last resort? Because we tried that being the worker, and it failed miserably. That's why we have Social Security; the reason is in the name."

And Social Security is going bankrupt in the next 10 years -------. You do understand the concept of diversification? Clearly not.

"And what would've happened to the system if we were all in, during the 2007-2008 Bush Bust & Bailout?
#89 | Posted by Danforth"

Well - who could ever know...except for the fact that you just need to look at the returns from CalPERS, CalSTRS, TIAA CREF and just about every other state pension fund over this period. Again, this is not personal investment - this is fund investment with known distributions. It is not rocket science. But, you are clearly stuck on stupid with your demand for a 2% return.

"This guy is a clown, but at least he generates site traffic.
#93 | Posted by REDIAL"

You -------- are just stuck on stupid. We know for a fact that SS goes bankrupt in the next 10 years. We have 2 ways to fix it:

1.) Have the fund invest in the market and earn market returns - no other fix is required
2.) Continually ask for the SS contribution from your paycheck to increase

You -------- continually vote for more and more taxes - because you are fundamentally stupid.

"3). Remove the max $176k income level for contributing to SS from people who make more than that.
#96 | Posted by Corky"

As I said, you solution is to raise taxes. Now, I doubt you have 2 nickels to rub together - but do tell me, do you put all your savings into US government bonds? If not, why not?

"Not if we don't allow it. 1 additional point for both the worker and the employer puts SS into balance for 75 years."

As I said, keep raising taxes and keep the system just scraping by - you prefer this over investing in the market so that the Fund could actually grow into a sovereign wealth fund because you are fundamentally stupid.

"In fact, the equation produced a SURPLUS at first, after Reagan raised withholding rates. And we knew then. the surplus would drop below zero sometime around 2011."

So, we just need to take in more money from the new investors to pay out the old investors or the scheme goes bankrupt. Yeah, that doesn't sound like a Ponzi scheme at all.

"Moronic. You're leaving fates to the whim of the marketplace.
#97 | Posted by Danforth"

Literally EVERY OTHER PENSION FUND in the world does exactly that. Are they all just stupid? You want to take back your lie about working with a pension fund now? You clearly don't understand ---- about them and it would violate their fiduciary duty by even letting you in the building.

Again, we have 40 years of stock return data. Would SS be better off now or worse off now if the Fund would have been invested in the market? Simple yes or no answer will do.

"Of course, Northern European Social Democracies offer the best pension systems these days... and what they don't do is invest in volatile corporate markets
#100 | Posted by Corky"

You have a near perfect record of being 100% wrong in everything you post.

For this case, let's take Norway:

"The Norway Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), also known as the Oil Fund, invests primarily in international equity and fixed-income markets, with a smaller portion in real estate and renewable energy infrastructure"

Or how about Sweden:

"In Sweden's pension system, 2.5% of pensionable income is allocated to a funded pension scheme, allowing individuals to choose how to invest their contributions, with the option to select from various funds or opt for a state-preselected option."

You are truly stuck on stupid.

"No, my preference is to treat the system as a pension plan with Trustees, where the money CAN'T be commandeered by greedy politicians."

Not a single dollar of the SS trust fund was stolen by politicians. The reason why the fund is going bankrupt has nothing to do with money being stolen - it is due to ------- liberals forcing the fund to only buy US government bond with ---- yields exactly as you are still doing now.

"You still haven't done the models for SS during 2007-2008
#103 | Posted by Danforth "

I have - you can refer to CalPERS return over that timeframe. The fund went down in 2008/2009 but had high gains going into the financial meltdown and strong returns after. From 2007 to 2011 (5 year period), the fund yielded an 18% total gain (3.4% IRR). So, even taking into account the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, it still performed your 2% bond yield you insist on taking.

"Scotts- you look like a clown car valet arguing tax stuff with Danforth.
#123 | Posted by Alexandrite"

If that is your honest takeaway reading our exchange here, you are an even bigger ------- than the rest of the liberal -------s posting here. He is clearly clueless about how pension funds work. And to top it off, we now have this from him:

"I'd have no problem with a percentage of the income invested in the markets. Or controlled by the participants. Fine by me.
#120 | Posted by Danforth"

Basically, he just admitted his entire argument he has bloviating over has been wrong. I don't want to push his nose into ------- or spike the football here - but the entire argument was about moving the SS fund to allow it to invest in the market to earn more than 2% and Danforth just conceded the point.

"If the money is repaid at some point in the future, we could say is was just "borrowed." But no arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money will definitely have been stolen."

Your article might have a point except SS payouts have been higher than collections for about the last 15 years - and what happened? The government paid it back with the ---- 2% interest rates. No money has been or ever will be stolen - and yet, it is bankrupt in a decade. Theft was never the problem.

"This would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual surpluses. But Social Security ran it last annual surplus in 2009, and began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security's total tax revenue by $49 billion.

So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China, or one of our other creditors.

#125 | Posted by Alexandrite"

So the government pays for the SS shortfall by borrowing money to ensure SS is paid in full...got it. Where is the theft occurring that you are whining about?

"Really? I'll trade you a 2% IOU with a 25 year maturity for all the money you have."

That is exactly what you ------- Democrats demanded. Now you are regretting it?

"I learned as a Trustee of multiple pension plans.
#128 | Posted by Danforth"

Why don't you tell us about your 12" penis, pin-up girl wife, and your fleet of Bugatti.

No one that has read more than 10 of your posts believes anyone would let you come close to managing money.

"You can't tell the difference between the single-digit amount YOU PROPOSED, and 100%?!?
#132 | Posted by Danforth"

I didn't propose ---- - that is the Swedish Plan (ie, NOT MINE). Oh, and as you seem to be mentally deficient, you should probably know that the 2.5% does not refer to "2.5% of the pension fund allocation" -------.

"I could buy a top-of-the-line Outback with the money I haven't lost since then.
#137 | Posted by Danforth"

Lol, of course you would be rolling in a ----- Outback. The comedy writes itself.