Social Security is meant to provide a minimum income for those who would be out on the streets otherwise. So a possibility of a sudden 50% drop in assets would be unacceptable, even if it would make a profit in the long run.
In addition, the stock market is of course subject to the laws of supply and demand. The Social Security trust fund contains a substantial portion of the total capitalization of the S+P 500, so merely by investing it in the stock market, it will drive up prices that will drive down those 8% returns. Of course, in theory it may drive more investment in companies and thus spur the economy, but as a second-order effect, it would not be as powerful as directly investing in start-up companies would be (which the government isn’t very good at when the object is profit.)
That’s one of those things that, if it were true, it couldn’t stay true. IOW, as soon as we discover a way where it’s almost impossible to lose money, it will be overbought and people will lose money. That’s called a bubble.
What’s to respond to? steronz cited an article that states, unambiguously, that according to Democrats any suggestions from their side on entitlement cuts are, to quote the response exactly, "not going to happen”.
Are any of these Democrats named Obama? You seem to be mistaking posturing as a part of negotiating with real positions. Plenty of Republicans said there would never be any tax rate increase also.
Did Obama suggest cutting entitlements in the current negotiations? If so, I missed it. Can you give me a cite? And “maybe we will do it some time later” doesn’t count.
The belief that buckets of mortgages could have both the returns of high risk subprimes and the safety of low risk mortgages was a major factor in the crash. Everyone knows you can’t get something for nothing - except when the machine doing it is very complicated. It’s why perpetual motion machines have so many parts.
Obama isn’t suggesting cutting anything yet, since he learned four years ago that making proposals that are reasonable either get rejected by the Republicans or used as the starting point. He’s just asking for some input from those who really want to cut. Plus it is good leverage to get the tax rate increase. He has never rejected cutting in principle.
You do remember how Romney attacked him for cutting Medicare, don’t you?
I’m sure you know as many people as I do in the Bay Area who thought that real estate prices here would never go down. Fortunately, I wasn’t on of them!
Link me to the “2013 budget”. IIRC, Obama’s budget proposals to date were so laughable that they were unanimously voted down by the whole of Congress, Democrats and Republicans together.
I believe this is the paragraph your’re referring to:
They’re not saying that entitlements won’t be reduced, or even that Democrats would oppose reductions, only that they’re not going to pitch the specifics to Republicans. And why should they? Let each side bring to the table those things they want to fight for.[sup]*[/sup]
And the question that started this sub-topic had to do with shared sacrifice in bringing down the deficit. So what sacrifice would you ask of the top 1%, or at least grudgingly accept?
There are occasions in life when we all negotiate; the salary at a new job, the price of a new car, etc. You may hear a question like “what were you hoping to pay for this car?” I’ve heard it said that whoever is the first to give a specific number is the loser. That seems to be what the Republicans are after, here. They’re trying to get the Democrats to give the first number on potential tax raises and entitlement cuts. There’s no reason they have to.
If taxes are raised, they should be raised on everyone. Including the 1%. They were lowered for everyone. So if they are raised, they should be raised for everyone.
The budget’s been out since February. It’s routinely ignored by congress, for all presidents. I don’t know why congress requires the president to present a budget if they’re just going to ignore it.
The point isn’t that it’s a real budget or anything, it’s that Obama put entitlement cuts on the table a long time ago, and is still putting them on the table, contrary to your claims otherwise in this thread. Quit moving the goalposts.
The rich would still benefit from the lower tax brackets below 39.6%. This is not some punishment where if they are in the higher tax bracket they get the shaft. Only the income above whatever the cutoff gets a shaft - and they pay like 4.6% points on that income only (at least as far as the earned income tax brackets go).
Who had stuff lowered before really is irrelevant. What matters is what is fair now. We are never going to convince you it is fair. Luckily the 1% (or whatever) only gets 1% of the vote. Why not have a flat tax - or better yet just have everyone pay the same amount? There is no magic way to do this. Most people think the rich don’t pay enough. Granted most of them aren’t rich.
Don’t worry - all the poor people will still be poor - and the rich will still be rich.
Reminds me the tale of these two poor settlers in Palestine at the beginning of the 20th century that were receiving a stipend from Rothschild. One of them dies, and Rothschild cuts off that stipend. The other one writes to him accusing him of trying to profit on the death of his friend.
Ah there is that “fair” again. So - it is not fair, in your opinion, that the “rich” pay double the percentage of their income in taxes compared to “middle class” and 4-5-10 times the percentage compared to the “poor”? But add a few percent more to that - and it becomes “fair”?
And granted most of them (as we can see in this thread) have no idea what the rich pay.
