RAF, I believe most people could look out for themselves in a self managed retirment plan like you're suggesting, but most only equates to about 75%. What about the other 25%? Many people I know fail miserably at investing, and are probably above average in intelligence. Also, security backed investements are not without risk.

"Bottom line is many people would fail"
-
Back to your path of declaring people need the government. It is not a small sample, I provided you a counties data. There are a total of 3 counties in texas and another county in Michigan, all have similar findings. Since the law was changed soon after these counties acted the sample size is not allowed to be larger.

To your point on bond market falling. You again are not understanding secured investments. The galveston example was from secured (guaranteed return) bonds, in private companies. Just because a market falls does not mean all lose money. Secured investments combined with diversification and proper risk management is all that is required.

Pretending people can't look out for themselves might make you feel good, but it is not required.

Thanks RAF, but bonds also rallied between 1980 and 2000. Either way, Galveston is a small sample, and doesn't represent a statistically significant portion of the population. You will always find anomolies when it comes to investment successes and failures. Bottom line is many people would fail, and those people would ultimately have to be bailed out. Unless you really believe we could revert back to the dark ages and allow elderly folks to die of starvation and homelessnes.

RAF - I'm with you in this debate. I too invested conservatively and am well ahead of SS. I like the fact that my money is my money no matter what the politicians do to SS. Now if I would have had that tax money to add to mine, OH BOY!

Well you are wrong. They were not invested in the market, they invested in secured and guaranteed bonds, so there was no loss during the down turn. The fact the lower wage people (part time) would fair better is because the returns are based on their investment level...juts like the real world.

Read both articles again.

RAF, the article about the Galveston plan states that low-wage workers would have fared better under Social Security, if the return on investment was below 4%. 4% doesn't sound like much, but note that between 2000 and 2010, the market's return was zero. Between 1965 and 1982, market return of zero, between 1929 and 1945, market return of zero, etc., etc. The Galveston plan worked because it took place during the stock market run-up of the 80's and 90's.

Humility? Hardly. Your attitude is the same most progressive (liberal) socialist leaning people have, people are too stupid to handle their own thinking and require government to do a better job for them.

Take the ponzi scheme called social security, your diluted belief that people who willingly invest their own money will lose everything shows your inability to grasp true investment strategies; leverage, diversity, growth.

If you are soooo right please explain how the galveston county employees did not lose all their money? If you are unfamiliar, they don't participate in social security.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

http://jutiagroup.com/2010/07/13/galvest...

RetiredAirForce, I just have a sense of humility, and reality for that matter. It humors me that simple folk from WI believe they can compete in the market with people who work on Wall Street. Of course you'll find exceptions where they can, but most likely more than half will fail miserably.

And futurepoorguy showed how true my last comments are.

BillyClydePuckett, way to go, you the man, etc. I'm assuming you want kudos. The problem with your philosophy though, is that the market is based on the "greater fool" principle. Given that, you would have a large portion of Americans who would retire with nothing if given the chance to invest. That would bring us back to the crisis that led FDR to create Social Security in the first place. That doesn't make any sense.

Billy: so under the privatization fantasy when people fail to invest well or worse don't invest at all (which current stats suggest is more likely) what happens to the folks with no money after retirement? Homelessnes? Starvation? Better yet, if it happened to YOU what would you like the rest of us to do when you are sitting on a corner with a sign and a cup?

1) It is not going to happen to me. I have invested well, took some risks, lost some money but overall have set myself up for a comfortable retierement.

2) Why should I or anyone else pay for people who either fail to invest or don't invest well?

Paul Krugman spend more. Well if spending is the cure Japan should be #1. After spending 100 Trillion Yen in the 90's. The lost decade.

Another democrat trying to spend their way out of this recession.

mirror only socialist thinkers and government types assume people are not smart enough to protect their own self-interests.

Billy: so under the privatization fantasy when people fail to invest well or worse don't invest at all (which current stats suggest is more likely) what happens to the folks with no money after retirement? Homelessnes? Starvation? Better yet, if it happened to YOU what would you like the rest of us to do when you are sitting on a corner with a sign and a cup? Say too bad its your own fault for not being a financial wiz?

"We should all be thankful that Ryan's plan for Social Security privatization didn't go through, as it would have all gone to the Wall Street fat cats and we'd be even poorer than we are now."

This little gem kind of sums up the mindset that has us where we are today, a nation on the dole. Nowhere in any privitzation plan would anyone have been required to give one penny to Wall Street. Investment options would have been decided by the individual. Want to stick your money in a savings account earning .04% a year? Your choice. Want to buy stock? Your choice. Gold? Your choice. But wait, that would require thinking and planning. People could make poor choices an lose money so its better that we allow them to continue to draw against the taxes being paid by others and continue to believe that they have some type of account in SS with their name on it where the money that is taken out of thier check goes and that this is what they will receive back when they begin collecting.

RAF - that is exactly what I said in my comment!

Rusty the president can ask for anything he/she wants, that request must then be approved by congress...until it is approved (appropriated) it doesn't happen.

RAF - Sorry. The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. Congress must appropriate the money for an approved budget.

For every dollar we send Nancy Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, they spend $1.40, which is a post-war record. What we need to do is send more money through this magical calculation in the form of higher taxes in order to reduce the debt.

That is really how Democrats think.

Wow - I would not vote for Ryan or this guy.

It is alarming the number of people that fail to understand how government spending works. It doesn’t start with the president, it can’t. All spending is generated by funds allocated by congress. Now re-spin your tale of who controlled the government purse when spending increased gliver18.

It is also obvious by your inability to do simple math you have no idea what debt our nation has or how much it has increased and during what time frame. To put it into simple perspective for you, our nation is currently borrowing money for just this fiscal year budget equal to the amount of the WHOLE budget under bush 41, just 19 years ago. Our nation is currently borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar it spends.

Your infatuation with fox characters is neat; perhaps you should put that same enthusiasm in getting and understanding real facts.

According to Bond the national debt must be, lets see 43 pres * 10 trillion=430 trillion dollars that obama has spent, WOW.. Bond's facts must have come from Glin Beak on FAUX news. In reality all 44 Presidents combined with Obama have spent over 13 trillion dollars, Once again it was the Republican Presidents who are responsible for 75% or 10 trillion of that 13 trillion dollar national debt. Check with facts from the CBO or congressional record Bond before you spin with Glin Beak's or Bilk O'Riley misinformation from FAUX news or is this some of your own made up bull crap fuzzy math that the Bush crowd was famous for. Or is Bond like Kerl Rave, ( tell a lie over and over and people (gullible)will think its the truth)

In case a lot of you have forgotten or did not know, or refuse to accept it. The FACT is OBAMA has SPENT MORE in 16 months than the last 43 presidents COMBINED! And yet you would vote in Heckenlively and others like him who doesn't think OB has spent enough?

Very sad when people can't understand that spending is the reason this country is SO DEEP in debt. Spending begins in the house and only gets worse in the senate until signed by the pres. It takes a simple majority vote to waste money. Take some time and look at voting records to see who likes to spend and on what, then cast your ballot accordingly.

It is easy to say anything in a political campaign, as there is no truth in advertising laws that apply and the majority of the media doesn't spend the time to correct lies and distortions.

Anyone can say they are against something, or for something. Votes speak clearly, either they stick by their word or they don't. I personally don't care what a candidate stands for (positions) I do care that they keep their word.

It's amazing that these so called fiscal righties forget all about the 10 trillion dollars that their Republican Buddies contributed to the National Debt. Could that be a good definition of hypocrisy. Now they cry tears over the Dem's 3 trillion added on to the national debt that actually helps U.S. citizens instead of corporations, unjust wars and making the rich wealthier.Are they stupid or just lackey's practicing the kiss-up

Speaking of McDonalds, one of the late night guys had a funny joke......

Did you hear that McDonalds is coming out with an Obama Happy Meal? You order whatever you want and the guy in line behind you has to pay for it....:)

His weight is caused by "glandular problems" and it's not Obama's fault that he and Nancy and Harry are running a $1.47 trillion deficit this year. Got it.

I'm opening the over/under on the percentage of votes that Heckenlively gets at 35%. I imagine I'll get a lot of takers on the under.

Vatoloco wrote, "When you make 2 millions dollars a year compared to someone who makes $35,000, the person making 2 million dollars a year will always reflect a bigger reduction in taxes Why? BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE MONEY! Get it?"

There you have it, folks: tax policy for the simple minded.

Studs,

At the same time he was calling for "Social Security Reform" which would have reduced benefits to social security recipients across the board, Paul "the Snake" Ryan was advocating that the Bush tax cuts that benefitted primarily the most wealthy in the nation should be made permanent. Like a snake, Paul Ryan speaks with a forked tongue.

Vatoloco, how did you gain access to Heckenlively's medical records? Do you really know what the cause of his obesity is, assuming he's obese, or do you always shoot your mouth off without facts?
For example, have you considered that obesity may result from glandular problems? Have you considered that obesity may result from poor eating rather than over eating. In many cases, the poor eat a bad diet because it's the only one they can afford. The sanctimonious, however, often fail to consider that.

The headline for this article, "Ryan’s opponent calls for taxes, spending" is an example of how the conservative press misleads the unwary reader. Much like Faux News, the Gazette, uses inuendo and half-truth to advance its Bliss-generated agenda. Unfortunately, many people are too lazy to read the entire article and depend on headlines only for their news.
A more accurate headline would have been "Ryan’s opponent calls for taxes on wealthy, and stimulus spending"

We should all be thankful that Ryan's plan for Social Security privatization didn't go through, as it would have all gone to the Wall Street fat cats and we'd be even poorer than we are now.

"TAX Cuts to the wealthy during the previous administration (Republican)are one of the main reason's that the economy is now in the ditch."

When you make 2 millions dollars a year compared to someone who makes $35,000, the person making 2 million dollars a year will always reflect a bigger reduction in taxes Why? BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE MONEY! Get it? Tell me where it states that people who have a lot more money than you or I are obligated to support those who make less money? This is what is wrong with this country.

Old Country Buffet or Asian Buffet or somethng man.

+1 Vatoloco......If this guy really is unemployed, he has to still be collecting those checks because he's obviously eating well:)

"I am glad to see that Paul Ryan has finally got a bonified opponent."

Maybe our comment should read"

I am glad to see that Paul Ryan has finally got a BONBONified opponent.

And what exactly do you expect from your representatives? The less the better for me because usually that means that I have to be self reliant and not depend so much on others to do too much for me.

The guy is unemployed (as stated in other articles) and wants more government spending, universal single payer healthcare and for those who are productive to pay for it. He might have a chance in this district.

If you look at this guy physically he is the epitomy of the liberals.......Use your own imagination.

This headline/article is an example of why everyone (Left, Center, and Right) should be on alert that the media (and corporate money, for that matter) decides what you will believe...

Think.For.Yourself.

If Democrats think tax and spend is the answer to our problems, why not tax everyone at 100% and let government spend us out of the recession (ala Joe Biden)?
When Reagan was in office he cut taxes and tax revenues actually increased. The only reason he left with a deficit was he had a Democrat congress that saw more dollar signs in front of their eyes and outspent themselves again!

I forsee a future writing to be entitled "how not to get elected".

liberals foget that they have been in charge sents 2006 all this crap is on them.. they always are fast to blame bush this and bush that. but in fact its on them. smoke and mirrors from the liberals. look at obama all he does is blame someone else. have you had enough. let take back our country if we dont there wont be anything left...

I don't know, the article is pretty clear to me. He blames the past on Bush and Ryan and then states we need to tax and spend to help the situation. If it walks and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Of course there is going to be good pictures of Ryan. He's been a nationally known and ranked politician for a long time. I just don't think there's anyway to sugar coat that this gentleman is not the right one.

MakeItBetter - That's not all. Not only can he not get his name in the headline, but it includes the most negative spin possible to his ideas.

It's not he says "let's get this economy going," or "hey, we gotta do something about this debt." It just tax and spend for no reason. You gotta dig deeper to figure out that he's not just some idiot.

Also, isn't there a more flattering picture of this guy anywhere in the archives? I mean every picture of Ryan is well posed, with Ryan wearing a nice suit and either smiling or earnest looking. Is the only picture we have of this guy some grainy, over enlarged picture of a guy in a ball cap and squinting at the sun?

If so, his people need to get some nice head shots into the photo department.

Is this Paul Ryan's ONLY opponent? I think I'd rather stick with Paul if it is...

Heckenlively = chow hound!

Good luck Heckenlively. You're going to need it.

Right, what we need is another Repub in office that likes to start wars and make tons of money for people supplying goods for the wars. Just look at the last two Repub presidents. The last one even had enough time to build two of the worlds largest embassies in Bagdad and Beijing. He even built them without using U.S. contractors. While he was busy building his castles, the economy was was starting to crash in the US. Yes, it WAS crashing BEFORE Obama took office. Bush gave GM TWO giant loans BEFORE Obama.

Shame on the Gazette for calling him "Ryan's opponent" rather than using his name. That reeks of a conspiracy to intentionally reduce Heckenlively's name recognition.

This guy is just another example with what is wrong with America. He has no clue and believes that the people need to continue paying out of their pocket. Look how well that has worked so far? Pelosi? Seriously? That woman is nuts. Also, taxing the waelth of this nation is just plain stupid. These people supply the jobs and investments that make this country go. So why bite the hand that feeds us? Ryan is going to win in a landslide. This guy is still preaching the left wing tax, spend, regulate and fee measures. The same measure that people are shouting out against. See the polls lately? People have had enough. Another thing about Bush, we had 42 straight consecutive months of economic growth. Then the dems plotted together to smear him and took control of Congress. Notice how the economy went in the tank after the democrats took control. They made the laws and new sets of regulation. Congress is responsible for this mess, not Bush. The president does not make the laws and can't set policy when his party is not in control. Seriously people, understand how things work before you point fingers. Two years later and all the democrats can do is blame Bush. Fricking sad. How about giving money back to businesses so they can create jobs. Nope, lets pass a major socialist healthcare bill so we can tax the daylights out of the middle class. Unemployment still high, lets fix it. Nope. Lets fight Arizona because the democrats want to fight Arizona instead of enforcing laws and protecting jobs from illegals. Unemployment still high, lets help families. Nope, lets talk Cap and Trade so we can further drive American businesses overseas and encourage job loss and make the people pay more in power bills. I have an idea, how about holding the democrats accountable for sitting on their butts and doing nothing about jobs! Thats why the left is going to get spanked in the November elections! Thank god for Paul Ryan!

Nemesis,
I just sat back and shook my head when I read the same thing. Where does this idiot think "the taxpayer" gets their money to "step up?" Uh jobs? Many of which are leaving due to the climate here in the US. But many who never have been near a business believe they can just blame the businesses. Don't even look at the climate their own politicians and their own entitled selves have created that chased out those businesses. If this is the only candidate the dems can put up this party is in way bigger trouble!

Notice to the right wing, which includes the greedy and gullible, TAX Cuts to the wealthy during the previous administration (Republican)are one of the main reason's that the economy is now in the ditch. 8 years of stupidity got us here so give Dem's a chance. If we go back to the Bush's agenda America will not survive but with Obama and Dems we have a chance. Say no to the party of no

After the past year and a half, I can't believe there are still Democrats out there.

"the private sector isn’t going to step up and provide jobs (how can they when they are being taxed into oblivion by this administration) and pump money into the economy (many jobs are being sent to other countries without the same level of taxes or regulation) then the only people with the capability to keep the economy afloat are the American taxpayers. (the guy is so delusional and off the mark when he thinks that paying more taxes is the solution to our economic problems.

Nice headline. It could have been written by the Republican Party. Who would have guessed the Gazette might have right wing bias (sarcasm alert). Let's save a bunch of Gazette wages and just print Republican Party PR releases verbatim.

He looks too much like Michael Moore. Another left-winger who is dangerously short sighted and can't see reality past his double chin.

I am glad to see that Paul Ryan has finally got a bonified opponent. Ryan continues to follow the Republican party line and tends to neglect the will and needs of the people he represents. Paul Ryan is caught up in developing his own image on the national scene because he is looking at the national election in 2012. If anyone has ever read his proposals and manafestoes which he publishes reqularly, not only at his Congressional website but in various publicantions throuout the state and nationally,you will see that what he wants for the US is not attainable and in the final analyisis usually makes no sense what-so-ever. I hope the people in our district wake up to Ryan's nonsense and elect someone to Washington who has the district's best interests in mind.