View Full Version : January and February
The last 3 days of a month and the first two days of the next month tend to be the most bullish, so I'm expecting our lackluster rallies to continue next week.
HOWEVER, February is still traditionally a bad month for all indices and particularly bad after a down January.
February has also traditionally been the worst NASDAQ month of the year in post election years (avg down 4.5%).
rokid
01-28-2005, 07:05 PM
"If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians." - Warren Buffet ;)
tsptalk
01-28-2005, 07:08 PM
rokid wrote: "If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians." - Warren Buffet ;)
Speaking of Warren, he owns 96 million shares of Gillette which is up $5 today after the Proctor & Gamblebuy out. Nice day. :shock:
rokid wrote: "If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians." - Warren Buffet ;)
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana
And anyway, if past history were all there was to this game, then the HISTORIANS would be the richest people, not the librarians. The librarians merely point the historians in the direction of the history books. *LOL* I think Warren is great but even he isn't always right.
rokid
01-28-2005, 08:35 PM
Hey, I work with librarians and Warren's quote is LOL funny!
Anyway, who's the better investor? Buffet or Santayana?:^
Hey rokid, "past history"? What history isn't past history? ;)
As I said before, Warren is a great investor and great American, but I don't think he is as brilliantas, say, Albert Einstein or Bill Belichick. *LOL*
saraho wrote: As I said before, Warren is a great investor and great American, but I don't think he is as brilliantas, say, Albert Einstein or Bill Belichick. *LOL*
Agreed. However, he is richer and this is an investment board. :dude:<-- Frizz B.
I heard on Bloomberg that the OoO added 4M shares pre-buyout.
rokid
01-30-2005, 02:06 AM
Hey rokid, "past history"? What history isn't past history? ;)
"future history"?
"If grammarwas all there was to the game, the richest people would beEnglish teachers".----Rokid
OK, you get the last word.
Go Pats!!! :^
I don't think this is the time to emphasize seasonality - January is typically a very strong month, and look what we've been through thus far. :shock:
Mike wrote: I don't think this is the time to emphasize seasonality - January is typically a very strong month, and look what we've been through thus far. :shock:
Well, IHMO, that's exactly WHY we need to review seasonality. It assistsus in knowing where we are and where we are going....and what we should do. Past Januarys like this one generally resulted in poor years...
...but the year ends in five, which is bullish. :D
The C fund for January 2005 was down 2.4%
During the past 50 years, January's S&Phas been down 20 times. Of those 20 times, the following month of February was down 13 times (65%).
January February
-0.7-1.8
-0.8-4.7
-0.9-3.9
-1.0-0.4
-1.6-2.1
-1.7-3.7
-1.8-6.1
-2.0+1.0
-2.7-1.7
-3.6+3.5
-3.8+1.6
-4.2-3.3
-4.4-3.1
-4.6 +1.3
-5.1-2.0
-5.1 -2.2
-6.2 -2.5
-6.9 +0.9
-7.1 +0.9
-7.6 +5.3
Don't you think that kind of analysis is looking for patterns that aren't relevant? things that aren't there? almost like investing based on celestial alignment or tea leaves?
How helpful/accurate is it?
Rolo wrote: Don't you think that kind of analysis is looking for patterns that aren't relevant? things that aren't there? almost like investing based on celestial alignment or tea leaves?
How helpful/accurate is it?
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say, 54 year ago, you gave me $10,000 to invest for you in the S&P. And lets say I only invested the money during the month of February. After 54 years, you would have $9,670. Had you invested the money only during the month of September, after 54 years, you would have $6,180 now.
The fact that these have traditionally been the two worst months of the year should be a consideration...they have been bad for 55 yrs, 20 yrs, 10 yrs and 5 yrs. I'm not saying this should be your sole consideration, but its definitely something to consider.
But what if this February is in the 35%?
What about Februarys in years that end in 5?
What about Februarys in first-year second-term presidencies?
Ah ha! I bet Februarys in first-year second-term presidencies in years that end in 5 do vErY well, no?
My point is that it appears to me like that John whatshisface mind-reader crap...you can get it to say pretty much anything given a little tid-bit. Note I only mean these historical statistics, not historical market conditions.
Rolo wrote: But what if this February is in the 35%?
What about Februarys in years that end in 5?
What about Februarys in first-year second-term presidencies?
Ah ha! I bet Februarys in first-year second-term presidencies in years that end in 5 do vErY well, no?
My point is that it appears to me like that John whatshisface mind-reader crap...you can get it to say pretty much anything given a little tid-bit. Note I only mean these historical statistics, not historical market conditions.
As I said..its something to consider..not a sole criterion.... If you think its meaningless, then so be it.
After 54 years, your $10,000 would have grown to $19,550 having invested only in Decembers (that's an avg of 1.7% each year)
After 54 years, your $10,000 would have declined to $6,180 based on September investments (that's an avg decline of0.7% each year).
I think there is some merit in considering this ...
saraho wrote: As I said..its something to consider..not a sole criterion.... If you think its meaningless, then so be it.
After 54 years, your $10,000 would have grown to $19,550 having invested only in Decembers (that's an avg of 1.7% each year)
After 54 years, your $10,000 would have declined to $6,180 based on September investments (that's an avg decline of0.7% each year).
I think there is some merit in considering this ...
If I had $10000 54 years ago, I would of been one the top 20% of the "well to do"......
tsptorture wrote: saraho wrote: As I said..its something to consider..not a sole criterion.... If you think its meaningless, then so be it.
After 54 years, your $10,000 would have grown to $19,550 having invested only in Decembers (that's an avg of 1.7% each year)
After 54 years, your $10,000 would have declined to $6,180 based on September investments (that's an avg decline of0.7% each year).
I think there is some merit in considering this ...
If I had $10000 54 years ago, I would of been one the top 20% of the "well to do"......
Oops, I guess I should clarify that. I meant as a 20-something year old............
Did anyone see that Mrs. Kerry only paid 12% income tax last year? Unbelievable.
She like most rich people hold a large amount oftax free muniss....they are great for the rich people but they also hold down the taxes of the poor folk like us since the munis are used to fund needed itemslike pave roads, build hospitals, airports and fund the states GOs.
If tax reform goes through...munis will be dumped faster then Colin Powell....since rich people can put their money in taxable bonds and not have to pay income because income will no longer be taxed...in turn....
the states will have to figure out how to pay for thedumped munisand how to fund the projects the munis used to fund...HMMM....how would they do that?
Cutting services, raising property taxes, state income taxes and state sales tax is a start....25% fed tax plus 25% state tax crap is going to hurt someone??? Wonder how???
Good luck out there....and do not drink the kool aide.
MT
Interesting enough the only issue Kerry did not hammer Bush on was tax reform because Kerry knows where is bread is buttered....if his wife dumps the munis and can put her wad into the currently taxable bonds that will no longer be taxable if tax reform goes through that would be another 15-25M a year of income for them each year that will compound and compound and compound tax free....
Interesting...two classes rich and poor...15 years...buy silver.
MT
Congress knows who elects it and will not pass much in the way of tax reform. You might see some changes, but nothing major will come through... you can take that to the bank - same with social security.
That was what was said about the dividend tax cut.......never pass.
They will be combined onto one bill and be shoved through early next year.
I believe you were one the one that said social insecurity and tax reform were back burner stuff....did not seem that way at the state of the union to me??
Interesting.
MT
There is little push to get these things done, except from Bush himself. To get what he wants, he'll have to get his whole party behind him (this is not the case right now), plus he'll have to sway some Democrats. That will be extremely difficult.
It could also be argued credibly that Medicare/medicaid is in far worse financial shape and must be dealt with as well. Democrats are already saying that (in addition to voicing their strong opposition to Bush's plan).
If Bush gets anything close to what he wants through Congress within a year or two, I would be very surprised.
I must agree with MT on this issue. Personally, I think that Bush misspoke when he said that the Social Security system is broken and needs to be fixed. I think what he really meant to say was that the US Economy is broken and needs to be fixed, and the only place he wants to get the money to fix it is from Social Security.
cowboy
02-03-2005, 03:29 PM
saraho wrote: I must agree with MT on this issue. Personally, I think that Bush misspoke when he said that the Social Security system is broken and needs to be fixed. I think what he really meant to say was that the US Economy is broken and needs to be fixed, and the only place he wants to get the money to fix it is from Social Security.
Mmmm interesting! I think I posted this once before on this but it may be worth repeating. Any system that takes a wage earners top three year average of earnings to decide how much he or she should receive is going to go broke because obviously they did not pay that much in. The only reason I can see doing this is for high wage earners to get a much larger bite of the pie or try to keep Soc. security in tow with inflation. I know a lot of people that are getting closer to retirment that are taking higher paid income jobs for3 years just to get the larger social security checks. Basically you will have a system that young people will have to pay for. Bush is smart. Hisplan, let the younger generation put so much into private account. Guess what? Many will not handle the private account effectively and when Soc Security time comes for that young person he will get his social security cut back due to a private account. Essentially the young adultpays for the system to stay in operation the Bush generation insures a healthy check for that generation and we will be looking for reform again in 20 years.Hint anyone over 55 is not effected he just bought the elder vote and approval ratings up. If you put the 55 year and older and everyone else youngeron a different system say average all their income during their working years, I'll bet you everyone of the Soc. Security checks would be smaller and you would spread the cost to everyone instead of passing it on to your kids. I hope you taught or teachyour kids how to save because no other generation has.
Is TSP the model for the new Social Security system? Without question. Here's an analogy for you SAT buffs....CSRS is to FERS as SocialSecurityis to_____. ;)
Bush issues call to slash spending, create TSP-like retirement system
By Tom Shoop
tshoop@govexec.com (mailto:tshoop@govexec.com)
Calling the state of the union "confident and strong," President Bush issued a call Wednesday evening for steep cuts in domestic spending and for the creation of a system of private retirement accounts similar to the federal Thrift Savings Plan within the Social Security program.
"America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government," Bush said. "I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline."
Bush promised to send a budget to Congress next week that will hold the growth of discretionary spending below inflation and cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009.
"My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities," Bush said. "The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all."
Based on preliminary figures published by the Office of Management and Budget last year, George Krumbhaar, a longtime congressional staffer now working as a private consultant, projects that more than half of nondefense discretionary programs will see proposed funding cuts in fiscal 2006, nearly double the average in recent years.
The cuts will come on top of a tough fiscal 2005 budget that held government programs outside of homeland security and defense to an average 1 percent increase.
But the administration has had limited success in convincing Congress to eliminate programs it has rated as performing poorly. In the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations package passed late last year, Congress funded all but one of 13 programs that President Bush proposed eliminating because OMB evaluators had concluded they were ineffective or could not demonstrate they were achieving intended results. Two of the 13 programs received budget increases.
Only one program the administration had targeted for elimination--a Small Business Administration effort to provide startup companies with technology and reference materials-- actually was canceled. It had received $14 million in fiscal 2004, but earned a "results not demonstrated" rating on OMB's evaluation.
While calling for domestic spending cuts, Bush boasted in his address of recent efforts to beef up federal operations. "We have created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half million first responders," he said.
The president also called in his speech for the creation of private retirement investment accounts under the Social Security program. Such accounts "should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly based investment funds. It is time to extend the same security and choice and ownership to young Americans."
With more than 3 million investors, the TSP is the largest individual-account retirement system in the country, and some say that's proof that an efficient system at least that large is possible. But whether the TSP model could expand successfully to more than 100 million workers remains to be seen.
Sarah,
Thanks...the only one that will gain will be the fund houses that will SKIM 1% off the top if the market goes up or down. You can put 2% in your "private account" and the investment "Gods" will take 1%.
Everything is geared towards corporations and the rich...the poor and middle class like us are the ones that are going to get hurt.
If you opt out your employeer will not have to match 6.2% anymore...great for the corporate bottom line...but a -100% down for you right away. The market is going no where until at least 2015 by my measures....so those retiring prior to then are going to be laying in the sandbox with the cat covering them up....
You may think I am a jerk...but I know what the heck is going on. I am a big picture kind of guy.
God bless.
MT
saraho wrote: I must agree with MT on this issue. Personally, I think that Bush misspoke when he said that the Social Security system is broken and needs to be fixed. I think what he really meant to say was that the US Economy is broken and needs to be fixed, and the only place he wants to get the money to fix it is from Social Security.
Three things that can be done right now to fix the system:
(1) Raise tax limit from 90K to 110K that would add 50 years until social security runs out.
(2) Get rid of the tax limited and social security will never run out.
(3) Raise the minimum retirement age for people under 30 from 65 to 68 and that will add 190 years until social security will run out.
Private accounts is not going to work....have you heard the term...opted out? Well if you opt out and go with the private account that is all you are going to have.
Whatever you do...DO NOT opt out.
Good luck out there!
MT
cowboy
02-03-2005, 04:37 PM
saraho wrote: Is TSP the model for the new Social Security system? Without question. Here's an analogy for you SAT buffs....CSRS is to FERS as SocialSecurityis to_____. ;)
Bush issues call to slash spending, create TSP-like retirement system
By Tom Shoop
tshoop@govexec.com (mailto:tshoop@govexec.com)
Calling the state of the union "confident and strong," President Bush issued a call Wednesday evening for steep cuts in domestic spending and for the creation of a system of private retirement accounts similar to the federal Thrift Savings Plan within the Social Security program.
"America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government," Bush said. "I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline."
Bush promised to send a budget to Congress next week that will hold the growth of discretionary spending below inflation and cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009.
"My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities," Bush said. "The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all."
Based on preliminary figures published by the Office of Management and Budget last year, George Krumbhaar, a longtime congressional staffer now working as a private consultant, projects that more than half of nondefense discretionary programs will see proposed funding cuts in fiscal 2006, nearly double the average in recent years.
The cuts will come on top of a tough fiscal 2005 budget that held government programs outside of homeland security and defense to an average 1 percent increase.
But the administration has had limited success in convincing Congress to eliminate programs it has rated as performing poorly. In the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations package passed late last year, Congress funded all but one of 13 programs that President Bush proposed eliminating because OMB evaluators had concluded they were ineffective or could not demonstrate they were achieving intended results. Two of the 13 programs received budget increases.
Only one program the administration had targeted for elimination--a Small Business Administration effort to provide startup companies with technology and reference materials-- actually was canceled. It had received $14 million in fiscal 2004, but earned a "results not demonstrated" rating on OMB's evaluation.
While calling for domestic spending cuts, Bush boasted in his address of recent efforts to beef up federal operations. "We have created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half million first responders," he said.
The president also called in his speech for the creation of private retirement investment accounts under the Social Security program. Such accounts "should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly based investment funds. It is time to extend the same security and choice and ownership to young Americans."
With more than 3 million investors, the TSP is the largest individual-account retirement system in the country, and some say that's proof that an efficient system at least that large is possible. But whether the TSP model could expand successfully to more than 100 million workers remains to be seen.
It's the answer if your the government. Why because we can trash a system that is not working and shift burden and privatize it. Whats stopping the government once we privatize all these checks not to tax it higher in the future when you pull it out. When you pull your TSP out, you will pay taxes on it.This is just a thought but maybe now is the time to tell your kids not to use a TSP system and to pay the taxes then stick it in a account because 40 years from now he won't have Uncle Sam to pay tax to when the rate is possibly higher like all of us will in the TSP.
The system would work great if the governement did not take money out of the lock box.
The medicare disaster passed last year is going to cost mega bucks and they are trying to figure out how to pay for it.
Not sure who someone can stand in front of you and say opt out and get a private account....when you opt out...all money you have put on the table to date will be left behind, you will not get the 6.2% employeer match and you will have to go long the stock market and pray it goes up and we never have another bear market until you retire....however the rich will be able to put 4% on anything they make to their "tax free" private account....meaning that is a good way around the death tax.
Remember this administration is only taking care of corporations and the rich. Once you can see that you will understand what is going on.
Good luck Tspers.
MT
cowboy wrote: It's the answer if your the government. Why because we can trash a system that is not working and shift burden and privatize it. Whats stopping the government once we privatize all these checks not to tax it higher in the future when you pull it out. When you pull your TSP out, you will pay taxes on it.This is just a thought but maybe now is the time to tell your kids not to use a TSP system and to pay the taxes then stick it in a account because 40 years from now he won't have Uncle Sam to pay tax to when the rate is possibly higher like all of us will in the TSP.
Cowboy,
Once upon a time, there was a Federal pension system (CSRS). My understanding is that the system was considered one of the few "perks" available to federal employees, and was one of the attractions of federal employment. However, President Reagan, in an effort to reduce thefederal deficit,announced that the system was broken and that he would fix it. The result was FERS, whichreplaced the pension system with a much smaller benefit package, consisting of aconsiderably smaller pension, a few social security benefits, and the TSP. The TSPbecame the primary aspect of the new system, which saved the Federal government many millions of dollars.
Now President Bush has announced that Social Security is broken and he will fix it, in a similar manner. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is coming down the turnpike or the purpose of the announcement.
Social Security may be the mother of all pyramid schemes. It had to eventually implode under it's own weight, as any scheme like this does. It just played out over enough years most people didn't pay attention to what was going on. In fact, many actually beleived that they had an account into whichtheir contributions were deposited.
I prefer to be FERS instead of CSRS, as I have the oppourtunity to make a far better retirement than what I would have earned as a CSRS retiree. If under a new Social Security System I can take 4% and invest as I do with TSP, I calculated that I may double what would be available under the present system, plus a reduced SS check to boot. Even with a tax of some kind, I think I would come out far ahead.
I doubt that the government can manage my finances better than I can. I would actually prefer that the Social Security system be phased out entirely, and replaced with individual retirement accounts, as the system should have been from the outset.
What if all Americans had a TSP account, and they only invested in the G fund, paying only 3.5% to 4%, and still were compelled to contribute 7.5%.? How strong a retirement program that would be!
Chaplain wrote: Social Security may be the mother of all pyramid schemes. It had to eventually implode under it's own weight, as any scheme like this does. It just played out over enough years most people didn't pay attention to what was going on. In fact, many actually beleived that they had an account into whichtheir contributions were deposited.
I prefer to be FERS instead of CSRS, as I have the oppourtunity to make a far better retirement than what I would have earned as a CSRS retiree. If under a new Social Security System I can take 4% and invest as I do with TSP, I calculated that I may double what would be available under the present system, plus a reduced SS check to boot. Even with a tax of some kind, I think I would come out far ahead.
I doubt that the government can manage my finances better than I can. I would actually prefer that the Social Security system be phased out entirely, and replaced with individual retirement accounts, as the system should have been from the outset.
What if all Americans had a TSP account, and they only invested in the G fund, paying only 3.5% to 4%, and still were compelled to contribute 7.5%.? How strong a retirement program that would be!
What if I told you that Social Security is currently solvent? Sounds to me like you would still wish to abolish it.
With FERS you receive less money from the government for your pension, but greater flexibility....that means, as you say, that you might do far better with your pension, if the markets perform as you expect. Of course, there is always the possibility (remote, as it might seem) that you will do far worse. But the bottom line is that you are getting less money from the government for your pension.
Now lets think about those millions out there who lose Social Security and instead have to decide each day what % they should put in the C fund that day. And what happens to those who choose incorrectly and lose their pensions? Who will assist them? DING DING DING...I bet I know. The American people. We pay again.
Saraho,
Alas, you may be right. However, the poor will always be with us. That's where personal charity comes in, with personal accountability.
While I agree that SS is still solvent in theory, the IOU debt to SS will incur tremendous tax increase to satisfy what has been borrowed out. More taxes, slower economy, less tax revenue, you know the rest of the story.
Let's cut our losses, and empower the individual and wean the public off this entitlement. Or, agree that the SS trust must be placed in bonds at 3-4%, and fund the program (Al Gore's Lock Box?), and do all the other things, i.e. index to inflation rather than wages, eliminate the income ceiling so all earned income is taxed, means test , etc.
Maybe we could reduce the tax burden, and still have a better system. Either way, I could get some percents back in my account, and not feel that I and my children are going to be cheated.
Just to ponder, how many of us will buy the TSP annuity upon retirement? I would guess most of us will either continue to manage our fundsin TSP or roll it over into some kind of other retirement fund. Of course we do not want to donate the unused balance to the kitty (annuity plan) , but rather pass it on to other (family, friends, etc.)
How about a SS system where those who want to participate opt in and pay accordingly? How about everyone else kicks in a couple %, just for the sake of generosity and the public welfare? Still a better option, I think.
As it is, each of us contribute 14% (counting employers contribution that would otherwise be wages). That 14% in anyone's account at 2% over the course of a career would be phenomenal. I know we are now stuck with this program, and to make such a radical shift would never again be possible due to the tremendous debt load that would be needed, (sigh).
Wow, that was more opinion than most would be interested in reading, and for those who were mistakenly drawn in, my apologies.
And to Saraho, your insight and reasoning are stimulating and thought provoking. If only those on the Hill would engage in this level of discourse :).
Peace,
cowboy
02-04-2005, 02:24 AM
I take it from your posts that we are agreeing on this, am I right Saraho. You have to realize I am male and maybe not the brightest person. You seem to be a history type person. I like history myself. When the Social Security system was developed it was not for retirement our politians did that later. It was developed to help families that lost their bread earner. Our congress, just started using it as a pork, and most of them can't save and being greedy everyone fell for it. For every one or 2 savers there is 8 - 9 spenders thats why 80% of the elderly are poor. They will never save, and never plan to save, but when it comes to supporting them in their elder years they expectyou and Ito do it.
LOL Chaplain hate to see you go through all the strain and I agree with you 100% but you bring up another good point. Our politicians come up with all these great ideas but looking at the income ceiling has never been one. I wonder why? They sure want to use this system in all the wrong ways but raising the income ceiling so it would support the system is not one of them. What's really sad is you and I and everyone else are stuck into this system and they squandered it andwe now havea retirment system that is trying to use SS as a actual benefit.
Show-me
02-04-2005, 03:31 AM
Under CSRS if you reach MRA with 32 years service you get 60% of your high three. You don’t get to draw SS. But, check this out.[/b]
[/b]
I use the TSP Calculator on the TSP site to do this so it pretty basic.[/b]
[/b]
Saving 9% per paycheck.[/b]
High three $50,000.[/b]
Using 8% interest.[/b]
With 32 years service.[/b]
[/b]
CSRS- $666,426 in the TSP with $30,000 annual retirement from Agency no Social Security.[/b]
[/b]
FERS- $1,036,633 in the TSP with $16,000 annual retirement from Agency plus Social Security if it’s there when you turn 62 or is it 67.[/b]
[/b]
I’m loosing out on my SS until I’m 67 under FERS, if it is still there and they don’t raise the age on me again. I get it immediately under CSRS. I may be dead by 67 and plan on retiring at 57.[/b]
[/b]
I would have rather been under CSRS plus continue to max out CSRS at 9% and put additional money into a ROTH. [/b]
Under CSRS I am guaranteed $30,000 at age 57 even if I don’t invest a single dime of my own money.[/b]
Under FERS I am guaranteed $16,000 at age 57 and a hefty Social Security check at age 67. WOW! Something doesn’t seem write there.[/b]
[/b]
IMHO, we got screwed.[/b]
Under CSRS, the taxpayers got screwed at the expense of federal largesse. $30k annually even if you don't invest anything? No such thing as a free lunch - that $30k came from somewhere, i.e. the federal treasury.
I don't like the social security system and never have. However, due to the creation of the dependent class, we are stuck with it, since switching to something else would cost a ton of money - which is too much even for this debt-happy administration.
I am strongly in favor of private accounts. The only problem is they won't let us use the whole amount of FICA tax - just some paltry percentage of it (if they gave me the whole 13-14% to play with, I guarantee I would outperform SS's projected payments to me in retirement even if the system remained fully funded). The rest just gets "donated" into the system. Even worse, they want to limit our investment options ala the TSP. This makes it impossible to make much of anything when the market has its down years. The least they could do is add an inverse fund for bear markets. Of course, this is all in line with government thinking that we individuals are too stupid and irresponsible to manage our own finances. Sadly, this thinking is true for the most part as illustrated by the average consumer debt load + paltry savings rates.
I still don't think any significant reform will get through this Congress. The GOP needs to pick up several more Senate seats and get total party unity to have any shot at getting what Bush wants. Prediction: you'll see some small incremental changes. The retirement age will climb (easiest one to pass through Congress), and we might even see a rise in the income ceiling for FICA taxes. The Dems are pretty much universally opposed to private accounts, so I don't see those getting through. The Senate Dems will block via filibuster if it gets that far.
It is 12.4% and if you opt your employeer will not be on the hook for their 6.2% match...hey that is great for corporate bottom lines....
4% into private account then you have to pay a 1% management fee....ya that will work out great!!!! I support it also because that is a boon those those invesment houses.
Question? With all the mutual fund scandals, etc....do you really feel good about hoping and praying the market will go up????
And yes that market will move sideways until 2015....the market move sideways for 23 or 25 years after it crossed 1000...decade sideway moves is very normal.
Stay long!
MT
Show-me
02-04-2005, 05:13 AM
I should have clarified that I am in the USPS and they have fully funded the USPS CSRS thru stamp sales. ( By accident they over funded it and the Treasury won’t give it back.) In theory we are a “non-for-profit company” that has a service and product funded retirement plan. (OK everyone can stop laughing now.)
[/i]
“Under CSRS, the taxpayers got screwed at the expense of federal largesse. $30k annually even if you don't invest anything? No such thing as a free lunch - that $30k came from somewhere, i.e. the federal treasury.”[/i]
That’s very noble Mike, but are the taxpayers getting screwed every time the politicians vote for there own benefit and pay raises. It’s sad how they are willing to cut everyone’s pay, retirement, and benefit packages for the “good of the country” but not their own. Also did they not give the entire Federal Gov. a 3.5% pay raise recently after starting two expensive wars and cutting taxes? Also did they not recently raise the pay of the President? LEAD BY EXAMPLE! That just does not seem right to me. I still remember when Bush got elected and sent everyone a tax rebate. Can we say disposable income? Where did the money go? Did it really help the economy? Or was it a way to get a tax cut thru? I love to get my money back. But, are we paying a bigger price in the long run?
I guess were I’m coming from is more fiscal responsibility. I am willing to bite the bullet a few years if they are serious about paying down the debt and buying back all those IOU’s. We know that won’t happen.
I still think CSRS was a better “retirement plan”.[/b]
We'll all be biting the bullet through a weaker dollar because of fiscal stupidity. We definitely need to contain federal spending (not to mention state and local!). That medicare add-on put us on the hook for a lot of money. Iraq and Afghanistan have cost a large amount as well. Although I guess one could argue China, Japan, et al. are really the ones paying for all this... at least for the time being.
The salary of the president was raised because Congressional pay was coming close to it - and we all know a member of Congress has far less responsibility than the president does. I think they're all overpaid based on the perks they get on the job and after, but what do I know...
MT, if they make the private accounts a TSP system, management fees will only be 0.1%. If they turn us loose and let us use scottrade or something like that, then the fee will ultimately hinge on the individual investor. Based on past government behavior, I don't see this happening (they think we're all idiots). In any event, I don't see us getting privatization anytime soon - even as an option.
Show-me wrote: It’s sad how they are willing to cut everyone’s pay, retirement, and benefit packages for the “good of the country” but not their own. Also did they not give the entire Federal Gov. a 3.5% pay raise recently after starting two expensive wars and cutting taxes? Also did they not recently raise the pay of the President? LEAD BY EXAMPLE! That just does not seem right to me. I still remember when Bush got elected and sent everyone a tax rebate. Can we say disposable income? Where did the money go? Did it really help the economy? Or was it a way to get a tax cut thru? I love to get my money back. But, are we paying a bigger price in the long run?
I still think CSRS was a better “retirement plan”.[/b]
I agree with Show-me. There are two classes of federal employees. The Congress and the President (the upper class) never once cut their own retirement benefits. The President and the Congressare not in FERS. Their retirement benefits aresublime, or as Mike would say, full of "largesse." It was the lower class federal workers who had their retirement benefits cut to balance the budget.And now, IMHO, a similar scenarioisplaying out on a much largerscale with Social Security. Remember thatSocial Security is/was/has always beenbased on income. If you currently make over the limit, you receive noSocial Security benefitseven though you may have paid into the system for 50 years. So whoare the ones to lose benefits under the new plan?Figure it out. It'ssimple.
In the 1980s, President Reagan had a massive deficit that he had to deal with. He attempted to help balance the budget on the backs of the lowly federal workers. In 2005, President Bushalso has a massive deficit that he has to deal with. He will nowattempt to balance the budget on the backs of working class Americans. As with CSRS, they will refer to this as"fixing the system." It's fixed all right.
Turn of phrase: "he who makes the rules has the gold". :P
Note: cutting pay or benefits to Congress and the President should be done whenever it is done to the rest of the federal workforce. However, with that said, it would have negligable impact on the federal budget.
436 v. a few million...
More money could be saved by reducing Congressional staff and cutting back on the perks that members enjoy. Come to think of it, I'm not sure why senators are paid at all - the vast majority of them are extremely wealthy to begin with - and as for the president, he'll make six-figures for every speech he gives once he leaves office. Clinton has become a millionaire many times over just by opening his big yapper after leaving office. Now that is retirement. :shock:
saraho wrote: Chaplain wrote: Social Security may be the mother of all pyramid schemes. It had to eventually implode under it's own weight, as any scheme like this does. It just played out over enough years most people didn't pay attention to what was going on. In fact, many actually beleived that they had an account into whichtheir contributions were deposited.
What if I told you that Social Security is currently solvent?
Myths and Truths About Social Security
[font=arial]By Karen Westerberg Reyes, March & April 2005
Yes, the system needs some adjustments, but we don’t need to destroy it in order to fix it.
Social Security is the ultimate support system, a monetary cushion for grandmothers and granddads, but also a lifeline for widows, widowers, divorcées, orphans, and people with disabilities. For the average American over 65, Social Security makes up nearly 40 percent of income. For about 20 percent, it is their only income. The system has worked well for some 70 years now with few adjustments. These days, it's on everyone's radar. That's because President Bush has put Social Security reform at the top of his second-term to-do list. He and many others argue that big changes are necessary if Social Security is to survive, much less thrive. But there are those, AARP included, who believe a radical overhaul could spell disaster—the end of Social Security as we now know it.
Is the current Social Security system really at death's door, or are the rumors of its demise greatly exaggerated? Following are some common misconceptions.
Myth: Social Security is broke.
Those who argue that Social Security needs a dramatic reorganization begin with this premise: the system is failing; Social Security isn't sustainable in its present form. From there, the argument goes that what's best for the country is some form of privatization. With privatization, a portion of the Social Security taxes now paid would be diverted into an account that each taxpayer would control themselves. (Under the current system, all surplus Social Security revenue is invested in special U.S. Treasury bonds.)
So, is Social Security about to go bust? Not by a long shot. In fact, Social Security is in better shape today than at any other time since it was enacted in 1935. That's because of some judicious adjustments suggested in 1983 by a commission set up by Ronald Reagan and headed up by Alan Greenspan. Since then, trust fund reserves have gone from nearly zero to $1.6 trillion.
Social Security trustees acknowledge that by 2028 the system will need to start redeeming the bonds in its reserve, but they calculate that the fund will be able to meet 100 percent of its obligations until 2042. By that date, the principal will be exhausted, but the system will still bring in enough revenue from taxes to pay nearly 75 percent of benefit amounts. (An even rosier Congressional Budget Office report says the system will be able to pay full benefits until 2052, and 80 percent after that.)
Myth: The fund starts getting into trouble in 2018.
Not true. The year 2018 is when Social Security benefit payments are expected to exceed payroll tax revenues. That's not exactly cataclysmic. Reason: from 2018 through 2027, incoming tax revenue combined with interest earnings will still be enough to pay benefits and build the trust fund balance. Beginning in 2028, as mentioned, the trust fund principal will have to be tapped, and that'll get us through 2042—even if we do nothing.
Clearly a tune-up is needed to extend Social Security's life beyond that horizon. "But dismantling the whole system would be like buying a new car because the one you have has a flat tire," says Peter R. Orszag, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
Myth: The Social Security reserves are only on paper.
Well, yes, but that paper is U.S. Treasury bonds, which have been earning a combined interest rate of about 6 percent a year. For more than 200 years, in good times and bad, during wars and depressions, American bonds have always paid off. They're one of the safest investments in the world. In 2003, some $80 billion, about 13 percent of Social Security's total income, came from the interest from these bonds.
Myth: The 77 million baby boomers marching toward retirement are going to break the system.
Advocates for radical reform point out that once the boomers retire, they will start taking more money out of the system than younger workers are putting in. The oft-cited statistic is that by 2040 there will be just two workers for each retiree. (Today there are just over three workers for each retiree.) But that fact, while accurate, fails to acknowledge that workers today are more productive, earn higher wages,
and plan to stay in the workforce longer—all factors that will help fill the future gap. In fact, in the near term, this population juggernaut, being at the peak of its earning years, is currently helping to amass a huge surplus in the fund.
Once boomers start retiring, sure, that's going to put a strain on the system. "But it isn't going to be Armageddon," says Kenneth S. Apfel, former commissioner of the Social Security Administration and current member of the faculty at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin.
We can strengthen Social Security by making small adjustments, just as we've done in the past. These include raising the cap on wages subject to Social Security (currently you're taxed on income up to $90,000) and investing part of the Social Security surplus in other vehicles that pay higher interest than Treasury bonds do.
Myth: A system of private accounts would save Social Security.
The buzz phrase being bandied about by those who favor privatization is "an ownership society." They favor taking a portion of Social Security taxes and diverting it to individuals to invest. They say such a system would give workers ownership of their money. It would allow taxpayers to put their own dollars into stocks, bonds, and other investments that would pay them a higher return.
Those who oppose privatization, including AARP, argue that setting up private accounts would effectively scuttle Social Security. "Siphoning money from Social Security will not strengthen it," says David Certner, AARP's director of federal affairs. "It will just make the problem much worse."
First, the transition costs alone would be crushing—as high as $2-$3 trillion, according to AARP's own economic analysis. "The amount of additional national debt that would generate could eat into any returns people might actually get from a private account system," says Barbara Kennelly, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a 3.2-million-member organization located in Washington, D.C.
Second, diverting a portion of Social Security money to private accounts means that there would be fewer dollars available to pay Social Security benefits. That would leave the whole system with less of a reserve, as well as less cash on hand to pay beneficiaries. This situation would lead to hard choices: cutting benefits, raising taxes, or doing none of the above and watching the trust fund run out of cash sooner.
According to a letter entitled "The Consequences of Social Security Privatization," signed by Congressmen Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and the late Robert T. Matsui (D-CA), diverting a portion of workers' current Social Security contributions to private accounts "blows a hole in the Trust Funds…and directly threatens our ability to pay current retirees." They predict that under privatization the trust fund reserves will be wiped out by 2021, a full 20 years sooner than if the system had been left alone.
Myth: Private accounts will give individuals more control.
People already have control over their money when they invest in private pensions, IRAs, and 401(k) plans. When combined with the solid foundation that Social Security provides, these are excellent vehicles for retirement savings. "What we should be doing is making these work better," says Orszag.
Myth: Individuals will get higher returns with private accounts.
Surely you can do better with your investments than a big bureaucratic government agency can, say those who favor private accounts. Well, the truth is, some people may do better. But who's going to pay for the care and feeding of all those who do worse?
"Under privatization, current workers will have to pay three times," says Certner. "Once to ensure the benefits for those currently at or near retirement, once for themselves, and once more for those whose investments didn't pan out." In the current Social Security system, the risk is near zero. You know it will be there regardless of what the market does. That's because U.S. Treasury bonds don't crash when the stock market does.
So what can be done? Yes, the Social Security system needs some work, but there's nothing so seriously wrong with it that some due diligence and nonpartisan intervention and planning can't repair. "There's no need to take the risky step of privatization," says Kennelly.
Ima hafta try and say this only once...
It's not the government's job to be our mommy and daddy and take care of us!
:D
AH...MUCH BETTER.
Well will probably get on the nice list very quickly here. You seem to eat anyone that does notagree with a select few very quickly. The select few seem to benot doing well in their TSP accounts, however.That is interesting.
Concerning the Social Security issue, I believe if the government took social security contributions out of my check for the previous 22 years that we entered into a contract. Not to say 22 years, I changed the contract and when you retire your benefits will drop 50% of what we told you year after year. There is no pending social security crisses.
This administration creates a crisses and then quickly has a solution, case in point; medicare crisses (when it was approved it would cost $250B)...less then a year later the price tag is over $750B, WMD then after there is no WMD we are spending democracy. What is China invadedNevada because they wanted to promoteCommunism?Now the"social security crisses"...there is a pattern here. This pattern is leading usto a cliff...
If the govt did not brake the publics trust by using the social security contributions by spending it and making the yearly budget numbers look more favorable...that is the bottom line.
Now you can see the old bait and switch. Present a budget then two day later do add on for things such as the War on Terror and state funding...that is why the U.S. dollar is getting smoke...Asian countries do not like the bait and switch and stand in front of them at the G7 and tell them the budget (which is a record) will be spend as you go and not run over $500B what is taken in. In your own household, how long would your budget last if you spent over 30% more thenyou took in?
The pattern continues...Iran here we come! Not sure where it is written anywhere that the U.S. is the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons...but we sure seem to enforce that rule.
Show-me
02-11-2005, 04:33 AM
Don't forget N. Korea.
Pat_1111 wrote: Concerning the Social Security issue, I believe if the government took social security contributions out of my check for the previous 22 years that we entered into a contract. Not to say 22 years, I changed the contract and when you retire your benefits will drop 50% of what we told you year after year. There is no pending social security crisses.
If the govt did not brake the publics trust by using the social security contributions by spending it and making the yearly budget numbers look more favorable...that is the bottom line.
Now you can see the old bait and switch. Present a budget then two day later do add on for things such as the War on Terror and state funding...that is why the U.S. dollar is getting smoke...Asian countries do not like the bait and switch and stand in front of them at the G7 and tell them the budget (which is a record) will be spend as you go and not run over $500B what is taken in. In your own household, how long would your budget last if you spent over 30% more thenyou took in?
The pattern continues...Iran here we come! Not sure where it is written anywhere that the U.S. is the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons...but we sure seem to enforce that rule.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_204.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_30_109.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)
Wonder Women,
Thank you very much! I am sure I will be cut from the herd and slaughter soon for have a different view.
There was some very good people on this board that provided actual invesment advice and knowledge. Leo, Eurorate and others.
This board is quickly turning into a bunch of comics, jokes and cut up artists.
How you manage your TSP account will determine how you live in your retirement. It is become crystal clear that your social security contributions is as good as gone. You need to take that amount out of your future money coming in.
I am just waiting to get locked in the neck and slowly bleed. Just page down the board and read 95% of the posts...they are crap for someone trying to understand and learn about investing for their future. If I wanted to read jokes, cars to buy, etc, etc...I would do a search on that topic.
I have been watching this board for a long time. The board needs to get back on track. It is turning into a waste of time.
Thank you again. I will be happy to give you sites where there are people that talk about investments and not cut each other up if you want too.
Another case and point I need to add before I get skinned alive:
If you have any knowledge of the TSP you will know the govt takes money out "they call it borrow" of the accounts to fund unfunded liabilities...which would mean with social security reform the govt would borrow against that too. The only thing I see that is going to happen is I am going to pay a management fee on my social security account and be told 20 years from now the TSP "lock box" is empty too.
Get any sleep?
rokid
02-11-2005, 11:52 AM
Pat_1111,
I'd like to see that list ofsites too.
Incidentally, I agree with your SS rant. The conservatives have wanted to get rid of SS since 1935. They believe that people should take responsibility for themselves and their financial well being.
Although that's a nice sentiment, the bottom line is that SS came into being because of market failure. Most people worked until they died, there was no retirement except for the rich, and the majority of the elderly were poor and relied on the charity of their children and/or the local community. Worse still, the "smart" people whowere invested,lost it all in the Depression! For example, my hard working grandparents lostafarm that had been in the family since 1837. Nobody's fault,just bad luck.
By the 1930s the country had a stark choice, institute a social safety netor face a revolution. The unions were not afraid to go into the streets, i.e. look up the Flint UAW in "The Battle of the Overpass" orthe Teamsters nearly anywhere. I grew up in Detroit. You didn't cross picket lines.
Since FDR was smart, he opted for the social safety net,including SS. SS was, and is, a spectacular success. The elderly, for the most part, don't live in poverty, enjoy good health, and live much, much longer than in the past.
The current administration wants to get rid of SS, period. There is no crisis - read the CBO's SS report. In addition, their rationale, there's a crisis because the economy won't grow, however, we'll fix it by investing in a growing economy, doesn't make sense. Either the economy will grow or it won't. Finally, the SS "problem" is only a fraction of 1% of the GDP. Based on those criteria, the tax cuts for the rich are a much bigger problem.
Personally, I don't want to live in a society that has the elderly sitting on corners with tin cups, cleaning my table at McDonalds, and greeting me at Wal-Mart until they drop dead. I'd like to see them baking cookies and doting on their grand children. Of course, I'd also like to see universal health care, an EPA that actually protects the environment, a balanced budget, an end to preemptive strikes, adequate force protection in Iraq, secure borders, peace in the Middle East etc. In other words, dream on......
Finally, you actually voted for this guy?:?
Obviously, I agree with Pat_1111 and rokid concerning Social Security. This has been an issue of the extreme right since its creation. The effort to demolish it is not based in its solvency but in the results of the past election.
Rolo,
I don't know what to do with you. It's fascinating that you say that you don't want the government to take care of you, yet I don't see any corporations refusing oil depletion allowances or other types of welfare to the rich.
President Kennedy once said that if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. IMHO,we are presently on a perilous economic course.
Wheels
02-11-2005, 02:29 PM
saraho wrote: This has been an issue of the extreme right since its creation. The effort to demolish it is not based in its solvency but in the results of the past election.
First of all, don't all of you jump down my throat at once, I do not endorse Bush's plan. However I have to throw the red flag on your above statement (and other's like it). It has been in fact democrats who for yearshave been screaming about saving SS before it's too late, and now that they don't like Bush's scheme they are screaming, "Whoa, what's the rush!"
On a completely separate topic, whereabouts in the Northeast are you located. I'm in Southern NH (don't worry, I won't stalk you).
Dave
Pat_1111 - I also miss Eukrate. His posts were not frequent but they were always right on the mark.
saraho wrote: I don't know what to do with you.
ehehehehe...LOL....I hear that a lot. You were shaking your head, huh? If you weren't typing, I bet your palms would be in the air, too. :)
saraho wrote: It's fascinating that you say that you don't want the government to take care of you, yet I don't see any corporations refusing oil depletion allowances or other types of welfare to the rich.
Whoa! Look out, Captain Ahab! There's a red herring bigger than yer whale! Watch that leg!
What does corporations/oil depletion allowances have to do with anything in this conversation? I don't even know whatdahell you are talking about. Do those allowances end in 5? behehehe.
This liberal gubamint has let Americans turn into a bunch a fat, whiney, freeloaders. Even the rugged, pull-themselves-out-from-nothing Depression Era/WWII types have turned into a bunch of whiners with their hands out. They killed our heroes! Now, the only hero we have is da gubamint and how it can hurt those who make do for themselves.
It is simple: Americans need to take care of their own sh..tuff. Here's my rendition ofthe liberal philosophy of "Keep the government out of the bedroom!": Keep the government out of the whole house!
The Senate Democratic leader was in favor of partial privatization as recently as 1999. Now that it is proposed by Bush, he's strongly against it. Hmmmm.
Mike,
In 1999 we were running a budget surplus and could afford to fund personal accounts. The budget now and the budget then are two different animals.
Picking a line that proves you case does not give the board "the true" reason he is against it now.
cowboy
02-11-2005, 05:02 PM
Mmmmm? We could go down the road of bashing each party guys, but the truth is the US house and Senate are a bunch of yes people to their party planks and the government is in the back pocket of big business of which ever party is in the house. Health care and Insurance and government retirement will milk you dry until you stop paying for it.
Nice try at rationalizing it. Unless the guy is a total idiot, he'd know full well that the economic conditions of 1999 wouldn't last forever - that's why they call it a "business cycle" - because each point is temporary.
Let's say they passed private accounts into law then. Does that mean that he'd want to take them away every time the economy sputtered or the federal budget went in the red? Please.
cowboy
02-11-2005, 05:14 PM
Mike wrote: The Senate Democratic leader was in favor of partial privatization as recently as 1999. Now that it is proposed by Bush, he's strongly against it. Hmmmm.
This could be true, but the senate Democratic leader is no longer in office. Isn't it strange that the democratic leader was out of a Republican state.
Everyone in early 1999 thought the stock market was going to return 30% a year, every year...which probably weighed heavily on his comment that privation was a good idea....don't you think? Just like now...everyone only thinks the stock market only goes up...just like 2000 the stock market is now a casino...AHHH the news was NOT THAT BAD...shuffle up and deal.
Maybe he understand now the blood bath between 2000-2002 and he understands that we are headed for another blood bath again. If you have been in the market longer then a couple years you can see that we are in a major bubble again that was brought on by lowering the fed rate to 1% and everyone refinancing their homes and taking their home equity to play in the casino now called the stock market...come on 777s!
Having social security tied to the stock market is putting your eggs into one basket...only a fool would do that. This is just a mask to show that all the contributions that were taken in were spent and now it is time to pay them back they are doing the two step....it is like a barker at a carnival...and you are being taken in. There is a fool born every minute...however the none fools are rather pissed off...keep that smile on your face because reality is painful if you can see it.
Show-me
02-11-2005, 05:26 PM
Humm. This style of writing looks very familiar. Is that you.........:shock:
Welcome back, Market timer. :l
Pat_1111 wrote: Everyone in early 1999 thought the stock market was going to return 30% a year, every year...which probably weighed heavily on his comment that privation was a good idea....don't you think?
I think it goes back to my equatingthe bulk of Americans to sixth-graders.
Pat_1111 wrote: Just like now...everyone only thinks the stock market only goes up...
Since we are talking retirement here, we are talking 20-40 years, yes? Has there ever been a 20-year period where the market went down? 30? 40? How about 10 even?
Also, why are you ruling out other investments, such as bonds and government securities, such that we have in our TSP. Are you under the belief that a properly diversified portfolio over thirty years has a good chance of going bust? You are saying that the government's Socialism Security will always beat that?
Pat_1111 wrote: Having social security tied to the stock market is putting your eggs into one basket...only a fool would do that.
Behold the fool saith, "Put not all thine eggs in one basket" -- which is but a manner of saying, "Scatter your money and your attention"; but the wise man saith, "Put all your eggs in one basket and --WATCH THAT BASKET."
--Mark Twain, head fool.
Interestingly, Warren Buffett is a total fool for agreeing.
Concentrate your energies, your thoughts and your capital. The wise man puts all his eggs in one basket and watches the basket. --Andrew Carnegie (must be a fool)
I like somehing else Carnegie said,
He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave.
Pat_1111 wrote:
Having social security tied to the stock market is putting your eggs into one basket...only a fool would do that. This is just a mask to show that all the contributions that were taken in were spent and now it is time to pay them back they are doing the two step....it is like a barker at a carnival...and you are being taken in. There is a fool born every minute...however the none fools are rather pissed off...keep that smile on your face because reality is painful if you can see it.
And YOU were worried about being "bashed", give us a break...............
ou81200
02-12-2005, 12:00 PM
Would having all your money in social security be the same as having it in one basket???
As for the bubble bursting, I have yet to see this happening. January was not that good for me. But February made up more for it so far. If it happens. It happens. We just need to be prepared for it.
If that is you MT, You remind me of those guys on penny stock boards who will pump a stock, and then bash it after selling. This is the wrong forum for it. If you want that kind of talk. Go to Raging Bull. You will be in your element their.
ou81200 wrote: Would having all your money in social security be the same as having it in one basket???
Yeah....a basket with holes in it! baha!
... and it's a basket funded by the taxes paid by future workers (whose ratio to the number of retirees will be even less than it is now, unless we suddenly import a few million more workers to fill the gaps :shock:).
hahahahaa...I know!! SANCTUARY!
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0792839692.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
rokid
02-12-2005, 11:34 PM
FDR: "No greater tragedy exists in modern civilization than the aged, worn-out worker who after a life of ceaseless effort and useful productivity must look forward for his declining years to a poorhouse."
Scrooge: "Are there no poor houses???"... for the investment challenged?
rokid wrote: FDR: "No greater tragedy exists in modern civilization than the aged, worn-out worker who after a life of ceaseless effort and useful productivity must look forward for his declining years to a poorhouse."
Yes, that is ashame. Teach the workers to fish rather than giving them ours.
rokid wrote: Scrooge: "Are there no poor houses???"... for the investment challenged?
According to the Social Security Administration, "Fast Facts and Figures About Social Security," June 2003, pg. 15, The average Social Security monthly payment is only $895.
https://www.gefinancial.com/retirementanswer/sources.html?SMSESSION=NO
According to the Administration on Aging's (AOA) A Profile of Older Americans: 2003 , the median income of a senior individual in 2002 was $19,436 for males and $11,406 for females with an overall median income of $14,251. Seniors in 2001 reported a median income of $14,152 with women reporting a $11,313 median and men reporting a $19,688 median.
http://www.ncpssm.org/socialsecurity/seniorincomestats/
Yeeeeeaaaaahhh....I'd feel secure with that! Oh! And people like MT want to cut benefits to keep the old Edsel running. What will half of $895 be worth in 2033, when I am eligible to retire? (G-d help me to retire sooner than 62 please!)
According to “Income of the Aged Chartbook, 2001,” from the Social Security Administration, May 2003, Social Security accounted for the largest portion of senior's incomes, at 39% of the aggregate income for all aged units. Since 1962, the predominance of Social Security as a portion of senior income has become more pronounced.
That means that people aren't relying on socialism security and you must plan and invest for your retirement whether SS exists or not!
Oh, and Pat/MT, if you think that is an 8% rate of return, then your math is as bad as your spelling! :P
ss has a cola index...that is not factored into your great links...
TSP has a great cola index...it is called being forced to go long stocks in the hopes of keeping up with inflation....
It is a well crafted and well thought out...by the samecast of charactersthat brought you medicare...iraq, guest worker program...torture scandals....
you can tell we are humans...you poke us with a stick...you poke us with a stick and poke us with a stick and we still believe that the govt has our best interest in mind when they come up with these plans....we will fix medicare once we pass ss reform??? Yeah, right...the next fix will be 25% national fed sales tax on everything you buy...that is going to be just GREAT....
Good luck Rolling, Rolling, Rolling....I did it for the ***cky
Pat_1111 wrote: ss has a cola index...that is not factored into your great links...
Oh, yes, they must have accounted for the cost of bread and water. :?
rokid
02-13-2005, 01:59 PM
Rolo wrote: According to “Income of the Aged Chartbook, 2001,” from the Social Security Administration, May 2003, Social Security accounted for the largest portion of senior's incomes, at 39% of the aggregate income for all aged units. Since 1962, the predominance of Social Security as a portion of senior income has become more pronounced.
That means that people aren't relying on socialism security and you must plan and invest for your retirement whether SS exists or not!
Huh?
SSprovides 39% of seniors' income? I'm assuming "aged units" are people. Sounds like the "aged units" arerelying on, or at least countingon, SS to me.
Unfortunately for the conservatives, these "aged units" have already paid into SS, feel they're entitled to their SS benefits,need their SS benefits, and have a vote.They have also invested substantialassets inthe care, feeding,and education of the "pre-aged units" and are expecting thatinvestment to pay off.
Finally, in my experience, when conservatives want to reform something, be itCSRS,SS,the tax code, the government personnel system, or environmental standards,somebody's going to get screwed - and it's not going to be the rich and powerful! You can take that to the bank, or Scottrade, or wherever...
Therein lies the problem with all government entitlement programs / wealth transfers / subsidies - changing any of them results in someone winning and someone losing. By depending more and more on government, we all lose.
Rolo wrote: Yes, that is ashame. Teach the workers to fish rather than giving them ours.
I agree withrokid.
No one is taking your fish, Rolo. SS is an insurance plan that all have paid into, to ensure that there is some money for you to live on in your elderly years. It was created originally by the govt exactly BECAUSE private industry was not providing pensions for its workers, and because there was a need for such a program.
It's sort of like auto insurance, in that you are required to have it.
Try to think of it this way. Yes, people should take care of their own pensions, et al, but often don't. Which doyou think would be costlier for you - paying for the care of elderly destitute who never paid into a system themselves or a system where they DO pay into a system to take care of themselves?
Now that you've answered that question, here's another. Should such a system be set up so that it definitely exists when these people retire or should the people be allowed to gamble their retirement savings in a tsp format? Remember, if they gamble and lose, who will pay for their retirement? (hint: rolo et al will pay.)
Mike wrote: Therein lies the problem with all government entitlement programs / wealth transfers / subsidies - changing any of them results in someone winning and someone losing. By depending more and more on government, we all lose.
? How do you define a govt entitlement program? Police? Sanitation? Parks? Tax write-offs for corporations? What are you talking about?
Doesn't it kind of bother you that if you own a business, there are many write-offs available to you that private citizens who do not own business fail to have available to them? Individuals can't deduct their health expenses or auto expensesbut companies can deduct the expense of a fleet of cars?
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion,you feel anarchy is superior to government of any sort? Funny Mike, you don't strike me as being an anarchist.
I support limited government. We are way past that.
Why do we waste money on price supports? Why do we waste more money on a seemingly endless list of tax write-offs? Why did we add a medicare prescription drug benefit that will cost ~$720 billion over 10 years?
That's the thing about government entitlements - they never EVER decrease. What was the budget when Clinton (try not to laugh at this) said the "era of big government is over" in 1996 - 1.5 trillion? It's 9 years later, and we're up to 2.6 trillion... not including the ~$100 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan.
At one point, I used to think that the GOP would actually pursue its rhetoric of smaller government - now, I see it's the same **** differentparty. The priorities are a little different, but the spending goes in the same overall direction: up.
The only reason this hasn't ended in disaster yet is because for the most part, Americans are hard-working and productive people - and the economy keeps us and the government afloat in spite of our / its borrowing. How much longer can this go on? At some point, there simply won't be enough workers - either to fund social security the way people like or to fund the overall government the way people desire. Our society will reach a tipping point. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and each and every one of us is going to learn that the hard way. Long term, taxes will be forced up and/or spending will be forced down - and when it happens, there will be hell to pay.
Mike wrote: I support limited government. We are way past that.
Why do we waste money on price supports? Why do we waste more money on a seemingly endless list of tax write-offs? Why did we add a medicare prescription drug benefit that will cost ~$720 billion over 10 years?
That's the thing about government entitlements - they never EVER decrease. What was the budget when Clinton (try not to laugh at this) said the "era of big government is over" in 1996 - 1.5 trillion? It's 9 years later, and we're up to 2.6 trillion... not including the ~$100 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan.
At one point, I used to think that the GOP would actually pursue its rhetoric of smaller government - now, I see it's the same **** differentparty. The priorities are a little different, but the spending goes in the same overall direction: up.
The only reason this hasn't ended in disaster yet is because for the most part, Americans are hard-working and productive people - and the economy keeps us and the government afloat in spite of our / its borrowing. How much longer can this go on? At some point, there simply won't be enough workers - either to fund social security the way people like or to fund the overall government the way people desire. Our society will reach a tipping point. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and each and every one of us is going to learn that the hard way. Long term, taxes will be forced up and/or spending will be forced down - and when it happens, there will be hell to pay.
Everyone supports limited government, and where they stand on an issue is generally based in where they are sitting.
Please answer your own questions..because I'm sure you know the answers. Why do we have price supports? Why do we pay farmers to not grow anything?
When you ask why we have a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is so costly, ask that other question and you will have the answer. Why are drugs so much more expensive here than in other countries? Who supported that Medicare program? Who benefits from the program?
Didn't we have a budget surplus under Clinton? Isn't that what its about? If you spend more than you have, there is a problem.
The political parties use the government to benefit their constituencies.
saraho wrote:
Everyone supports limited government, and where they stand on an issue is generally based in where they are sitting.
Please answer your own questions..because I'm sure you know the answers. Why do we have price supports? Why do we pay farmers to not grow anything?
When you ask why we have a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is so costly, ask that other question and you will have the answer. Why are drugs so much more expensive here than in other countries? Who supported that Medicare program? Who benefits from the program?
Didn't we have a budget surplus under Clinton? Isn't that what its about? If you spend more than you have, there is a problem.
The political parties use the government to benefit their constituencies.
As I have said previously and implied in this most recent post: these things came into existence and stayed there because various groups applied pressure to get them... most likely via campaign funding or who knows what else.
Drugs cost more here because the government isn't fixing the price via tax subsidies like other countries are doing. In the end, that makes no real difference, since the price is being paid regardless - the only question is who is paying.
We had a surplus under Clinton that was very short-lived. Considering the massive economic expansion that took place in the '90s, I'd say the surplus should've been much larger than it was. If that's the best we can do, it'll take an awfully long time to knock down the national debt - and based on the government's - and the taxpayers' addiction to spending, I'll just go out on a tiny limb here and say that it won't happen in my lifetime - even if I live to be 100.
Political parties use the government to benefit themselves at everyone's expense. You'd think it'd be a piece of cake to eliminate milk and sugar price supports - the sheer numerical advantage of voters that would benefit from that makes this policy a no-brainer, but it won't happen because money talks, and well, you know the rest.
Mike wrote:
Drugs cost more here because the government isn't fixing the price via tax subsidies like other countries are doing. In the end, that makes no real difference, since the price is being paid regardless - the only question is who is paying.
In the past, cartels were controlled by the government because they essentially are a monopoly...getting whatever price they want. This government supports the drug industry's excessively inflated drug prices. The people pay.
Now, when people want to get their drugs from another country, the Administration warns that the drugs from these countries are not to be trusted. If this warning isn't effective, then a ban will be the next step.
saraho wrote: Mike wrote:
Drugs cost more here because the government isn't fixing the price via tax subsidies like other countries are doing. In the end, that makes no real difference, since the price is being paid regardless - the only question is who is paying.
In the past, cartels were controlled by the government because they essentially are a monopoly...getting whatever price they want. This government supports the drug industry's excessively inflated drug prices. The people pay.
Now, when people want to get their drugs from another country, the Administration warns that the drugs from these countries are not to be trusted. If this warning isn't effective, then a ban will be the next step.
Let me give 2 cases and then tell me that the drug industry is treated too nice.
a.) Tomorrow night, you and I go out drinking. After several rounds we are telling good stories about being done wrong by an ex-lover. We decide to write a great country song (lose job,love and dog leaves us, pickup won't start) and write it down that night. That is our intellectual property for as long as either of us are alive plus 70 years. No one can use the song for about a hundred years without paying us.
b.) Tomorrow night, we meet each other at a support group for people with a loved one with a terrible disease. We continue to correspond and decidefor both of us to quit our jobs and invest everything that wehave and can borrow to find a new drug to treat this disease. After struggling several years, we develop that drug. That drug is our intellectual property of only 7 years and after that anyone can produce it without paying us a dime.
Show-me
02-13-2005, 08:36 PM
greg wrote: Let me give 2 cases and then tell me that the drug industry is treated too nice.
a.) Tomorrow night, you and I go out drinking. After several rounds we are telling good stories about being done wrong by an ex-lover. We decide to write a great country song (lose job,love and dog leaves us, pickup won't start) and write it down that night. That is our intellectual property for as long as either of us are alive plus 70 years. No one can use the song for about a hundred years without paying us.
b.) Tomorrow night, we meet each other at a support group for people with a loved one with a terrible disease. We continue to correspond and decidefor both of us to quit our jobs and invest everything that wehave and can borrow to find a new drug to treat this disease. After struggling several years, we develop that drug. That drug is our intellectual property of only 7 years and after that anyone can produce it without paying us a dime.
I see your point but, what if the drug co. overprices the drug that is needed to save life and only the wealthy can afford it?
A song and a life saving drug are really two very different things.
Show-me
02-13-2005, 08:57 PM
I am learning it is always easier to find holes in any plan/program. It's very hard to find a perfect plan in which no one person or group of people gets the short end of the stick. Fact is that people in other country have real poverty and no medical or drug benefits at all. Thing is everyone has the right to voice their opinion here and this is the only country that I would want to live in.God Bless America;)
rokid
02-13-2005, 10:09 PM
We Americans live in a nation where the medical-care system is second to none in the world, unless you count maybe 25 or 30 little scuzzball countries like Scotland that we could vaporize in seconds if we felt like it - Dave Barry
grandma
02-13-2005, 10:39 PM
Didn't Scotland just fix their laws so they are similar to Belgium - kids 12 & under can be vaporized by their Own Country without parental permission OR Knowledgement, if so child is determined as not going to have a good quality of life? ...quallity of life as determined by the state.. :sI think they are also considering adding an age limit to how long you can stay on top of the earth after youretire...Belgium, I mean.
AARP magazine just recently had an article on Scotland's welfare program, seems they are now trying to figure out a way to keep aliens from moving in & taking advantage of it -Perhaps We Should look to them to see how to stop paying out SocSec to BorderCrossers.
I know there is a Texas StateSupreme court justice who recently gave a certain cases's opinion that "it is time for the USAto look to the Europeans for models in health & welfare......."
Best of sailing tomorrow - grandma
rokid
02-13-2005, 11:04 PM
Grandma,
Here's a final quotefor you. Seems appropriate:
The trouble with America is that there are far too many wide-open spaces surrounded by teeth. -Charles Luckman:^
grandma
02-13-2005, 11:41 PM
Well, as long as you DIDN'T say : surrounded Without teeth.:^
then it is okay - :oo
grandma
say - speaking of teeth - did you know there is another health report out that says they have reason to believe that everytime you have a tooth pulled you loose a few braincells? - I don't recall if it refered only to uppers ---:l
Greg,
You don't understand what I'm saying...again.
If youneeded to buy aprescription drug in the USA, you'd pay 4x what you would pay in Canada for the same prescription.
If the drug companies were losing money by selling to Canada, they wouldn't sell it there. So, they are clearly making a profit.
The elderly have established bus trips to go to Canada in order to afford their medications. The response of the drug companies is to say that the drugs of Canada are not to be trusted, even though they are the same drugs made by US companies. If citizens continue to go to Canada, the drug companies have been pressuring the government to make it illegal to bring drugs from other countries into the USA.
Think about it.
Show-me
02-14-2005, 03:18 AM
By coincidence I received this quote from a relative today. Thought I would share it.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan
saraho wrote:
In the past, cartels were controlled by the government because they essentially are a monopoly...getting whatever price they want. This government supports the drug industry's excessively inflated drug prices. The people pay.
Now, when people want to get their drugs from another country, the Administration warns that the drugs from these countries are not to be trusted. If this warning isn't effective, then a ban will be the next step.
Excessively inflated drug prices? Do you realize how costly it is to produce a single drug? Doing the R&D and just getting a drug to the clinical trial stage has an average cost of ~$500 million, and there's no guarantee that the drug will ever make it out to the market. Drug companies profit from sales to Canada because the Canadian government subsidizes them... by spending taxpayer money. So, when seniors go to Canada for cheaper drugs, they are getting them at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.
I like our healthcare system for the most part. If you need to see a doctor, you can see one in a reasonable amount of time. People aren't so lucky in Canada.
saraho wrote: No one is taking your fish, Rolo.
Yes, they are. 6.2% of my fish on one hand, and the full 12.4% on the other. I want all of my fish; I can do a better job than the government can with it.
saraho wrote: SS is an insurance plan that all have paid into, to ensure that there is some money for you to live on in your elderly years.
Considering that most retirees are in poverty with SS, I'd say your 'insurance' is diddly-squat.
The top quitile of retirees have < $30K income and only 20% of that is SS. For me, $30K is not retiring, that is failing.
Take 12.4% of the average person's salary and invest it in a diversified portfolio for thirty years. Using Monte Carlo, how much principal would one have? What could the annual distributions be putting the principal in an annuity at 4%? How much will be passed on to the next generation? You cannot tell me that SS does better than that.
Also, what if I do not plan on having 'elderly years'?
saraho wrote: Now, when people want to get their drugs from another country, the Administration warns that the drugs from these countries are not to be trusted. If this warning isn't effective, then a ban will be the next step.
Yeah! I want my Ephedra back! :(
Hey, saraho, I thought you were one of those government-should-take-care-of-us-and-dictate-what-we-will-do types? So if the Administration says it is 'bad', then it must be bad! Who are you to question it? :u
It's a Republican administration - can't trust 'em. :P
Show-me wrote:
By coincidence I received this quote from a relative today. Thought I would share it.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan
Yes, I've read that quote before.
From what I've heard, President Reagan's view of the federal government was that it shouldconsist ofthe Defense Department and the Post Office, and he wasn't quite sure about the Post Office. Everything else should be left to the states. I understand that he also tried to demolish the Education Dept but failed.
Of course,his view was always subject to change...esp ifthe states came up with a rulingthat his admin was against, in which case, the Supreme Court would intervene.
Rolo wrote: saraho wrote: Now, when people want to get their drugs from another country, the Administration warns that the drugs from these countries are not to be trusted. If this warning isn't effective, then a ban will be the next step.
Yeah! I want my Ephedra back! :(
Hey, saraho, I thought you were one of those government-should-take-care-of-us-and-dictate-what-we-will-do types? So if the Administration says it is 'bad', then it must be bad! Who are you to question it? :u
Does it make sense to you that, even with the fallen dollar, US drugs are cheaper in foreign countries but it might become illegal for you to obtain them from there?
saraho wrote: Does it make sense to you that, even with the fallen dollar, US drugs are cheaper in foreign countries but it might become illegal for you to obtain them from there?
I understood it to be drugs manufactured in other countries and therefore the gov't (FDA) hasn't lifted its leg on'em.
What kills me is the Ephedra ban; daddy's official announcement was "The health risks outweigh the potential benefits." and that is why it was banned.Ummmm....then why, O, why, then, are cigarettes not banned?
I am an adult now and I don't want daddy forcing his decisions on me...no..daddy... .stop...no...daaAAAaaaady!
I am not one to jump to the "gov't in the pocket of big business", but here it is obvious.
I thought this was a short term outlook for the stock market Fourm ?
Run your TSP account up to 7 figures and don't worry about SS
Lets get back to the TSP accounts... That why we are here...
Today'smarket from Ed Downs
The Dow opened the session slightly lower this morning, setting the tone for the day's slow, sideways session, as seen in the 15 and 60 Minute Charts. The index traded within a very tight 30 point range and could be setting up for another big move in the near term.
The 60 Minute Chart shows the Dow continues to trend higher at a steady pace, as illustrated by the key lower trend line that has formed beneath the lows of the current two-week advance.
Look for continued overall strength above this line this week, unless a clear and solid break occurs at 10,760. A break here will indicate a likely pull-back from the current highs; otherwise, an upside push through 10,800 will indicate another wave higher within the current uptrend.
Short Term Dow
Short term, the Dow held above short term support at 10,770 throughout the day, seen in the 5 Minute Chart. Watch this level closely for weakness tomorrow morning.
Medium Term Dow
In the medium term, we are still Long the Dow, and will move stops up to 10,760 to lock in further profit. We will want to stay Long above 10,825, and will look to enter Shorts below 10,760; using 20 point stops.
NASDAQ & S&P
The NASDAQ and S&P each traded quietly sideways, alongside the Dow. Look for continued sideways movement, until a key break occurs.
Summary
The Dow traded in slow fashion today, holding with a very tight 30-point range. Look for continued sideways movement unless 10,760 or 10,825 is crossed. A break at these key fulcrums will indicate another solid move.
Thanks for listening, and Good luck in your trading!
Ed Downs
edowns@nirvsys.com
with assistance from..
Frank Ochoa, Market Analyst
fochoa@nirvsys.com
** Note: We are now posting Index entries and exits in Real Time, through our new Intraday Index Alerts service. To learn more about the service, visit SignalWatch.com and select Intraday Alerts from the main navigation bar. - SW Team
BigJames
02-15-2005, 03:28 AM
if cigs were invented today they would be illegal
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.