Exit polls show Sarkozy has lost in France

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: If all my money had been in a private account when Bush and his buddies in the financial markets were gambling with everybody else's money, I'd be wiped out. Bernie Maddoff, Lehmann Brothers, Washington Mutual, AIG were NOT the patron saints of private accounts... Or didn't you get the memo?

Really? My private account was down a large percentage, but because I didn't sell, I didn't actually lose anything. Now I'm back where I was. You don't have any $$ in private accounts LJ?

Same here. The part that bugs me the most is that if we die before ss age, nothing gets left to the family.

LadyJazzer wrote: I did... I lost about $10,000... I never got it back... Thanks to Bush and his cronies, it vaporized... Just like all the money in Bernie Maddoff, Lehmann Brothers, Washington Mutual, AIG, etc.

Bush and "his cronies" have nothing to do with it. If you sold during a down market, you can't ever recoup that loss. I know lots of people who did the same, you aren't alone. They feared losing any more, so they sold, and stayed out till the market had recovered somewhat. By then it was too late. The other possibility was you had invested with a crook or a ponzi scheme...and just got taken by a criminal. That isn't Bush's fault, it is the criminal's fault.

My dad always lectured me. Why is the stock market the only thing we don't buy when a sale is on? We jump a the chance to buy a pair of jeans at 25% off, but when a stock in a good company is 25% off, we get scared and sell.

RenegadeCJ wrote: [
I've run the spreadsheets myself. We use them to persuade our employees to save in their 401k, and that every little bit counts. Even if you put only 1/2 of the amount (say, the portion the employer deposits on your behalf) into a private acct, you would be better off.

I was leaving medicare as it was. I think there are a lot of better ways to do that as well, but I really was just addressing the SS side. It is sad to me that people have worked hard their whole lives, and never saved, because they were under the impression SS was a retirement plan. Now they are struggling to get by on the meager returns. It has caused me to try to help others avoid that situation by getting them to save on their own. SS could then be the cherry on top instead of the main course.

I agree that SS is not a retirement plan, it's a safety net that people can depend on when all else fails. Many put their money into real estate thinking that as it appreciated they would one day sell and use the money for retirement. Not a bad plan, until the housing market crashed, and those that had commercial property or rental homes as a retirement plan were surprised to see just how much in taxes they owed on the appreciation/capital gains of that property. Then there are those who invested their money, if you are going back 45 years, yeah they did OK, but if you run the numbers for those who only started investing 20 years ago.....they are probably lucky to be even. And......there is no guarantee going forward that we will see the kinds of gains we did in the last 50 years..... Social Security has saved many seniors from pure poverty, it may be all they have, or may be all that keeps them from going through their meager savings in only a few years. 45 years ago there were no 401ks or IRAs.....just taxable savings and for some a pension plan with their company.....and we all know what has happened with those.

But SS is still here....and still helping an awful lot of people. As much as I do believe in personal responsibility, I also believe in reality and not everyone, I would even suggest that less than half, of the people have the understanding of finance to actually discipline themselves to save for retirement, or know how to do it. It would be nice if we could suddenly make every American have a well paying job, have a working knowledge of finance, be self disciplined, never get a serious illness that wipes out their savings even with insurance, not have made any stupid decisions with their money, never been unemployed, never had a house lose 1/3 of it's value.......you know, all those bad things that can actually happen to good people......then maybe we wouldn't need SS......let me know when our world looks like that.

neptunechimney wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: If all my money had been in a private account when Bush and his buddies in the financial markets were gambling with everybody else's money, I'd be wiped out. Bernie Maddoff, Lehmann Brothers, Washington Mutual, AIG were NOT the patron saints of private accounts... Or didn't you get the memo?

Really? My private account was down a large percentage, but because I didn't sell, I didn't actually lose anything. Now I'm back where I was. You don't have any $$ in private accounts LJ?

Same here. The part that bugs me the most is that if we die before ss age, nothing gets left to the family.

I have never viewed Social Security as an investment, it's an insurance policy against going totally broke in your old age, some people take out far more than they put in, some much less. Just like health insurance, or homeowners, or automobile.

LadyJazzer wrote: I did... I lost about $10,000... I never got it back... Thanks to Bush and his cronies, it vaporized... Just like all the money in Bernie Maddoff, Lehmann Brothers, Washington Mutual, AIG, etc.

Only $10,000. That's nothing. I've lost 10K in a single trade many times- but I don't blame Bush for it.

I paid more than twice that in taxes to uncle sam this year- I'll never see a dime of that money ever again!

archer wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote: [
I've run the spreadsheets myself. We use them to persuade our employees to save in their 401k, and that every little bit counts. Even if you put only 1/2 of the amount (say, the portion the employer deposits on your behalf) into a private acct, you would be better off.

I was leaving medicare as it was. I think there are a lot of better ways to do that as well, but I really was just addressing the SS side. It is sad to me that people have worked hard their whole lives, and never saved, because they were under the impression SS was a retirement plan. Now they are struggling to get by on the meager returns. It has caused me to try to help others avoid that situation by getting them to save on their own. SS could then be the cherry on top instead of the main course.

I agree that SS is not a retirement plan, it's a safety net that people can depend on when all else fails. Many put their money into real estate thinking that as it appreciated they would one day sell and use the money for retirement. Not a bad plan, until the housing market crashed, and those that had commercial property or rental homes as a retirement plan were surprised to see just how much in taxes they owed on the appreciation/capital gains of that property. Then there are those who invested their money, if you are going back 45 years, yeah they did OK, but if you run the numbers for those who only started investing 20 years ago.....they are probably lucky to be even. And......there is no guarantee going forward that we will see the kinds of gains we did in the last 50 years..... Social Security has saved many seniors from pure poverty, it may be all they have, or may be all that keeps them from going through their meager savings in only a few years. 45 years ago there were no 401ks or IRAs.....just taxable savings and for some a pension plan with their company.....and we all know what has happened with those.

But SS is still here....and still helping an awful lot of people. As much as I do believe in personal responsibility, I also believe in reality and not everyone, I would even suggest that less than half, of the people have the understanding of finance to actually discipline themselves to save for retirement, or know how to do it. It would be nice if we could suddenly make every American have a well paying job, have a working knowledge of finance, be self disciplined, never get a serious illness that wipes out their savings even with insurance, not have made any stupid decisions with their money, never been unemployed, never had a house lose 1/3 of it's value.......you know, all those bad things that can actually happen to good people......then maybe we wouldn't need SS......let me know when our world looks like that.

SS isn't here anymore. Because we have had both ignorant and crooked politicians on both sides of the aisle for so long, it is just a ponzi scheme. We are borrowing $$ from China and others (and doing magic with the USA's books that would put any CEO in jail) to give to the recipients. I'm fine with having a SS system, but pay for it. Pay for it TODAY. Right now were are shackling our future generations with a massive unfunded mandate they will never be able to escape from. The system needs to change. It is unsustainable as designed.

I agree people don't have the sophistication to save for retirement....but right now each employee has 12.4% of their income put to the SS system. If you took just 4% of that and forced them to put it in a private account, they would be forced to do so, and would reap better returns that will likely still be there in the future. At least there would be the chance...right now if you are 20 yrs old, you still have that 12.4% going into SS, and you are likely to get nothing, or a tiny bit when you retire.

RenegadeCJ wrote: SS isn't here anymore. Because we have had both ignorant and crooked politicians on both sides of the aisle for so long, it is just a ponzi scheme. We are borrowing $$ from China and others (and doing magic with the USA's books that would put any CEO in jail) to give to the recipients. I'm fine with having a SS system, but pay for it. Pay for it TODAY. Right now were are shackling our future generations with a massive unfunded mandate they will never be able to escape from. The system needs to change. It is unsustainable as designed.

I agree people don't have the sophistication to save for retirement....but right now each employee has 12.4% of their income put to the SS system. If you took just 4% of that and forced them to put it in a private account, they would be forced to do so, and would reap better returns that will likely still be there in the future. At least there would be the chance...right now if you are 20 yrs old, you still have that 12.4% going into SS, and you are likely to get nothing, or a tiny bit when you retire.

How will you force them to put it into a private account? Will the government dictate what investments they can have, or let them choose, and if they choose badly we are back to people being broke when they retire.....or if the market goes south right before they retire they are basically just as bad off as if they had only saved 2%....SS needs fixing, not replacing. As does Medicare.

Like many Americans, our government played fast and loose with the money when the economy was good.....and now when the economy is down we wish we had that money back. You talk about individuals saving for the future......why the hell didn't Bush decide to save this country's money for the future instead of handing out gifts to the citizens that we could ill afford? Yes the government spent too much, yes we gave tax cuts to people who didn't need them just because we could, yes we spent money we didn't have but expected to have in the future.......there is more than enough blame to go around, but using seniors and the middle class to fix our mistakes may look like the easy way out of this, but it isn't. Everyone needs to pony up more......taxes WILL have to rise as well as spending be cut to balance our budget. It has been shown that just cutting spending to the bone does not improve a country's economy.....balancing higher taxes with spending cuts does.....and trying to balance a budget on the backs of those least able to afford it is a recipe for disaster. We can wish all we want that people were different, all highly educated, able to get well paying jobs and savvy in investing for their future, but wishing won't change reality. And bitching about freeloaders, welfare moms, unemployed who can't find a job, and on and on will do nothing to help us.

RenegadeCJ wrote: I agree people don't have the sophistication to save for retirement....but right now each employee has 12.4% of their income put to the SS system. If you took just 4% of that and forced them to put it in a private account, they would be forced to do so, and would reap better returns that will likely still be there in the future. At least there would be the chance...right now if you are 20 yrs old, you still have that 12.4% going into SS, and you are likely to get nothing, or a tiny bit when you retire.

It's worse than even that - as with every other tax increase on the program in the past, those paying into the system are going to be expecting more in return for their "investment" and benefits paid out, the very thing dragging the program into fiscal insolvency, are going to have to increase as a result. It is already set up that the more you pay in during your working years the greater your "benefits" when you retire. The politicians running the scheme are trying everything they can to make it look like a pension plan when it was never intended to be one any by law isn't one. If the "progressives" want a federal pension plan for the working class, then set up a federal program that provides them that very thing - a pension plan that they have a private property right to established by contract law that can't be taken away from them - which isn't what Social Security is at all. What Social Security is instead is a yearly tax on those who are currently working whose proceeds are then spent on those who are currently retired. Those currently working will not be receiving the fruits of their own efforts when they retire, they will be receiving the fruits of the efforts of others. Social Security is a perpetual federal jobs program whereby the older workers are encouraged to leave the work force so that those entering the work force may have their jobs.

PrintSmith wrote: Social Security is a perpetual federal jobs program whereby the older workers are encouraged to leave the work force so that those entering the work force may have their jobs.

And is that so bad? People should leave the work force in their prime and put there still considerable energies into other pursuits.......volunteerism among seniors is very high.......they also are mentors, spend quality time with kids and grand kids, travel, try new hobbies enjoy the fruits of their labor......and yeah, open up a job for someone just starting out. sounds like a win/win to me.

LadyJazzer wrote: What they were intended for, and what they are now is about as useful as the dead-end discussion about what the right-to-vote in Colonial America was intended for (White, rich, property owners) and what it is now. Spare me your "intent" b.s.

Stupidity is watching the austerity measures kill the economies of at least three countries in Europe and thinking that it will work here. Austerity KILLS economies. Trickle-down doesn't...

And the good little Kool-Aid drinking Righties are sociopaths, who would rather see seniors and children starve rather than part with a dollar in taxes...And on the whole, I find anthrax and pond-scum to be a higher life-form.

I really hope you don't manage your own finances like how you want Europe to manage theirs. Sometimes stimulus is needed like now but when times were good they should have been saving instead of lowering retirement ages etc.