The Democrat Utopia

Decked said:
Interesting.

The only one I truly have beef with is SS. That being w/my age and investment structure I would be far better off investing that myself than what I will get from that. 
Click to expand...
You strike me as someone with an open mind. I invite you to watch the SS segment on the video posted below. It starts at the 44 min mark. Sam Seder knows his stuff and is one of the better debaters on the left. As he points out, its actually a pretty simple fix to ensure you get your full benefits when you retire.
 




 
17 minutes ago, Ratt Mhule said:

You strike me as someone with an open mind. I invite you to watch the SS segment on the video posted below. It starts at the 44 min mark. Sam Seder knows his stuff and is one of the better debaters on the left. As he points out, its actually a pretty simple fix to ensure you get your full benefits when you retire.
 

Click to expand...

Probably depends on the topic I would imagine. I’ve seen bit and pieces of that debate but never the whole thing. 

 
Decked said:
Probably depends on the topic I would imagine. I’ve seen bit and pieces of that debate but never the whole thing. 
Click to expand...
I just watched the SS component of it and neither side made much sense and neither side seemed to have a grasp of the their own arguments.   One side just said tax people more while also claiming 401K’s have been an failure (LOL) and other side claimed SS will be gone by the time he retires and SS should just go away with people just investing themselves.   
 

The argument that should have been made is the 6% being invested from working age to retirement and how that money will give you more than the $1500 a month people get now.  

 
Archy1221 said:
I just watched the SS component of it and neither side made much sense and neither side seemed to have a grasp of the their own arguments.   One side just said tax people more while also claiming 401K’s have been an failure (LOL) and other side claimed SS will be gone by the time he retires and SS should just go away with people just investing themselves.   
 

The argument that should have been made is the 6% being invested from working age to retirement and how that money will give you more than the $1500 a month people get now.  
Click to expand...
6.2% technically. I would have wayyyy more money in my retirement with adding that loss to my investments accounts or 401k.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
I just watched the SS component of it and neither side made much sense and neither side seemed to have a grasp of the their own arguments.   One side just said tax people more while also claiming 401K’s have been an failure (LOL) and other side claimed SS will be gone by the time he retires and SS should just go away with people just investing themselves.   
 

The argument that should have been made is the 6% being invested from working age to retirement and how that money will give you more than the $1500 a month people get now.  
Click to expand...
Well he gave the example of 2008 for why the 401k should not be the only form of retirement, he never said get rid of them completely. And we are seeing it again now where people that are ready to retire have lost tens of thousands of dollars in their retirement, just ask Guy.
 

So if SS was privatized like they want, our entire retirement would be contingent upon competent leaders protecting it and prosecuting people who break the laws. 2008 was in part caused by illegal activities by the big banks. Were those people punished for it? No. They got bailouts. They will do the same thing again until we start treating white collar crimes the same as non-violent minor drug offenses, then people would feel more comfortable with privatized retirement. 
 

And I do have a 401k, roth IRA, brokerage acct and a dependant account for my kids that they will get control of when they are 21. But id still like to have SS protected in case we have another idiot president when im in my 60s. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ratt Mhule said:
Well he gave the example of 2008 for why the 401k should not be the only form of retirement, he never said get rid of them completely. And we are seeing it again now where people that are ready to retire have lost tens of thousands of dollars in their retirement, just ask Guy.
Click to expand...
1) He said it was a failure.  It being the 401k system 

2) if you are at or very near retirement, you shouldn’t have all/most/or half of your investments in equities.  Bonds and money markets should be a major factor in your portfolio.   This is simple early grade investment knowledge.  
 

Here is a fun math exercise for you.  How much money for retirement would you have if you made $36,000 a year every single year  (literally never get a raise) from age 25-65 and instead of 6.2% ($2,232 yearly) going into SS it went into an investment account at the historical average inflation adjusted 7% annual growth?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
1) He said it was a failure.  It being the 402k system 

2) if you are at or very near retirement, you shouldn’t have all/most/or half of your investments in equities.  Bonds and money markets should be a major factor in your portfolio.   This is simple early grade investment knowledge.  
 

Here is a fun math exercise for you.  How much money for retirement would you have if you made $36,000 a year every single year  (literally never get a raise) from age 25-65 and instead of 6.2% ($2,232 yearly) going into SS it went into an investment account at the historical average inflation adjusted 7% annual growth?  
Click to expand...
The only way I would get behind this type of system is if it was still required to be paid into an account and not touched.  There are millions of people in the US in lower paying jobs that simply would not pay into a system if it wasn't required.  The good thing about the SS system is that it IS required and, if not dismantled, it's there when you retire no matter what has happened throughout your life.  If it's not required, we would end up with a huge number of people with no retirement when they are older.

 
Ratt Mhule said:
They are more than welcome to get out there and do their own rallies to mobilize the base if they are worried about that. And those two would be considered moderates in Europe. Only in the US do people think that European social safety net policies are too extreme and profits for blue cross and united are more important than having adequate health care system, but whats going on now is not extreme at all lol. There will be a day we finally get universal healthcare in this country and I do believe we are closer than people think. 
 

And we will never know how 2016 would have gone if Sanders was the nominee. All we have is early data from the primary season. Sanders was up double digits in polls against Trump. Clinton was within the MOE in the same polls. We know how that turned out.
Click to expand...


True. The Bernie/AOC wing is not the liberal cocktail circuit and virtue signaling wing. They're the populist wing, where the #1 message is wealth disparity and the anti-democratic power that comes with it. It's the hard-working American message, and it has a major overlap with the anti-elite populism that put Donald Trump in office. 

Of course the DNC doesn't know what to do with this kind of grassroots success. Bernie/AOC got 28,000 people to show up at a rally in a red county with a total population of 58,000 on a Tuesday. If they were smart, they would let Bernie and AOC do the legwork, study what resonates with their key demographics, and adopt it into a new platform for Democrat candidates to promote. If they get primaried, may the best person win. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top