After being gone for the past two weeks, Bob Brinker hosted Moneytalk today.
OPENING MONOLOGUE.... Brinker devoted the entire opening monologue to discussing the ten-year anniversary of 9-11-01. Brinker said that it hit close to home with him because he had spent so many years working in the "canyons of Wall Street." His daily commute would take him through the World Trade Center every day, right where the Twin Towers came down.
The replacement tower, when completed, will be the tallest building in the country. One World Trade Center will eventually have 100 floors. They are now working on the 80th floor -- at a cost of $3.2 Billion -- and it's expected to be complete in 2013. Since 9-11-01, lower Manhattan has grown a lot. The residential population has doubled and there are nineteen new parks.
GOLD AND SILVER....Caller Tom from San Jose asked if gold and silver were in a bubble about to burst, and if so, was it related to the bailouts. Brinker said: "I really don't think it's related to the bailouts. The bailouts are pretty much yesterday's news, they occurred mostly back in 2008 when it was proposed that they do the toxic-asset relief program and the rest of it. And that was three years ago......I really think that it is speculation.....To some people degree, people are substituting precious metal ownership for fiat currency......
What's unfortunate is that if people want to do a true gold hedge, they should use the exchange-traded fund for that purpose.....And that's the GLD, exchange-traded fund shares.....backed by gold bullion.....When we first started talking about this for those who want a hedge, gold was about $550 an ounce. Last time I checked, it was over $1800 an ounce. So it's been a terrific hedge for those who want a hedge in their portfolio for a reasonable percentage. But in terms of trying to tie predictions to gold, it's simply speculation at this point and it's going to be driven by the speculative money flows more than anything else, I believe."
Honey EC: I have no idea when Brinker thinks he first started recommending GLD, but he has never really recommended buying gold in any form. He has only ever recommended GLD as a preferred way to buy it for those who want it in spite of Brinker's negativity. Other than that, he added GLD to his Marketimer off-the-books list of individual issues in May, 2009. But he never said why he added it to the list, and he never recommended a buy price or said how much to buy! Gold was certainly more than $500 an ounce at that time. I think you have to go back to 2005 to find gold at $500 an ounce. At that time, Brinker was against buying gold, even as a hedge.
Brinker replied: "That would be different from what I have been recommending, Joe. So it would be hard for me to tell you what to do since I am recommending something different. I have a recommendation right now in my income portfolio....Now the income portfolio that I publish in my investment letter has over 90% of its assets in fixed-income obligations. So this is an overwhelmingly income oriented portfolio. Because even the portion that's not in fixed-income is actually in dividend paying stocks......Now we have a higher weighting in our income portfolio in the Ginnie Maes, than you have. You're only at 5%......We also have several other portfolio holdings in that particular sector......Should you take your last 5% out of the Ginnie Mae? That would be something that I have not recommended. I have not recommended going to zero in Ginnie Maes."
Honey EC: In January 2009, Brinker sold part of his Ginnie Mae holdings in both the income-fund model portfolio III. Also, in the January, 2011 Marketimer, Bob Brinker wrote:
Model portfolio III Changes:
Sell: 10% of the weighting in Vanguard Short-Term Investment Grade (VFSTX) thereby reducing this weighting from 20% to 10%;
Sell: 10% weighting in Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities (VIPSX) thereby eliminating this holding;
Buy: 20% weighting in Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) thereby establishing this new holding.
Fixed-Income Portfolio Changes:
Sell: 15% of the weighting in Vanguard Ginnie Mae Fund (VFIIX) thereby reducing this weighting from 40% to 25%;
Sell: 10% of the weighting in Vanguard Short-Term Investment Grade (VFSTX) thereby reducing this
Sell: 10% Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities (VIPSX)thereby eliminating this holding;
Buy: 25% weighting in Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) thereby establishing this new holding;
Buy: 10% weighting in Vanguard High-Yield Corporate (VWEHX) Thereby increasing this weighting from 15% to 25%
Brinker continued: "By the way, the Ginnie Maes have been an extraordinary holding. We continue to hold Ginnie Mae Securities in our model portfolio III in the investment letter, which is a balanced portfolio. And we also continue to hold Ginnie Mae Securities in our income portfolio that I just spoke of......We've had exposure to Ginnie Maes for many years......And I would say that the Ginnie Maes have been an outstanding holding because during all of the period that people were concerned about credit quality back around 2008, 2009 especially, these securities, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury for full payment of principal and interest in timely manner, these securities have continued very strong. In fact, even as we speak, they are within a few cents of their all time net asset high........And we've certainly heard a tremendous amount of positive feedback over time from investment letter subscribers about how pleased they are with their Ginnie Mae holdings."
SOCIAL SECURITY A PONZI SCHEME? Several times today. Brinker talked about the latest flap about whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme or not. Brinker clearly stated that he does NOT believe it is a Ponzi scheme. Caller Brad from North Carolina said he thought it was possible that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme since the government keeps changing their promises and spends the money as soon as it comes in.
Brinker replied: "The Social Security Trust Fund, money that should have been set aside for the payment of benefits, has been spent. And the reason it was spent was because when the government went to a unified budget many years ago, that gave them a license to take the payroll tax revenue that comes in every year and spend it not only on Social Security benefits, but anything else they chose to spend it on, and that's what they've done. And as a consequence, in order to raise money to cover future deficits for beneficiaries, they have to sell Treasurys to raise the money.....
Now you go back to 1983 when a bi-partisan increased the amount of money they were going to tax. By the way, that's now up to $106,800. And they made some very slow changes in the age in which full benefits were received.....increasing the age to 67 for those born after 1959......That helped the system.....I think they have to make more changes.....means testing...... 54 million receive Social Security checks...."
IRAQI DINAR.....Dale from Oklahoma asked about the Iraqi Dinar. Brinker told Dale that his concern is that there is a scam risk. He thinks that those selling the Iraqi dinar are the only ones who will make money on them, and he will not be putting any money in them.
BEN BERNANKE....Brinker made the comment that even though Ben Bernanke has said that the FOMC will keep rates where they are until 2013, "if the economy starts to move they will change their policy in a New York minute."
STOCK MARKET....Jerry from Providence asked about the debt problems in Europe. Brinker said that what was happening in Greece was not good, but Greece is only 2% of Europe's GDP. The real "big deals" would be if the sovereign debt situation spread to Italy or Spain. Then Jerry seemed to slip in this question: "Do you think that their stock markets are performing poorly, you think that's why our market has been performing poorly?"
Brinker replied: "I think that our market certainly has had some spill-over from the concerns involving the banks with reference to sovereign debt in Europe, but I think that the real driver in the US stock market and the US economy. What kind of a growth rate will see in the US economy going forward. How will corporate earnings do within the framework of that economy. And I think that is what really drives things in terms of the US.....Brad in North Carolina....."
Honey EC: Brinker hung up abruptly on Jerry and moved on to the next caller. I don't think he wanted to say anything at all about the stock market. And as you can see, he almost didn't say anything at all. :)
Brinker's guest-speaker was Joseph Hurley, CEO of savingforcollege.com.
Moneytalk on demand and to go with Bob Brinker, is available for FREE audio/podcasting at KGO810 radio for seven days after broadcast. (At the KGO website, go to "listen/podcast" to download.) I download and save all three hours, including the third hour guest-speaker. (The program is archived in the 1-4pm time-slots.) If you don't download it from KGO within seven day, it's available at bobbrinker.com by paid subscription.
67 comments:
I only listened to the first hour, but it was obvious to me that Bob was just busting at the seams to discuss the stock market, but alsa, none of the callers seemed to be interested in asking any questions about it.
Callers seemed more interested in more relevant things, like the Iraq dinar, for instance.
Well, maybe the market will get more callers interested soon. For instance, the Dow futures are down over a hundred points as I type. so hang on to your hats, folks! It won't be pretty, at least not in the early going.
- Dan G
Good chance, Brinker gets his "I don't see more than a 10% correction."
x 2 today.
Joey
BB made a comment during his 8/7 show, on 7/29 he was buying on the dips. Don't believe he was expecting the S&P500 to nose dive from 1300 to less than 1200 where it is now.
BB should have made made a comment on his 9/11 show if he was still dollar-cost average down; and where he thinks the turn will be.
Most expect BB will only make a comment after the bounce.
Can someone ask BB how long he will still have his program or is it his choice? Show cut-back once a week, but he's off about every 3rd week without explanation.
Prominent economists have discussed the ponzi scheme aspects of social security for years.
Nobel prize winner Paul Samuelson wrote:
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that Works
The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in — exceed his payments by more than ten times (or five times counting employer payments)!
How is it possible? It stems from the fact that the national product is growing at a compound interest rate and can be expected to do so for as far ahead as the eye cannot see. Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real income going up at 3% per year, the taxable base on which benefits rest is always much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired.
…A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.
Samuelson wrote that in 1967 riffing off his classic paper of 1958. By “as far as the eye cannot see” he apparently meant not very far because it soon became clear that the system could not count on waves of youths or rapid productivity growth to generate the actuarially unsound returns that made the program so popular in the early years.
Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson rarely agreed on much but Friedman also called social security a Ponzi scheme. In fact, he called it The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on Earth. A third Nobel prize winner who recognizes the Ponzi like nature of social security, none other than…..Paul Krugman (writing in 1996):
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in).
Social Security is not necessarily a Ponzi scheme but it only generated massive returns in the past because of its Ponzi-like aspects. The Ponzi-like aspects are now over and social security is turning into what is essentially a forced savings/welfare program with, as Krugman recognizes, crummy returns for average workers. Social security is thus a Ponzi scheme which has not gone bust but it has gone flat.
Can someone ask BB how long he will still have his program or is it his choice? Show cut-back once a week, but he's off about every 3rd week without explanation.
Just ask politely over here. He reads this site several times a day.
"Social security is thus a Ponzi scheme which has not gone bust but it has gone flat."
And it may go even worse than "flat" now that payroll taxes have been set aside and will continue to be set aside if the "Obama Jobs Plan" goes through.
The market continues in its volitile ways. I missed a good chance to re-instate a "short" position this morning when the market snapped back to about even on the day. But I was too busy making coffee! Oh well, it's really good coffee! (But I'd rather be "short"!)
"Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in)."
All we have to do is means test Social Security and slowly raise the retirement age each year. That should fix the problem for years and years.
It makes no sense to pay Social Security benefits to billionaires or even those folks who don't really need them. Everybody has to learn to chip in a little bit more.
Since practically nobody gets a pension they are retiring much later than they used to.
And everybody is living longer to so it only makes sense to raise the retirment age for Social Security.
If you raise it to about 77 I think that would be fair and a lot of people wouldn't even be alive to collect it so we would have more in the kitty.
SP 500 down 0.7% midday.
Darn speed bumps on the road to critical mass.
One difference between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that no one is forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
-- Frankj
"It makes no sense to pay Social Security benefits to billionaires or even those folks who don't really need them. Everybody has to learn to chip in a little bit more.... [drivel deleted]....
If you raise it to about 77 I think that would be fair and a lot of people wouldn't even be alive to collect it so we would have more in the kitty."
Yes, and we should put all the rich who don't vote for 90% taxes again like the "good old days" in "re-education camps" and confiscate their ill-gained assets so they can learn to walk the party line.
Why care about lying to the public that payroll tax payments were for insurance and a set benefit at a set retirement age?
Just like Ponzi, it was all lies.
Lies to get the stupid to send their money to Washington for rotten but certain return on their investment.
Why pretend you would settle for anything else?
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program
"after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want"
Arbeit macht frei.
This is what conservatives don't understand about human nature.
People just want to work as hard as they can and only get what they need just for the joy of giving back.
Geez. Doctors should work their behinds off at med school and all that to give free care to Nancy Pelosi's dream pursuers, who want produce art and music that nobody who isn't on medicinal marijuana wants to look at hear.
Darn rich doctors. arbeit macht frei
Why does Brinker need a starship?
Joe Tong asked: "Can someone ask BB how long he will still have his program or is it his choice? Show cut-back once a week, but he's off about every 3rd week without explanation."
I don't know, Joe, but I do know that Bob Brinker has an ideal set up. He works an absolute minimum number of hours and packs in more informercial pitches for Marketimer than he used to when he was on two days a week.
When you consider the third hour is simply a guest interview, he only has to do a couple of 15 minute monologues about news that's been all over the internet for days and answer a few calls after they have been carefully screened to keep out any questions that he doesn't want to answer.
In exchange, he keeps the Brinker name in the public eye, which benefits him and his fixed-income-newsletter-hawking son in tall clover.
"Yes, and we should put all the rich who don't vote for 90% taxes again like the "good old days"
Unfortunately, we don't get to vote on taxes but I think things were better back in Eisenhower's time when taxes were higher.
Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan or an insurance policy but a safety net for those who couldn't quite make it own their own.
Billionaires and other rich folks obviously have it made so they shouldn't just get gravy on top of it all.
They probably stole their money from other people anyway so they shouldn't complain about a small thing like a means test.
PS: I forgot to add that I don't think Medicare should be means tested though because I think everybody should be covered by Medicare no matter how old they are.
Just tax everbody to pay for it like they do all over the rest of the world. Then you can go to the emergency room again because everybody there is in the same boat.
"I do know that Bob Brinker has an ideal set up. He works an absolute minimum number of hours and packs in more informercial pitches for Marketimer than he used to when he was on two days a week."
He probably just works enough so it counts toward his Social Security Benefits.
Why does Brinker need a starship?
To flee the galaxy after all his subscribers realize they have been duped by a charlatan selling them snake-oil.
"REIT-ten in the cards
If I were personally in the mortgage REIT business, I would be sending the Federal Reserve a big thank-you card and perhaps a box of chocolates. Mortgage REITs, which make money on the spread between short-term and long-term interest rates, have been feasting on historically low federal funds levels. Because of the Fed's decision to keep rates near historic lows through mid-2013, it's likely that these companies will continue to benefit.
But when I see Annaly, Invesco Mortgage Capital (NYSE: IVR ) , and American Capital Agency (Nasdaq: AGNC ) yielding 14.6%, 23.9%, and 19.7%, respectively, my initial impression is that this must be a value trap. In part, it is, because these yields will be unsustainable over the long term and spreads will eventually tighten. But given the Fed's stance on rates over the next two years, I think short-sellers are out of their minds to bet against such a high-yielding sector -- at least this early in the game."
MOTLEY FOOL...today!
Honey wrote:
"I do know that Bob Brinker has an ideal set up. He works an absolute minimum number of hours and packs in more informercial pitches for Marketimer than he used to when he was on two days a week."
Yes, I've found it interesting over the years how Bob Brinker starts the program by saying " Here on Moneytalk we teach you to be your own personal financial manager", then later in the program tries to sell you HIS advice through Marketimer. I would say that anyone who subscribes and follows his advice is letting Bob Brinker be their financial manager.
He would say of course that he is not forcing anyone to follow his advice, but I don't think anyone would pay $185 every year to ignore it.
Jim says: but I don't think anyone would pay $185 every year to ignore it.
Jim, you might not believe it, but over the years that has happened qqqquite a few times.
Several people ONLY took the good advice and never took the bad advice that failed. Can you believe that? It was common with the qqq call.
There were even people that would brag how they could read between the lines, and know what brinker was trying to say without him saying it. Then they would brag that's how they knew to avoid his bad advice that never worked.
We had some shills that were real geniuses, I tell you. A lot of people here paid $185 to NOT follow him.....A LOT.
"Several people ONLY took the good advice and never took the bad advice that failed. Can you believe that? It was common with the qqq call."
Here we go again, Hashing and rehashing a TEN YEAR OLD OPTIONAL CALL.
All anectodtal bullcrap, because NOBODY knows who did what.
The pig himself, Dan G, and other posters all got into the QQQ trade to a very limited extent and all got out with zero or small losses.
Except for pig and I think he is still waiting for Brinker to tell him what to do.
Except for pig and I think he is still waiting for Brinker to tell him what to do.
Well he should. I told him what to do after losing my retirement, but I think it would be physically impossible for him to do.
I was going to retire in Prescott.....
Jim said: "Yes, I've found it interesting over the years how Bob Brinker starts the program by saying " Here on Moneytalk we teach you to be your own personal financial manager", then later in the program tries to sell you HIS advice through Marketimer. I would say that anyone who subscribes and follows his advice is letting Bob Brinker be their financial manager."
Jim,
That reminds me, on Sunday during one of Brinker's sales-pitches for his reading list -- all about how you can learn to be your own financial manager -- he said he does it in his "investment letter."
I considered transcribing his speech since he interjected into to it the words (possible paraphrase): "you can learn to buy no-load funds like I do in the investment letter."
I laughed out loud! You nailed it, Jim. He wants listeners to "manage" their finances right into his bank account. :)
Here we go again, Hashing and rehashing a TEN YEAR OLD OPTIONAL CALL.
Seems fair to me. I mean when is the last time Brinker said do anything other than be fully invested and dollar cost average, oh and throw money in near market peaks and then ride the valuation down? Let's see wasn't it buy at S&P500 1450 just in 2008? And then just a few weeks ago was he not taking advantage of another opportunity - at what level again?
So if a guy has been saying the same thing for 10 years like Brinker has, why not talk about a 10 year old trade? Hell he is living in the past in the present already! He is still rehashing and reliving the same advice for about 10 years now - sort of like Groundhog's day only that movie had a happy ending. In Brinker's case subscribers pissed away $1850 when all they had to do was push the play buttons from an old recording from 10 years ago.
tfb
"So if a guy has been saying the same thing for 10 years like Brinker has, why not talk about a 10 year old trade?" -tfb-
Why not bunny? It's given you something to look forward to for the past decade. Simple things are always the best.
Have you ever considered retiring to Prescott? Bad thing now is that you have to pay $25 if you want to visit your family in prison.
"you can learn to buy no-load funds like I do in the investment letter."
Okay I am going to defend Brinker on this. If he wants to provide a service that he charges for to help people select a mutual fund portfolio even though they can do that themselves – fine. This is no different than paying to have you roil changed at a quick lube, you can easily learn to do it yourself but some people elect to pay someone to do it for them for the convenience factor, i.e there are others thing they would rather do with their life. And after you pay your fee you get what you paid for, in this case it would be a model portfolio of mutual funds selected by Brinker and in the case of a quick lube you oil is indeed changed.
So I am fine if Brinker wants to sell a mutual fund model portfolio service. Where he crosses the line is with this fantasy that he can time the market, and even more egregious is his deliberate machination to cover up his actual record and the fact he cannot time the market in a way that is advantageous to his subscribers as evidenced by his actual performance.
On the other hand if he wants to change the name to Bob Brinker’s mutual fund selector service and act as a fund adviser than I am all for it. But for him to imply he has a timing model that is proven, stable and capable of timing the market is very, very disingenuous as it has failed every single test I know of despite multiple tweakings.
What I find even more amusing is, to the best of my knowledge he has not even acknowledged trying to tweak his timing model after its obvious failure in 2008, and yet here we are heading into another banking crisis…and here he is riding herd on a timing model that is obviously broken…yahoo…what does he care he, he is nearing retirement and just milking this market timing shtick for as long as he can; it is not like he will have to answer to anyone for it. He can just retire when the heat gets too hot and volunteer as a community organizer to promote the liberal agenda.
tfb
"I mean when is the last time Brinker said do anything other than be fully invested and dollar cost average, oh and throw money in near market peaks and then ride the valuation down?"
Same thing could be said about "St. Jack" Bogle could it not?
Maybe even Uncle Warren Buffett who says he "never" sells, but that's an exaggeration I think.
Here they go again, eye your private pension...
Link
tfb
Excuse me but Social Security is in many, many instances far, far worse than the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.
If I die today... my girlfriend gets nothing from my decades of SS payments since we are not married.
If I invested $500,000 or less in Madoff's Ponzi scheme, SPIC insurance would have made me whole and I'd get back all invested. I am 54 yrs old...
The odds are high many successfull, middle class people making less then the Payroll Tax Cap won't get back what they paid in... worse than Madoff!
How long does someone my age have to live before they get all their money back from Social Security, forget about the decades of lost value due to inflation. Now some want to raise the retirement age to older than my parents were when they died AND have means testing.
Luckily I've known from the start it is far WORSE than a Ponzi scheme and have planned accordingly but that doesn't make it fair for the government to have lied to us for all these years while treating it as just another tax... the only difference is the high income earners don't pay their fair share. It is a lie for the wealthy to get lower tax rates be they democrats or republicans.... while the POTUS makes a big deal about cutting the rate WE ALL PAY for payroll taxes thus cutting taxes on the rich, the very people he promised to raise taxes on....
If anyone can't tell, I'm completely fed up with BOTH parties and the lies they've told us.
On the topic of becoming your own financial manager, when I listen, sometimes there are ads during the breaks for gold investments, and there have been ads for learning how to day trade.
I know BB probably cannot control these ads (and may be thankful for ANY ads) but hearing them is jarring, since BB preaches a more deliberate approach.
-- Frankj
All anectodtal bullcrap, because NOBODY knows who did what.
Speaking about NOOBODIES, have you calculated yet what the results would be for the poor fool that followed ALL of brinkers advice, especially the stuff that he has hidden away?
TIA and see you next week..........
"How long does someone my age have to live before they get all their money back from Social Security, forget about the decades of lost value due to inflation. Now some want to raise the retirement age to older than my parents were when they died AND have means testing."
That's the whole idea! People are working longer because most don't have an old fashioned defined benefit retirement plan and people are living longer too.
It just makes sense to increase the minimum age to draw SS benefits and I think 77 would be a fair age. That way a lot of people would die off before they started to draw it and it would make the kitty just that much bigger for those who don't die.
SS was never meant to be a retirement system but rather a safety net so you aren't poverty stricken in your old age. And it's insurance to help out if you get disabled at any age so you have to pay for that too even if you don't use it.
Means testing is a good idea too so we don't give billionaires and other rich people just more gravy they don't even need.
It they complain it's not fair, just ask them how they got all their money and you will find a lot of unfair things they did too I bet.
So it all works out if you means test and raise the age to at least 77, maybe more as time goes by.
If anyone can't tell, I'm completely fed up with BOTH parties and the lies they've told us.
Well there are 3rd parties. If you are conservative the Constitution Party may be loosening up some so non-Christians like me can now join.
And the Libertarians have loosened up so you can be a non-dope smoker and pro-life and remain in good standing.
And if you can ignore real science you can always join the Green Party. You may have to smoke dope, but at least it is all natural.
Kirk: There are a lot of people fed up with both parties. I read yesterday where the approval rating of Congress is at 13%.
-- Frankj
Kirk,
I don't want to get into a personal debate with you here, but just let me say that there is much about Social Security that is unfair, but the fact that "girlfriends" don't get it will not be keeping me up at night.
It's even questionable whether it's fair that wives (who are the mother of the husband's children) should get it.
Men never qualify for their wives' Social Security. Men are lucky to get a small amount paid to their children (until they are 18) on the death of their mother.
Men never qualify for their wives' Social Security.
Are you sure of that? What about a man who's own Social Security is less than his wife's? Couldn't he draw hers upon her death?
Or suppose he is a government employee who doesn't qualify for Social Security, can he draw his wife's when she dies.
And HB, I don't feel so bad about Kirk's girl friend either.
Maybe he could let her read that section of his will wherein she is amply provided for upon Kirk's untimely demise. LOL...I'm sure he's made very generous provisions.
I'd like to have a naked pig party.
The approval would be quite high, especially after I walked in..............
> "Are you sure of that?"
No, I'm not...MOF, I looked at the website and it appears that I am wrong:
Social Security survivors benefits can be paid to:
A widow or widower -- full benefits at full retirement age, or reduced benefits as early as age 60
A disabled widow or widower -- as early as age 50
A widow or widower at any age if he or she takes care of the deceased's child who is under age 16 or disabled, and receiving Social Security benefits
Unmarried children under 18, or up to age 19 if they are attending high school full time. Under certain circumstances, benefits can be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren, or adopted children.
Children at any age who were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled.
Dependent parents age 62 or older
Socialsecurity.gov
Anonymous said, September 13, 2011 9:49 AM
“Have you ever considered retiring to Prescott? Bad thing now is that you have to pay $25 if you want to visit your family in prison.”
I always love coming back to Honeybee’s hive. Stuff you can learn, Wow! ---- I need some clarification though, let’s begin with the 25 bucks to visit one’s family in jail. Does one pay the 25for each member you visit? Like wow, I would be paying $125 each weekend. I need a family plan discount. My mom, Uncle Harry, my brother Earl, my Grandpa Bernie, my sister Lolita. Do they charge only for family members? How much to visit my girlfriend? How much for a conjugal visit? For that, I might be willing to pay big, big bucks.
I see a future here. This could be a breakthrough revenue enhancer. Well you know we need something to offset the retirement package of prison guards that might retire at 55 with 125% of their base pay.
I see an entrepreneurial opportunity here, selling insurance policies that pay off if you have more than two family members in jail. It would work like kitty health insurance.
CDB
You can also claim better spousal benefits if you get crappy ones from not working much, thanks to Bill Clinton.
Even if you don't want to claim YET at full retirement age, you can File and Suspend, and let your spouse get a higher benefit.
Be careful looking this up..it is real, but there is a ton of false info out there about it.
Top link published today
http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2011/09/13/wondering-about-file-suspend-heres-the-skinny/
http://financialducksinarow.com/2245/the-file-and-suspend-tactic-for-social-security-benefits/
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/wise-investing/social-security-strategies-file-and-suspend/456/?tag=content;col1
Mr. Pig,
Thank you for that information. Here are your links:
Forbes.com: File and Suspend
File and Suspend Tactic
Larry Swedroe: File and Suspend
Mr. Pig said: "I'd like to have a naked pig party.
The approval would be quite high, especially after I walked in.............."
I've been cogitating on this for several hours now and absolutely nothing comes to my mind about what you could possibly mean by those statements.
Please put me out of my misery before I have to send someone for my smelling salts.
WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? :)
Honeybee said... Kirk, I don't want to get into a personal debate with you here, but just let me say that there is much about Social Security that is unfair, but the fact that "girlfriends" don't get it will not be keeping me up at night.
It's even questionable whether it's fair that wives (who are the mother of the husband's children) should get it.
I guess I was not clear. I was trying to point out that the ultimate benefit I get for my PAYMENTS into the plan depend on other factors besides how much I made and how many years I paid into it. Society rewards marriage between a man and a woman with potentially higher social security benefits. Can you imagine if you went to a bank and they asked if you were married before they decided what interest rate to pay you?
I've read a lot of older people "live in sin" because they don't want to marry and lose or see a reduction in their Social Security benefits.
Don't get me going about how the "insurance" part of it is full of fraud with people collecting disability then skiing or other extreme sports... yet they can't work a job of any type...
President Bush had a very high voter approval rating until he dared suggest fixing Social Security...
The Liberals scream like stuck pigs if their easy source of funds collected under the guise of a "payroll tax" to redirect to their wealth redistribution projects is actually invested rather than spent! Just look at how one here suggests the "solution" is to officially keep all the money stolen from us workers by raising the age limit past when many would be dead AND adding means testing so only those who spent everything rather than saved would qualify for full benefits.
The whole program is a joke and a national shame. I WISH it was a real Ponzi Scheme with SIPC insurance so I'd be fairly sure I'd get what I put into it back someday.
President Bush had a very high voter approval rating until he dared suggest fixing Social Security...
Sorry I cannot let this pass. You are correct that he spent a great deal of political capital in failed effort to transform social security into an ownership proposition.
But he is 100% at fault for the problem we find ourselves in right now in regard to social security. Both Greenspan and Bush’s Treasury Secretary O’Neil begged, and I mean begged him to use the then peace dividend to create a legitimate social security trust fund. This is documented by both gentlemen.
Instead Bush went for tax cuts at a time they were not needed (not that I ever have an issue with returning stolen property to the rightful owners) instead of taking care of our inter-generational obligations. And then went on to create e new unfunded entitlement program in the form of a prescription drug benefit.
So...I credit him for an attempt but strongly criticize him for blowing the one clear chance we had to get Social Security on a strong foundation.
tfb
One more thing to consider. You think many of us get a raw deal. Think of all those visa workers who come from countries that do not have totalization agreements with the U.S. this means that they and their employer must pay into SS but they can never, ever get a benefit - period(on the other hand it keeps them from having yet another competitive advantage in the market place).
tfb
"Just look at how one here suggests the "solution" is to officially keep all the money stolen from us workers by raising the age limit past when many would be dead AND adding means testing so only those who spent everything rather than saved would qualify for full benefits."
Too many people look at SS as money "stolen" from them and seem to think they are entitled to get back the money they paid it and MORE.
That's not the way it's supposed to work. Social Security has always provided a safety net for the less fortunate among us. Sort of an insurance policy so you won't live in poverty in your old age or to help you if you become disabled.
The luck ones are the ones who don't need SS because they never got disabled and they have so much money when they retire they don't need anymore.
BUT everybody gets that SS coverage all their life if they do need it.
Raising the retirement age to 77 and means testing will solve SS problems for years and years and won't affect the vast majority of Americans who actually do need SS.
I bet that poster never had to use his fire insurance policy, or burgler insurance either but those premiums weren't "stolen" from him. It's the same thing only everybody has to pay to keep the costs down for the most people.
Mouthpiece of the left, liberal Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, called Social Security a "Ponzi Game" here. Note he also called it a "retirement plan" not a way to give those who don't work or save a safety net.
"Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in)."
I get a chuckle at how the liberal left can't get their talking points straight while those of us who don't work for the government continue to foot the bills for redistributionist spending under the guise of being told our payroll tax payments are to fund our retirement plan.
At least Krugman was honest enough to say the plan is now a redistributionist Ponzi scheme.
Years ago on C-SPAN during a discussion on Social Security I heard the claim that the average wage earner (say $40000) who pays into the system over a forty year period and retires at age 65, will receive back all his or her contributions with interest in seven to eight years.
Was that an accurate statement then? If so, it is still correct today?
"Think of all those visa workers who come from countries that do not have totalization agreements with the U.S. this means that they and their employer must pay into SS but they can never, ever get a benefit -"
And how about those workers who use another persons SS number or even a phony one?
They pay SS taxes but never get a dime back too. They really do have their SS taxes stolen.
You could say no to Ponzi! You can't say no to the Social Security TAX.
Excerpts from John Stossel's "Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi!:
"Charles Ponzi promised to make money for investors by taking advantage of price differences in coupons for postage stamps. Trouble is, he paid some early "investors" with money wheedled from later "investors."
What sustains a Ponzi scheme is deception. If people really knew how it worked, they wouldn't sign on.
Social Security and Medicare are different. You could say no to Ponzi. I wouldn't advise saying no to the government. Not if you want to stay out of prison.
Social Security is nothing more than a promise from politicians. The next gang can break the promise.
Twice the government has argued before the Supreme Court that Social Security is not insurance. In 1960, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Arthur Sherwood Flemming submitted a brief to the courts stating: "The contribution exacted under the Social Security plan is a true tax. It is not comparable to a premium promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age."
Read more
"I get a chuckle at how the liberal left can't get their talking points straight while those of us who don't work for the government continue to foot the bills for redistributionist spending under the guise of being told our payroll tax payments are to fund our retirement plan."
Kirk, did you know that government workers are now covered by Social Security and pay it to it just like you do?
And as far as funding your "retirement plan". Krugman says the recipients of Social Security may view it as a retirement plan but it isn't.
He also says each generation has been taking out more than they ever put it but that is ending because of demographics.
That's why we need to kick the age up to 77 and means test. It will last for years and years that way.
"It is NOT comparable to a premium promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age."
See? Even the government argues that SS is not comparable to an annuity or a retirement program.
Kirk: "I get a chuckle at how the liberal left can't get their talking points straight while those of us who don't work for the government continue to foot the bills for redistributionist spending under the guise of being told our payroll tax payments are to fund our retirement plan."
Redistributionist Liberal:
Kirk, did you know that government workers are now covered by Social Security and pay it to it just like you do?
Facts:
#1 from www.ssa.gov: As a California teacher, you do not pay Social Security taxes.
#2 From Do CA teachers pay FICA? More than 5 million state and local government employees have been exempt from Social Security. Another 100,000 clergy are also exempt. But while, they pay no FICA taxes they pay into private or school system type retirement accounts. Some feel these are superior to Social Security accounts, but there are many factors to consider and that is by no means certain. They certainly do not get a free ride (bull chips!) ....they just pay to a different accumulation of "letters" under different sections of the IRS code.
There were a number of attempts to end this, but more to help fund FICA than for any reason of unfairness or benefit to the teachers.
#3 www.huffingtonpost.com Aug 19, 2011 – “California teachers do not pay into Social Security. These teachers will not receive Social Security Benefits.
#4 The Effect of Teacher's Retirement Benefits on Social Security Benefits
Teachers in 14 states--including California, Texas, Ohio and most of Missouri--do not pay into Social Security.
I'm done for now pointing out the liberals who post on message boards don't have their talking points straight... but it hasn't stopped the lies.
Thank you for setting the record straight, Kirk.
I want to repeat that it is NOT TRUE that all government workers now have to pay SS, just like the rest of us.
so let me get this straight
all the public school teachers in nearly communist Kalifornia "educate" all their kids to grow up and become "good little liberals" to support Social Security. Then Obama takes the payroll tax money and sends it back to the states to keep teachers employed calling it a job bill. Are these really teachers who don't pay into the payroll tax that the most of the workers pay into?
It is easy to support redistribution of wealth via a payroll tax you don't have to pay it.
Social Security
Federal workers hired for the first time after 1984, and those returning to the government after that date with at least a one year break in service, PAY THE FULL SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TAX each pay period as people do in the private sector.
For more information on social security, please visit:
http://www.ssa.gov
As a semi-retired government employee, I can confirm that I was required to join CalSTRS (California State Teachers Retirement System) instead of paying into Social Security.
At one time, teachers had the option of staying in CalSTRS or going to Social Security. I'm not sure if that option is still available. Other government employees have or had the option of coverage by Social Security.
We also had the option and decided by a vote of the bargaining unit to change from our CalSTRS contributions being taxible or not. Since the vote was held, some contributions were pretax and some post-tax. As a consequence some benefits are pretax, but not all.
There are a couple of arcane rules that prevent people collecting a "government pension" from also collecting social security at the same time. E.g. the government pension offset reduces Social Security benefits available to widows based on their spouse's social security benefits, if they are also receiving a government pension.
Unlike Social Security, all the money you paid into CalSTRS is refundable as a lump sum if you lose your job.
Things can get really complicated if you have a job history with work covered under Social Security and other work covered under a Government Pension.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that some (certainly not all) public employees have elected to be covered under Social Security.
HB: This is from the Jul 31, 2011 "Senior Citizen Journal," a comparison of Madoff's Ponzi scheme to Soc Security:
BEGINNING OF ARTICLE
The comparison is made between what Bernie Madoff did with his Ponzi scheming over the years, and how elected officials have handled the Social Security Trust Fund. Take a look…
* Madoff takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later. Social Security takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a “Trust Fund” (Lock Box) and made available later.
* Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hamptons and yachts. Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians transfer it to the General Revenue Fund and use it for general spending and vote buying.
* When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors. When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the older people.
* When Madoff’s scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won’t give him any more cash. When Social Security runs out of money the politicians try to force the taxpayers to send them some more; or they cancel S/S to all those who paid into it.
* Bernie Madoff is in jail. Politicians remain in Washington… with fat medical and retirement benefits.
The above comparison is somewhat simplistic, and leaves out some obvious reality. However, the heart of it seems to be fairly accurate. Our elected officials have been irresponsible in the manner in which they have handled Social Security funds. We need to hold them responsible. It’s time Senators and Representatives have term limits and are not allowed to raise their own salaries and create job-related benefits without oversight and appropriate controls.
END OF ARTICLE
Calling it a Ponzi scheme seems to inflame some people, but that is just what it is. The report from the Social Security Trustees, which is available on-line indicates clearly that a congressional fix is needed and the more they delay, the more limited will be the range of options available to fix things.
Those who say everything is fine are not looking beyond 2036.
-- Frankj
Taxman,
Thank you so much for your assistance in resolving this question.
It's good to hear from you. :)
A common misconception.
You folks forget that we live in an amazing time. today we have all sorts of savings options that were unheard of and almost unimaginable for the middle class back when social security was created.
Many of us take mutual fund investments, stock buying etc for granted. But not so long ago only the very well off could afford to buy stocks or mutual funds. Back then you had to pay full commission brokers and if you bought less than round lot you paid a broken lot differential. The reality is that imposed a huge practicality barrier for small investors. today we have the easily ability to invest small amount sof money on a regular basis in mutual funds or stocks at a nominal cost. Back then the commissions most likely would have exceeded the total dollar value of the stock or mutual fund you were buying. I am serious. The savings plan of the middle class was a life insurance policy. They could build up a cash value and that is the savings vehicle most understood. So social security was positioned as an insurance policy, not in the sense of automobile or a homeowners policy but as an old age savings vehicle. And that is how it was sold. It was also sold as insurance because the it would not be viewed as welfare.
But everyone was given the expectation of collecting because they were suppose to be building up the equivalent of cash value.
tfb
Frankj:
Dept. of Institutional Memory:
The whole subject of public employees being able to collect Social Security or not, was the subject of a MoneyTalk show a few years ago, when Bill Flanagan hosted.
The calls, many of which were from California, just went on and on.
Take a couple of minutes and give yourself a heart-warming break. List to two beautiful children with voices like angels:
Incredible Duet
I will try to use my google account in the future. -- Frankj
It looks official now. We have stagflation, GDP growing slower than productivity gains so no need to hire workers, interest rates below inflation and inflation eating away at savings at a 3.8% annual rate.
From my article Stagflation: Inflation at 3.8%; Core Inflation at 2.0%; GDP 1.0%
Stagflation is stagnant economic growth with inflation. With rates for safe investments in treasuries, CDs and GNMA near record lows, inflation is tough on savers as it erodes the value of their savings....
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.4 percent in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.8 percent before seasonal adjustment.
My TIPS seem to love stagflation (no surprise to me!)
Vanguard Funds YTD as of 09/14/11:
* GNMA Fund Investor Shares, VFIIX, up 6.68% YTD
* Total Bond Mkt Index shares, VBMFX, up 6.33% YTD
* TIPS: Inflation-Protect Securities, VIPSX, up 11.20% YTD
iBonds at 4.60% now are very attractive here for taxable cash. Current iBond Rates. Last chance to buy paper iBonds...
Wow, it's "Smile"! Haven't heard him since the old Brinker site days, when we used to argue a lot...with me always winning!
I must say, in all the years that have gone by since then, he hasn't learned a darned thing!
- Dan G
Post a Comment