Of course you didn't. It's so easy just to say “No!” to anything productive. According to you, SS is unsustainable, but your “answer” is to make it less sustainable, by sucking funds off to the “private sector” even though you want to control those funds and not allow them to be private after all.

But that wasn't your plan, it was the Republicans, wasn't it?

Do us a favor, will you? Either make up your own plan, support someone else's plan or shut up. According to you, your position is too confusing for us simple-minded people to understand.

Bonds of enterprises with a large federal presence, I would say yes.

There's one thing to consider though. Governments can “cheat” and reduce their interest levels and their interest costs by making their bonds tax-free. There's no reason why politically favored enterprises could not also enjoy this benefit. (“Social responsibility tax incentives and rewarding responsible firms”)

Would have, yes. (Should have, no.) In addition to the feds' insisting on “social responsibility” and all other kinds of political “gargantuan shareholder activism” nonsense, putting federal officials into boards of directors or into management positions, etc., there would probably be increasingly loose regulations or restrictions on withdrawals by individuals. The typical progression would be downward in price or cost and “size,” as we've anticipated with housing activities and Cash for Clunkers (automobiles): First home expenses, then automobile expenses, then large appliance (durable goods) expenses, eventually to the stereos, televisions, etc. It would buy votes and would be irresistable to the Dems (especially if losses were repaid by progressive taxation).

I specified no program of “mine.” I stated correctly that the current Social Security is unsustainable and will begin to fail in the next decade, affecting federal finances, and I was against the equities-based (actually more like securities-based; it could have involved bonds as well as stocks, typically in mutual funds) program of Bush's; I stated correctly that this would have made Washington (“private” accounts in a government program is simply bogus, if not immediately, then as soon as the next election) into an enormous institutional investor, prepared to inject politics (Democratic, lib-PC politics) into the business world (even more than exist now). That I opposed this should have been plainly evident to all.

Now, that the Dems merely, stupidly opposed everything and proposed nothing during the earlier raising of Social Security's changes and rescue, a program the Dems “own” and could have easily rescued and had their own way at it, stupidity that made them worse than the GOP, is the most important fact here.

An argument could be made that holding back savings for old-age isn't much use to people if they die before they get there.

“There’s a feeling that the only way to get a bipartisan agreement is to defeat a Democratic proposal on the first hand and then the Democrats will come to Republican leadership and then, at that point, they’ll know the only way they’re going to get health care reform is bipartisan.”

How you view this statement depends on your political lens. If you think the Democrat's proposal is way too far to the left, then this statement makes sense. If you think the proposal is just right, then his statement could be translated as “Bipartisanism is Republicanism. On health-care reform, it’s either the Republican way or no way at all.”

So, the debate isn't furthered at all, but instead you've just illustrated the ideological divide.

I disagree bonds would be any safer. The current crisis was, after all, precipitated by problems with debt instruments. And in any case, the government is the ultimate long-term investor. If stocks dive for a year or two, they can easily ride it out.

As far as what would have stimulated GDP more I don't know the answer but the bonds would have had considerably greater safety than stocks and therefore would have been preferable. The exception might be investing in very stable high-dividend stocks like utility companies, etc. The upshot would have been taxpayers providing an additional pool of money for businesses to borrow, more than likely lowering interest rates which would have been stimulative.

Social security returns and GDP growth are to some extent synonymous. If American productivity and competitiveness does well, social security will do well, regardless of the face value of the securities it holds.

So it should be invested in whatever will boost GDP the most. I just not sure what that is. DLS is right that investing in corporate equities will tend to socialize the economy, encouraging more corporate decisions to be made based on politics than economic efficiency. That's probably the wrong answer. But wouldn't bonds have the same problem?

Anyway posts like Stickings are amusing since they mirror the posts from right-wing wingnuts a few years ago right before the GOP went over the cliff. Liberals seem to have a shallower learning curve in self-destruction.

Your “program” starts running deficits as soon as the “gee, whiz” investors start “investing” in “sure things.”

My dad thought he knew something about the stock market. Many thousands of dollars later he found out that he was a regular Ralph Kramdon, with his get-rich-quick schemes. All I can say is I'm glad he gets that $1,000 a month, cause otherwise he wouldn't be eating.

Once the program begins running deficits, less than ten years from now, additional revenue will have to be found in order to redeem the trust fund bonds and pay benefits in full. It has been bad math for ages. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme that is unsustainable. And if that's not bad enough math, as it should be, consider the effective “rate of return” on Social Security taxes paid, versus Treasury bonds.

“My god, can you imagine what would have happened if the SS money had been put on the stock market.”

I was concerned at the time what could have happened. The federal government would have become a gargantual institutional investor, to be followed thereafter by idiotic political activism, demands for “social responsibility” and other nonsense, and pursuing political instead of business objectives.

Bearing that in mind, now you can fully appreciate the real magnitude of how bad it would have been.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kiefer/Educatio…

http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-mete…

How fortunate you are. You are obviously an excellent investor.

What do you tell the ex-Enron employees that had all their money in company stock? Do you lecture them as to how silly they were to be such foolish investors? Do you would also say, “Bon Appetit” for the dog food they will be eating?

Also, I wonder how long the money you get will last? My 80 something father used to bitch the same way you did until I pulled out his SS payment history and pointed out to that him that paying 50 cents a week in 1955 wouldn't go very far these days, even in 1955 money.

We added it all up, compounded the interest and he broke even after nine years.

I'll save you the trouble—–there never was such a requirement. Since 2004, my long-term fixed maturity portfolio and insurance company annuities have had aggregate appreciation of about 4.5% per annum. Well above the SS COLA adjustments over the same time period.

Your Dem heroes lost me money.

Well, some stockbrokers I knew at the time thought it was a swell idea.

Today's episode of DLS Lost in space.

“The GOP added a Medicare drug benefit. They've done more than the Democrats have, for decades.”

Ah yes, passed an unfunded mandate that made sure that the Federal governmebt would pay retail for drugs bought for seniors.

Thanks DLS, your “more” is more than the same self-serving private industry welfare.

No they didn't. You keep saying that, but it isn't true.

It was a half-hearted attempt that went nowhere because it was a dumb idea. All it wanted to do was take the SS money and put it in the stock market. The people that have 401k's lost most of their money in those, so lets throw Social Security money out with it!