Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

How Wall Street Wrecked Your Retirement

By Nicholas von Hoffman, The Nation. Posted July 25, 2008.


People are discovering they have been forced into a system in which others have gambled with their retirement savings and lost it.
Advertisement

Our disfunctional financial system hit a new low last week when Citigroup, the hopeless wreck of Wall Street, announced it had lost $2.5 billion in the past three months -- a cheer went up, and so did the Dow. Only $2.5 billion; people were afraid the losses would be much higher. Happy days are here again.

There are no happy days for the millions of Americans who have been trying to put away some money for their retirement in tax-sheltered entities like IRAs, Roth Accounts and 401(k)s. For them, the market's downward slope has been harrowing and frightening. When will the steady erosion of their savings end? And when it does, what will be left of their future financial security?

Many of the millions suffering through these worrisome months didn't buy a house they could not afford, didn't speculate on their homes, didn't let greedy impulses lead them to the edge of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the excesses of their neighbors and the criminal folly of American finance is destroying their plans for retirement. It is dragging down much of the value of their homes, on which they have never missed a payment, homes on which they were counting on selling at retirement to help finance their last years in comfort.

For years, the privatization propagandists have been telling people that when the time comes, Social Security will not be there for them. Now many are learning that it's their private savings that may not be there. They are discovering they have been forced into a system in which other people have, in effect, been allowed to gamble with their retirement savings and have lost it.

The way the private, you're-on-your-own retirement system was supposed to work had individuals, during their younger, working years, investing in stock through tax-sheltered accounts. Almost nobody who is not breaking the law can choose among individual stocks and make money, so future retirees have been encouraged to buy mutual funds run by professional managers, who are supposed to be able to pick the winners.

Most of them aren't much better at doing that than are their customers, but in a rising market, a chicken pecking at stock tables can pick winners. In boom times, it doesn't matter that the future retiree must choose among thousands of mutual funds, many of which carry ruinously high fees. The damage to people's savings goes unnoticed until the market begins to go down.

Even as the market falls, future retirees are told not to panic, to keep their money where it is, because in the long run the value of their accounts will go up and they will have many a happy sunset year traveling the globe and showering their grandchildren with presents.

As the retirement date comes near, they are advised to begin selling stocks and buying fixed-income securities -- as bonds are sometimes called -- because these pay the interest they earn on a fixed schedule, providing a regular income.

For this to work, stock prices must be high when the holdings are sold and the bonds purchased must pay high rates of interest. But what happens when the stock market is in a nosedive and interest rates are half of the inflation rate, as is the case right now? Panic and worry, no golden years of travel, no presents for the grandchildren. The energy that was to be expended on leisure activities is spent instead trying to figure out how to make ends meet.

The bright spot is Social Security. That check does come with the regularity of the calendar, whether the market is up or down, whether interest rates be high or low and if, as is the case now, the Greenspan-Bush inflation is destroying family budgets. Social Security adjusts for the rising prices.

But Social Security is too narrow a ledge to stand on through the years between retirement and death. It was designed as the base on which other retirement savings were to be built.

Those savings -- the house and the tax-sheltered retirement accounts -- are shriveling up and blowing away. The persons for whom Americans' savings have been a reliable source of income are the brokers, the lawyers, the account administrators, the whole tribe of Wall Street fee farmers. They get other people's retirement money regardless of the direction the market may be moving in.

You can't call it a broken system because it was a bad one from the start. It is failing, just as its critics said it would. And what lies ahead for those whose retirement savings are gone may be a very unpleasant old age.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: retirement, social security, wall street

Nicholas von Hoffman is the author of A Devil's Dictionary of Business, now in paperback. He is a Pulitzer Prize losing author of thirteen books, including Citizen Cohn, and a columnist for the New York Observer.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I'm telling you. This was a RIGGED market falsely labelled as "free".
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 25, 2008 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not too surprising here. For decades, Wall $treet gets "free" money from gubbmint while screwing the working class policy after policy. Oh and don't worry. Your pols will keep you soft and comfy with some frivolous social issues such as guns, gays, abortion, school prayer, God, flag burning, Rush Limbaugh, patriotism, terrorism, and in general social hot button issues while they keep ripping you out right under your nose. As a matter of fact, social "conservatives" and Wall $treet have made strange bedfellows. It's too bad that now even some of the so-called "progressives" are doing exactly what the "conservatives" started doing in the 1980s and 1990s, from empty promises to SELLING OUT ! It's high time we paid attention to electing pols that won't cave in to Wall $treet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

when we retire
Posted by: socialpsych on Jul 25, 2008 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we should all move to lower Manhattan or Washington and live on the streets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The British were the first to get screwed on this
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 25, 2008 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It happened in the UK to many people who saved in private retirement funds. They were told to do so because the pension scheme was frozen and de-indexed from inflation. When the private schemes melted down from the beginning of the 1990s until today, people moved their savings into the one rock solid thing they knew of: housing. Well, we know the story from that point.

People are going to get double and triple burned. Yet, ironically, these are the very same people who support the most right-wing policies, so it does in some way seem like justice come home.

My advice? Have nothing to do with anything where some asshole with an MBA, a fancy suit, lots of smarmy charm, a coke habit, 6 prostitutes a week, manages your money for you. Think about it: could you concentrate much high on blow, while getting head from a smoking hot Eastern European prostitute? I know I couldn't really find stock tables that interesting after that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» filthy British reply Posted by: zipper696
What retirement?
Posted by: Sushi on Jul 25, 2008 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, it's a damn good thing I don't have any retirement waiting for me, because I would probably be pretty angry over this right about now. I always figured that I would end up working until I died on the job. Guess I was right all along.

Sushi
"Old age comes at a bad time."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What retirement? Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: What retirement? Posted by: Sushi
» RE: What retirement? Posted by: johnnyfarout
Thanks for a bold article
Posted by: BST on Jul 25, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Mr. von Hoffman, for speaking aloud what mainstream media has been afraid to state:

"Many of the millions suffering through these worrisome months didn't buy a house they could not afford, didn't speculate on their homes, didn't let greedy impulses lead them to the edge of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the excesses of their neighbors and the criminal folly of American finance is destroying their plans for retirement."

I've listened with growing impatience and, yes, annoyance to the stories of the "victims" of predatory lenders who somehow did not understand they could not afford what they were buying. And I wondered, why didn't they understand or did they just hope for the best?

And what will all this mean to my retirement --which I financed little by little over decades of hard work, to my home ( on which I still owe) which I bought years ago after a year of study and contemplation and after years of a third-floor walk-up?

I am fairly newly retired (a decision that came only after study and conferring with several other people on benefit v risk). While I've never had more than one credit card and never grace the shopping mall (my friends and family note that I pinch pennies -- gingerale in lieu of wine -- until they beg for mercy), I am saying farewell to years I envisioned as being far more stable than they will be now.

I have a 12-year-old gas-efficient car that is dwarfed on the highway by the giants. I had hoped this year to consider a used Honda, vintage 2005 -- figured it was a good time to buy. Then along came the gas crunch and the SUV owners wailing that they need a SECOND car with good mileage. There go any bargains and, thus, my dream of this small "luxury."

My greatest assets have always been a sense of optimism and confidence in my own ability to assess situations and make decisions that take in the future. These days I am losing both.

So I would like to send thank yous to the president for an unnecessary war and to those who have let greed be their guide, believing that everyone can have everything (including credit card debts in the thousands), no matter their financial situation. Remember, I, too, have to pay health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses for health issues which may arise.

I am fortunate in so many ways and I am grateful, even on the days when I am also scared and sad.

What many fail to recognize as they admire and perhaps envy the fact that I have a sweet little home on which I did most of the heavy work are the many decisions I made along the way that they decided not to make, hoping luck would bail them out if things were to go awry.

Things have gone awry, and here come the bailouts -- but not for me and others like me.

How long before I, too, lose my home?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks for a bold article Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» It's Not That Simple Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: It's Not That Simple Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: It's Not That Simple Posted by: hagwind
» RE: It's Not That Simple Posted by: Jim Shaw
"Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: Israel on Jul 25, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1980's my mother and father retired from City jobs in New York City, she from the hospitals and he from the Transit System.

They moved to Phoenix, Az and lived a relatively happy, secure life on their pension and social security.

That ain't happenin nomore!

It is estimated that a couple who retires today will need approximately $200,000 in cash, to cover the non reimbursed portion of their Health Care Expenses during a retirement of 20 years!

Most middle class people will find that their Social Security will be the backbone of their income, maybe 30-40% of their pre retirement income.

Where is the rest of the money to come from? Most will not have sufficient pension income because pensions are almost non existent these days. IRA's,401(k)s? The average worker will have maybe $40,000 at retirement.

Bank savings? 40% of American households do not have $1,000 in savings.

Home equity?
What home equity? Over 10% of all homes have negative equity right now and that includes 40% of homes with mortgages taken out since 2005!

What would it take to replace the missing income? Well, lets say the couple needed an additional $40,000 year to have anything resembling their pre retirement income.

That would require about $1,000,000 in the bank or a job!

The "Retirement" of the future, (now) will be a mix of social security and work. When you can no longer work, you will die in poverty; perhaps collapsing on the floor of the emergency room and dying as people step over you to pick up a magazine from the rack.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate GREED
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 25, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you just love corporate GREED. This country went to Hell in a handbasket a long time ago. Sadly, it will never return to the great country it once was. Thank you Dictator Bush.

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corporate GREED Posted by: Marlena
Perception of $2.5 billion
Posted by: Dianka on Jul 25, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...it had lost $2.5 billion in the past three months"

It's all in how you look at it. We shrug off this sort of loss because it's "business as usual". But imagine the public outrage if it was announced that same $2.5 billion had been put into direct aid for our poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Perception of $2.5 billion Posted by: annavan1
» RE: Perception of $2.5 billion Posted by: JERSEYDAN
Ironic
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 25, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ironic that pharma is still able to rake in billions for worthless drugs that claim to extend life in one way or another. (Actually double irony because the drugs end up knocking you off quicker!) Ironic that the number one thing women would want to "fix" in their lives for decades was their weight. To squeeze out every last minute of life no matter what the quality of old age. Years ago I realized that if I have the misfortune to grown old, I will end up in absolute poverty! No thanks! My prayers are for a graceful exit before decrepency sets in. I ALMOST pity those who let themselves who went along with the crowd and spent their lives obsessing on what others told them was important! If they succeed, they might find they did it all for nothing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My retirement is gone !!
Posted by: reelectnoone on Jul 25, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My retirement was in real estate that I can't sell for as much as I now owe. When plans were laid the market was good. My house would sell for enough to pay for small home 300 miles north of Miami, back in the states.

I moved...about 12 seconds after relocating the bottom fell out. Now I will probably be forced to file for bankruptcy because I can't keep paying for two places and cover my debts.

Had the real estate not crashed I would be living in a paid-for home, no mortgage and have had most of my other debts paid off and my SS and small business would carry me comfortably. That's gone now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unless You understand the duplicitous British role in scams you will not understand anything.
Posted by: avatar_singh on Jul 25, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Report: How the British Invented Off-Shore Tax Havens
Increase Decrease

July 24, 2008 (LPAC) This morning, Jack Blum, a lawyer with long experience in investigating money laundering, tax evasion, and similar financial crimes, provided a useful assessment when he told the Senate Finance Committee that offshore tax havens, such as those that are scattered about the British Commonwealth, have their origins in something called the "revenue rule," a common law rule that says that no government should help enforce the tax laws of other governments. This "revenue rule," Blum said, has its origins in English common law during the Napoleonic era, when English courts upheld contracts between private parties that were intended to evade French customs duties. Since the revenue rule has expanded to become a basic principle of common law, one result has been that the IRS cannot enforce tax judgments against individuals or corporations if the money at issue is being held in an offshore bank.

The revenue rule has spawned an entire industry dedicated to helping people evade taxes in their own countries, mostly in the infamous British Commonwealth offshore financial centers such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, among others. Offshore banks actually sell services in the US and other countries to help people evade taxes they would otherwise have to pay their own governments. This is not unlike the British approach to terrorism, in that terrorists living in London are protected as long as they attack other countries.

Blum proposed a number of measures to deal with the problem, mostly having to do with requiring taxpayers to prove that their offshore companies are, indeed, real, rather than the shell companies usually set up to hide assets. However, Blum agreed with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) when he said that without getting agreement with other countries to combat the problem, "it's just going to stay a game." Blum replied that "the revenue rule has to be taken down as an international principle."

From---"http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/24/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» British reparations? Posted by: zipper696
» British replies Posted by: zipper696
Numbers vs Value
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 25, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I never hear, or rarely hear, is how badly the 'Boom' market actually is. Adjusted for inflation, in order to just stay current with what value existed 20-30 years ago, the DJIA would have to be well above 20,000. It has never even gotten close. Even during the so-called bull market it never was within 5,000 points of that and now is 8-10k below that. Remember, that's just to stay even with official inflation, which we all know is bullsh*t.

Don't you love it when you see food, gas, utilities, insurance, taxes, services and medical care skyrocket and the official inflation numbers barely change? Under Clinton, the government changed the way inflation and unemployment were calculated- otherwise they cooked the books and the Bushies have continued the practice.

It's time to clean house of not just NeoCon Republicans, bu of DLC Republican-Lite Democrats as well. Obama shows all the signs of supporting the same crap. We need to hold his feet to the fire before and after the election. The same is true of the timid, do-nothing Pelosi/Reid Congressional leadership.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are writing about my life
Posted by: brilliantatbreakfast on Jul 25, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Von Hoffman, I have been reading your work for decades now. And you have hit my life right on the money. My husband and I bought a house we could afford, at the bottom of the market. We've been able to pay our mortgage through times of one income and have refinanced three times. We have two subcompact cars, one five years old, one seven. We've been socking away as much as possible into retirement. Until August 29 (I am being laid off from my job due to cost cutbacks after surviving one layoff 3 years ago) I am working for a place with a 10% match. All of that, as well as most of the money I've put in this year, has been swallowed up by the collapsing market. We have done everything right. We don't have debt. We didn't go into hock to remodel the kitchen. We save for retirement. And we are getting screwed over seven ways to Sunday by Republican rule and the mindless idiots who insist on voting for them.

It used to be that if you played by the rules, you would at least be OK. Now if you play by the rules you are just a chump.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't ever believe what investing consultants say
Posted by: badkitty on Jul 25, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm the child of depression era parents, phobic about stocks, so during those unusual times when my husband and I were employed (as opposed to laid off again, like I am now) and worked for companies with 401(k)s, I was very careful to divide my money into 1/3 fixed return, 1/3 bonds, and 1/3 stocks. Everyone laughed, especially during the dot.com boom, but during the bust I only lost $400. I looked at my husband's big retirement account yesterday and see that he lost $5.00 (five dollars) last quarter. I had a consultant tell me in February I was all wrong, but really, I don't think so. If you do put your money in 401(k)s, be careful, especially now, since my world view tells me that everything's going to collapse around December (2008). Of course, most of my friends think I'm crazy, but I'm stocking up, and trying to figure out how long I should leave what I have in the bank and what I should take it out in... I try to make decisions based on plain common sense, but I must admit, we're coming to a place where there may be no common sense. And to think six months ago, I thought we could work until we were 70 and be okay...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 401ks and taxation. Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: 401ks and taxation. Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: 401ks and taxation. Posted by: maxpayne
» Very poor investment strategy Posted by: ReallyBearish
Social Security Was Designed?
Posted by: ranchero42 on Jul 25, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was"designed" to be available only when most of those eligible were dead. Ironic that increased lifespan leads to increased misery. Dr. Kevorkian, meet Dr. Wall Street.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And yet we're divided because of what?!?!?!
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 25, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off everyone that bought or re-financed a home wasn't due to greed. Many people bought homes and were told by the appraiser the house was worth X amount only to find out later the house wasn't worth half of what they signed the contracts for - is that their fault? Or is it with the banks/appraisers/realtors that knew they were playing fast and loose?

I think it's high time that we retire that "patriotic" (b.s.) litmus test- abortion, school prayer, guns, gays, etc., etc. We need to focus on issues that affect us all, irrespective of religion, sexuality, gender, or whatever else. We all want/need safe and affordable housing, food, work, safe schools for our kids, healthcare including dental, global warming, etc. these are areas that we can build on and revolve around.

Come on people - wake up. Insist that these criminals in Washington be prosecuted and jailed for their crimes (wars of choice, illegal eavesdropping, signing statements, et al. these people have committed TREASON against us all!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Younger workers already resent older workers
Posted by: scheherezade on Jul 25, 2008 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Older workers who would have retired will now be clinging to their jobs until death.

Driving down wages and opportinities for young workers.

An ideal situation for convincing young, working voters to abandon Social Security...checkmate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if only
Posted by: Joe on Jul 25, 2008 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wall street had the power of government with imprisonment or death it could force people into continued failure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

15delta
Posted by: 15delta on Jul 25, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And to think that this genius?
Wants to put our Social Security checks in the stock market.
This guy is just plain ole stupid.
Oh! His name is Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stock market is not down enough-so how does it affect retirment annuity?
Posted by: avatar_singh on Jul 25, 2008 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
realistically and honestly if the stock market had been a reflcetion of real e=economy then stock market today would have been and should be no more than 6000 Dow Jones. All further figures are just due to scam and speculation and manipulation.
so when itis still above 6000 then it has not really gone down compared to real economy.
the financial sustem is bankrupt but stock market is still going strong comparativly thanks to bought up adminsitrators of sovering wealth funds and stupid russians, chinese and Indians who hold useless dollars and icurr losses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to outlaw these private retirement scams altogether
Posted by: logansafi on Jul 25, 2008 10:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real way to fix the system is to make Social Security a system that covers all the retired equally. You can't do that with the government actually promoting these private retirement scams.

And then you have that other scam called Military Pensions, which has the civilians paying for the participants in The War Machine what they themselves are denied, which is a decent and secure retirement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the solution?
Posted by: Melancholy Korean on Jul 26, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may only get one shot at this before I get "reported" by the others for having a different opinion (the sort of chilling conformist-speak I expect from the crazy right-wing and not the friendly left) but I wonder if your headline isn't a tad bit misleading? And I missed the part where a solution is laid out.

My comment is only useful if we can agree on the following: (a) The profit motive is ok, necessary, useful. (b) People are responsible for their actions. (c) The only guarantees in life are taxes... well, you know the rest.

With that out of the way, I have a few points and questions.

(a) Social Security. A pay as you go system, that's fine, I can agree with that, but what happens when there are more retirees than workers? Or the ratio between them falls to a level that cannot sustain current and future benefits?

(b) Over the long term (remembering of course Keynes' dictum that in the long run we are all dead), the stock market has returned about 8%, better than returns on bonds by 2-3% points.

(c) The thrust of your article is that Wall Street has screwed the little guy. If by this you mean the little guy has been duped into paying high fees for mediocre performance, then YES. But people have been saying this for a long time. There have been companies (Vanguard) explicitly set up to counter the high fee and horribly below average stock picking of most managers, and leading players in the market have also sounded off, like Bogle of Vanguard, Swensen at Yale, Warren Buffett. Information is available. You are free to buy a cheaper fund. Put your money in cash, if you can't handle too much risk. Or bonds. Or all three. Everyone is complaining now, but nary a word could be heard during the great bull run (whichever one you want to choose in the last x years.)

But if "Wall Street" is somehow responsible for the market tanking, than I have to disagree. Maybe if we expand that definition to include everyone, since most are in the market somehow, through private accts, pension funds, endowments, the now explicit guarantee of the GSEs, the 29 billion in bad debts from Bear. But if everyone is responsible, that makes it harder to write an exciting headline and to blame someone else for problems we caused ourselves.

Points (a) and (b) would seem to suggest a possible way out of the impending insolvency of our country. The beginning of a solution, at least. And yes, I agree, cut the military budget by 90% and build more schools and roads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A reply to your points Posted by: magiquarian1969
On Social Security...
Posted by: jzelensk on Jul 28, 2008 5:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
beginning in 1983 (when median Boomer was age 28) under the reform legislation, workers began paying much larger amounts into the S.S. Trust Fund which, of course by law, has always been invested in US Treasuries. These Treasuries are the debt of that other half of the government, the general fund. As a resuult, the SS Trust Fund now has a Surplus of around $2 trillion, and is forecast to rise to over $6 trillion at about the time the average Boomer reaches age 71 (year 2026).

Realize what this means. Boomers and other workers have been not only covering the SS pensions of the greatest and following generation of retirees, but have been setting aside unprecedented dollars for their own retirement, specifically so their kids & grandkids won't have to do so. That was the essence of the 1983 reforms. The Boomers may not be the "greatest" generation, but one can't accuse them of not reforming Social Security to make it essentially solvent.

Somewhere along the line the government (& both parties and both branches were complicit in this) began referring to the "unified budget" - that is, the heavily in Debt general fund, and the heavily in Surplus SS Trust fund, conveniently added together as if it were a single entity.

Then Reagan and Bush II began slashing income taxes for the rich and expanding (mostly war) spending, to force the general fund far into an unprecedented deficit position.

It was then no coincidence that Bush II began his tour proclaiming that Social Security (in fact the most solvent part of the government) was broke because all it had were these "worthless Treasury Bonds."

Well, now follow the money. The FICA tax is regressive because all wages over $102,000 (in 2008) are exempt from it, whereas all workers pay FICA from their very first dollar of earnings, no exceptions. So it comes from the pockets of working stiffs. The Bush II tax cuts, every bit of which (remember the "unified budget?") financed with these FICA dollars, overwhelmingly went to the very richest - and by the way still are.

What Bush was really saying was, "my Base - you know, the Haves and the Have Mores - have taken the Social Security balances that workers beginning in 1983 have been patiently building up (after all there were a couple of years of general fund surplus under Clinton), and we now refuse to pay it back to the source from which we borrowed it."

Accuse me of class warfare if you wish, but, again, follow who paid these taxes, and now in whose portfolios they rest. The general fund owes this money back to the Trust Fund, same as it owes US Treasury principle and interest back to ANY holder of a US Treasury bond.

How many times in US history has the government every defaulted on a US Treasury? Exactly zero times. But now that the Haves and Have Mores owe the SS Trust Fund a little debt (again, at its peak around $6 trillion in 2026), they warn that for the first time ever, the world's wealthiest nation will default on its debt, why because it owes that debt to its own retirees?

Hmmm....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]