V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,824 Posts
Just more gov't social programs that they'll find a way to f#ck up. They can't even manage social security and she thinks this will fix it?

How long before they figure out they have this massive pool of money that they can borrow against before it too becomes bankrupt?

Once again personaly responsibility is left out of the equation. It's OK, the gov't will support you....(as long as you vote for Hillary...:whatever:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
What a crock! Only $5000 annual contribution? I already have 401k that allows me over $20,000 including my over 55 catch-up allowance plus my employer matches 25% fully vested all the time.
I guess she's not real familiar with current 401k rules that already allow $15,500 to start with.
She must be talking out of her A-hole.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Oh this one can really get me going. So another government run retirement plan. As Shaw pointed out, why are we supposed to believe that will work with S.S. such a mess.

Anyone else notice that the article did not mention how the money would be invested? Could it be that the money would be invested in the stock market? Or will be invested in all those really great government investments the same as S.S.? If it's going into the stock market, why was it such a bad idea to privatize Social Security?

Thanks Hill, just stop taking my S.S. tax and screwing me. You want to force me to invest that money, fine, just not with you and Capitol Hill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
Social Security is a mess because the politicians spend it on things it was NOT intended for.
As for the gov't giving us 20-25 billion, I don't have a problem with that. They give every other country many of our $$. Probably came out of OUR SS fund.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
Pretty soon, people like Hillary are going to take away all incentives for people to be achievers. Why should folks go the extra mile to excel in life when Hillary will take it away from the people that earned it and give it to you when you don't deserve it? :hmmm:

This is Socialism, plain and simple. Redistribution of wealth. Why does she do it, to buy votes from the class envy, soak the rich crowd. Unbelievable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
thatoldbike said:
Pretty soon, people like Hillary are going to take away all incentives for people to be achievers. Why should folks go the extra mile to excel in life when Hillary will take it away from the people that earned it and give it to you when you don't deserve it? :hmmm:

This is Socialism, plain and simple. Redistribution of wealth. Why does she do it, to buy votes from the class envy, soak the rich crowd. Unbelievable.
The thing is, once the rich are 'soaked' by the higher taxes, and the government wants more $$$, who do you think is going to get 'soaked' by a tax increase?
:yes:
Us in the middle-class...just like we were when BJ Clinton was POTUS back in the 1990's.
 

·
FOG
Joined
·
6,970 Posts
thatoldbike said:
Pretty soon, people like Hillary are going to take away all incentives for people to be achievers. Why should folks go the extra mile to excel in life when Hillary will take it away from the people that earned it and give it to you when you don't deserve it? :hmmm:

This is Socialism, plain and simple. Redistribution of wealth. Why does she do it, to buy votes from the class envy, soak the rich crowd. Unbelievable.

All one has to do is read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
trooper113 said:
All one has to do is read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Had to Google that one. Maybe someone should read it to Hillary.

She'd choke on this "Rand argues that independence and individual achievement enable society to survive and thrive, and should be embraced. But this requires a "rational" moral code. She argues that, over time, coerced self-sacrifice causes any society to self-destruct."
 

·
<><
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
thatoldbike said:
Pretty soon, people like Hillary are going to take away all incentives for people to be achievers. Why should folks go the extra mile to excel in life when Hillary will take it away from the people that earned it and give it to you when you don't deserve it? :hmmm:

This is Socialism, plain and simple. Redistribution of wealth. Why does she do it, to buy votes from the class envy, soak the rich crowd. Unbelievable.
Exactly. She's a freakin socialist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
Yeah, like I would vote for some dumb ass politician that wants to increase govt handouts. I hope her stupidity sinks her dingy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
compressor#v said:
Social Security is a mess because the politicians spend it on things it was NOT intended for.
As for the gov't giving us 20-25 billion, I don't have a problem with that. They give every other country many of our $$. Probably came out of OUR SS fund.
They're not giving you anything you didn't already have except a big giant shafting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
Like Bush hasn't shafted us? My comment was NOT an endorsement of Hillary, rather a slam against dubya. I'm not looking for a handout, but I'd much rather see someone who is a citizen of THIS country get it if the politicians are just going to give it away. Were giving it to countries who hate our guts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
compressor#v said:
Like Bush hasn't shafted us? My comment was NOT an endorsement of Hillary, rather a slam against dubya.

Well that would be changing the subject in my opinion. But since you brought it up, I don't know about you but I got my tax bill reduced under GWB and I'm not among the rich.

I'm not looking for a handout, but I'd much rather see YOU GET YOUR EARNINGS TO INVEST AS YOU SEE FIT if the politicians are just going to give YOUR EARNINGS away. THEY'RE NOT WE'RE giving it to countries who hate our guts.
I can't disagree with the last part even as it initially stood. But especially so after the changes I made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Anyone can start their own private 401k, Roth, IRA, etc etc. Go down to your prefered bank and they will set you up. Banks love this kind of business.
All one has to do is work, earn money, be responsible, be disciplined and pay yourself a little out of each paycheck.
BS on Billary's plan. I wouldn't trust her with one red cent of mine.
I hope she keeps spoutin this kind of rubish. People are smarter than to fall for it and will vote conservative if they have half a brain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
people are not smart on saving for the future.

sniper said:
Anyone can start their own private 401k, Roth, IRA, etc etc. Go down to your prefered bank and they will set you up. Banks love this kind of business.
All one has to do is work, earn money, be responsible, be disciplined and pay yourself a little out of each paycheck.
BS on Billary's plan. I wouldn't trust her with one red cent of mine.
I hope she keeps spoutin this kind of rubish. People are smarter than to fall for it and will vote conservative if they have half a brain.


Sorry Sniper but most American have minimal in savings or retirement accounts. They simple allow themselves to get into the easy payment plan and pay minimal against their debt. The saving for the future is always on their wish list while spending today heads the list.

You might read the report at http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL30922_20060522.pdf. Reading through this report it becomes apparent that most American just are not getting with the programs available. Here is one of the finding of the aforementioned report describing the savings of 36% of the population who have some plan.
"The changes in average retirement account balances between 2001 and 2004 differed substantially according to the age of the household head. The median combined balance (in 2004 dollars) of all retirement accounts owned by households in which the householder was under age 35 rose from $7,456 in 2001 to $11,000 in 2004. Among households headed by individuals between 35 and 44 years old, the median retirement account balance actually fell between 2001 and 2004, declining from $30,888 to $30,000. Among households headed by persons between the ages of 45 and 54, the median combined balance of all retirement accounts grew from $51,125 in 2001 to $60,00 in 2004. The greatest increase in median retirement account balances between 2001 and 2004 — both in constant dollars and in percentage terms — occurred among households in which the household head was 55 to 64 years old. Among these households, the median balance of all retirement accounts rose from 58,580 in 2001 to $88,000 in 2004, an increase of 50%."

I know that's a lot of gobbly gook to most. Simply its telling us that those individuals in the pre retirement years (age 55 to 64) had $ 110,000 in some kind of a retirement program. Those with a plan represent 36% of the population: that is generally 4 people out of every ten. Considering the number of options made available since 1978 (30 years ago) I say the programs are faltering.

If you were to be a retiree with the $ 110,000 in the bank and had to survive from age 65 to 82 (generally accepted life expectancy) you are in bad shape financially. If you tried to use just the income on the plan you would earn 6% or less. That would give you less than $ 700 a month to live on. I don't think you would be living the good life. Even if you drew another $ 1,500 a month from SS things would be tight most of the time.

And for the 74% of American who have nothing in any plan the outlook is certainly not any better.

I'm not supporting required plans or other government options. But I am questioning who is going to pay to support whom in the end. If you 65 and retired with no income you are not going to be left to being homeless and staring on the streets in America. Someone else will have to save you from your own bad choices of not saving for the future.

Unfortionatly we live in the bail-out society where every time someone fails of their own accord we bail them out at our expense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
toybox99615 said:
Sorry Sniper but most American have minimal in savings or retirement accounts. They simple allow themselves to get into the easy payment plan and pay minimal against their debt. The saving for the future is always on their wish list while spending today heads the list.

You might read the report at http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL30922_20060522.pdf. Reading through this report it becomes apparent that most American just are not getting with the programs available. Here is one of the finding of the aforementioned report describing the savings of 36% of the population who have some plan.
"The changes in average retirement account balances between 2001 and 2004 differed substantially according to the age of the household head. The median combined balance (in 2004 dollars) of all retirement accounts owned by households in which the householder was under age 35 rose from $7,456 in 2001 to $11,000 in 2004. Among households headed by individuals between 35 and 44 years old, the median retirement account balance actually fell between 2001 and 2004, declining from $30,888 to $30,000. Among households headed by persons between the ages of 45 and 54, the median combined balance of all retirement accounts grew from $51,125 in 2001 to $60,00 in 2004. The greatest increase in median retirement account balances between 2001 and 2004 — both in constant dollars and in percentage terms — occurred among households in which the household head was 55 to 64 years old. Among these households, the median balance of all retirement accounts rose from 58,580 in 2001 to $88,000 in 2004, an increase of 50%."

I know that's a lot of gobbly gook to most. Simply its telling us that those individuals in the pre retirement years (age 55 to 64) had $ 110,000 in some kind of a retirement program. Those with a plan represent 36% of the population: that is generally 4 people out of every ten. Considering the number of options made available since 1978 (30 years ago) I say the programs are faltering.

If you were to be a retiree with the $ 110,000 in the bank and had to survive from age 65 to 82 (generally accepted life expectancy) you are in bad shape financially. If you tried to use just the income on the plan you would earn 6% or less. That would give you less than $ 700 a month to live on. I don't think you would be living the good life. Even if you drew another $ 1,500 a month from SS things would be tight most of the time.

And for the 74% of American who have nothing in any plan the outlook is certainly not any better.

I'm not supporting required plans or other government options. But I am questioning who is going to pay to support whom in the end. If you 65 and retired with no income you are not going to be left to being homeless and staring on the streets in America. Someone else will have to save you from your own bad choices of not saving for the future.

Unfortionatly we live in the bail-out society where every time someone fails of their own accord we bail them out at our expense.
Very good post.

But how is someone's failure to plan my problem? If people don't plan for retirement, I guess they have to work until they die. We have got to wean <sp?> society off of the entitlement/bail-out mentality and make them responsible for their own actions.

Didn't they used to have something called debtors prison? I'd rather support them that way to prevent them from making more bad decisions that I have to pay for. I know this all sounds cold-hearted, but we can't continue to bleed-out the people that make good decisions with their lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
good question

thatoldbike said:
Very good post.

But how is someone's failure to plan my problem? If people don't plan for retirement, I guess they have to work until they die. We have got to wean <sp?> society off of the entitlement/bail-out mentality and make them responsible for their own actions.

Didn't they used to have something called debtors prison? I'd rather support them that way to prevent them from making more bad decisions that I have to pay for. I know this all sounds cold-hearted, but we can't continue to bleed-out the people that make good decisions with their lives.
I'd say its one of the oldest problems faced by our European based Judo-Christian society. America has always dealt some how with those who don't provide for themselves. You can find lots of references to taxes being necessary to care for the poor, elderly and infirmed in old town meetings. Gone are the poor houses to be replaced with other programs with senior housing and free meals among them.

Maybe we have AARP responsible for most of the more current social welfare!
 

·
EASY DOES IT
Joined
·
8,914 Posts
thatoldbike said:
Very good post.

But how is someone's failure to plan my problem? If people don't plan for retirement, I guess they have to work until they die. We have got to wean <sp?> society off of the entitlement/bail-out mentality and make them responsible for their own actions.

Didn't they used to have something called debtors prison? I'd rather support them that way to prevent them from making more bad decisions that I have to pay for. I know this all sounds cold-hearted, but we can't continue to bleed-out the people that make good decisions with their lives.
You have it right there...I'll work 'til I die...construction pays very poorly and I save the max in 401k as well as attempt to squirrel away as much else as I can but in todays society I'm forced to spend just to live...oh I guess I could sell my Harley, give up movies and dinners out, vacations but then I won't be able to afford them later in life 'cause I'll have trouble buying alpo for dinner...

I'm not looking for handouts but without Medicare, SS and programs like that most of our parents would now be living on the street...as we will be in the future, we invest in this country on a daily basis and those pitiful programs are all the majority of the aged have. Few of us can support our parents needs if we abolished those programs. Keep in mind I'm speaking from a middle class perspective...85 percent of the country are in that income catagory or lower...
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top