"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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"What part of the Houthis know that we knew the Houthis leader was going to his girlfriend's place did you not understand?
#42 | Posted by Danforth"

The part where we use this is a threat you ------- -------.

You know the story where Trump showed the Taliban leader a picture of his hideout and then said if you touch another American, you will kill you? It worked and we didn't create any martyrs in the process. Yeah, this is basically the same thing. But, for someone playing checkers, it may be a bit confusing so you should just sit this one out.

"Simple yes/no question.
#80 | Posted by ScottS

With no nuance necessary.

#82 | Posted by rstybeach11"

Exactly what nuance is required to answer the question of whether gain of function research occurred? Are you trying to pull a Bill Clinton and argue the meaning of the word is?

Now, if you think what they were doing falls short of 'gain of function' research, you can simply say no. The fact that you won't answer points to not even you believing that is the case.

"Sorry, we KNOW secrets were discussed, including a local source.
#36 | Posted by Danforth"

Per usual - YOU don't know ----. You pretend to know because your mind is stuck playing checkers when Trump and the DOD are playing 4D chess. The reason why people like Trump are successful is he counts on people being 'thinkers' like you.

"And, who does your current alias consider to be the "professionals" in this, I'll say, event?"

The professionals are the ones that run the DOD and the legitimately elected US president - not some ------- like you.

"... Your questions pre-supposes that secrets have been discussed in this latest media hoax. ...

Actually, no.

My questions asks, based upon the cavalier attitude of those in the conversation on the insecure Signal app, was this the only conversation on this insecure app?"
#34 | Posted by LampLighter "

If the conversation does not include national security relevant secrets, why the F do you have a right to know anything about what was or wasn't said on Signal?

"The "gain of function" was brought up to try and derail from the obvious criminal actions of this lawless president.
#78 | Posted by YAV"

Did it occur or not. Fauci testified in front of Congress that it didn't. So, do you believe it did (making Fauci guilty of lying to Congress) or you think it didn't (Fauci not guilty of lying to Congress). So, what do you believe? Simple yes/no question.

"Also - just so you know, all your nonsense was litigated years ago. You present nothing.
#73 | Posted by YAV"

Well, the Hillary one has been litigated:

"DNC, Clinton campaign agree to Steele dossier funding fine"

"Your current alias does not think they should have been classified? That's your opinion"

I leave it to the professionals to judge what should and should not be. I also believe that information is leaked intentionally to the press to use them as part of a larger strategy.

"I look more towards National Security than obsequious loyalty to the Trump administration."

No, you don't. You buy whatever the mainstream media tells you hook, line, and sinker.

"That question aside, what is your current alias' opinion about a Sec of Defense posting attack operational details on an unclassified app?"

It is his call - see the point about leaking above.

"Is this the only time Signal has been used to discuss National Security secrets?"
#32 | Posted by LampLighter"

Your questions pre-supposes that secrets have been discussed in this latest media hoax.

"Are you going on the record facts like these SHOULDN'T be classified?!?
#26 | Posted by Danforth"

I leave it to the US President and the head of the DOD to determine that - not some ------- on drudge.com or a whining group of reporters trying to run cover now by shifting 'were classified' to 'should have been classified'.

"But Republican hawks, Pentagon officials and even some inside the White House now believe Hegseth also messed up by sending likely classified details from his phone.
#28 | Posted by Corky"

Seriously, do you hear yourselves? You were calling for people to be charged with the Espionage Act a day ago and now you are backing down to whining that details 'should have been classified'. Go back to getting your assess kicked over the price of eggs.

"So, I'm not the only one to notice that?
#69 | Posted by LampLighter"

Do you believe that gain of function research occurred at the Wuhan lab? Simple yes/no question for you.

Did the Hillary campaign pay Steele to generate the fake Steele Dossier? Simple yes/no question for you.

The first step to being able to have a true debate is both sides agreeing on a central point of facts. So, please state your answers.