• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Privitized Social Security

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I need arguments for and against Privitezed Social Security. What are the benifets and what are the weaknesses of this?
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Privatization of S.S.

If this was really a democracy, citizens could decide if the wanted a social security plan that would be (1.) Only a safety net to keep us from starving in old age as FDR created it, or (2.) A full fledge retirement system that we have to pay more for to keep it solvent! Now, why doesn't our president give us that choice? Why can't we pay more for the social security most want? Why don't we get offered that obvious choice as if we are adults!

Answer: Because as we increase our contributions to keep social security solvent, we likely would want our employer to increase his contributions too! Well, we just can't have that can we President Bush! Oh! I forgot! You’re just a common man out cutting the brush with your old pickup truck on weekends! Oh, is that a member of the Saudi royal family having a beer on the tailgate of your pickup? So how are profits in the oil business this year? You guys got the game plan worked out yet?

Sorry! I’m getting off topic!

A more direct comment to your question! What happens when these private retirement accounts don't supply enough money when you get to retirement because you didn't have the self discipline to contribute enough, or another Enron screws up the investment works? GUESS? You go on welfare, to county hospitals, etc., etc., and the taxpayers get the bill again! The important thing is your employer reduced his contribution to your social security plan! THAT'S WHAT PRIVATIZATION IS REALLY ABOUT! Employers reducing their contributions to workers social security! Do the math!
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mr. D said:
Privatization of S.S.

If this was really a democracy,
We're not, never have been, never want to be.

citizens could decide if the wanted a social security plan that would be (1.) Only a safety net to keep us from starving in old age as FDR created it, or (2.) A full fledge retirement system that we have to pay more for to keep it solvent!
That's what we elect our representitives for, if you want (1) vote Republican if you want (2) vote Democrat

Now, why doesn't our president give us that choice?
He doesn't give you "choices" he submits plans to your representitives and they vote on them, right now the Democrats are preventing ANYTHING from being done on SS.

Why can't we pay more for the social security most want? Why don't we get offered that obvious choice as if we are adults!
Because it is a government program.

Answer: Because as we increase our contributions to keep social security solvent, we likely would want our employer to increase his contributions too!
Well first of all your employer doesn't contribute, that was one of the fallicy's Roosevelt put in the system. The money your employer pays on your behalf is simply money the employer budgets towards that job, whether you get it first or it is sent to Washington with your name attached where it is promptly taken from you and given to someone else.

Well, we just can't have that can we President Bush! Oh! I forgot! You’re just a common man out cutting the brush with your old pickup truck on weekends! Oh, is that a member of the Saudi royal family having a beer on the tailgate of your pickup? So how are profits in the oil business this year? You guys got the game plan worked out yet?
So you actually think Bush wants to screw you? How absurd.

Sorry! I’m getting off topic!
Yep.

A more direct comment to your question! What happens when these private retirement accounts don't supply enough money when you get to retirement because you didn't have the self discipline to contribute enough, or another Enron screws up the investment works? GUESS? You go on welfare, to county hospitals, etc., etc., and the taxpayers get the bill again!
Since you can show no time in history were a long term investment plan would have cause this what is your point? The private accounts will be required, just as your current SS deductions are required.

The important thing is your employer reduced his contribution to your social security plan! THAT'S WHAT PRIVATIZATION IS REALLY ABOUT! Employers reducing their contributions to workers social security! Do the math!
Where do you get that idea?
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr. D said:
Privatization of S.S.

If this was really a democracy, citizens could decide if the wanted a social security plan that would be (1.) Only a safety net to keep us from starving in old age as FDR created it, or (2.) A full fledge retirement system that we have to pay more for to keep it solvent! Now, why doesn't our president give us that choice? Why can't we pay more for the social security most want? Why don't we get offered that obvious choice as if we are adults!

Answer: Because as we increase our contributions to keep social security solvent, we likely would want our employer to increase his contributions too! Well, we just can't have that can we President Bush! Oh! I forgot! You’re just a common man out cutting the brush with your old pickup truck on weekends! Oh, is that a member of the Saudi royal family having a beer on the tailgate of your pickup? So how are profits in the oil business this year? You guys got the game plan worked out yet?

Sorry! I’m getting off topic!

A more direct comment to your question! What happens when these private retirement accounts don't supply enough money when you get to retirement because you didn't have the self discipline to contribute enough, or another Enron screws up the investment works? GUESS? You go on welfare, to county hospitals, etc., etc., and the taxpayers get the bill again! The important thing is your employer reduced his contribution to your social security plan! THAT'S WHAT PRIVATIZATION IS REALLY ABOUT! Employers reducing their contributions to workers social security! Do the math!

I'll be short and sweet.


A) Social security should be an option totally. you really forgot three. I'll not pay into government programs so I can keep my money and use it more effectively.

B) Corporations normally offer solid stock options and other retirement benefits, however people are too stupid to look at their employer and use these options, it seems.

C) there is no common man. There is you, and there is me, and there is them. We're all different and the same. Essentially, I hate that phrase.
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
128shot said:
B) Corporations normally offer solid stock options and other retirement benefits, however people are too stupid to look at their employer and use these options, it seems.
The company I work for just had to NOT take out my 401K deduction, along with it's match, because too many of the lower paid employees won't participate, and I mean just a 1 or 2 percent. Because the think government will take care of them and are to dumb to realize what saving now, especially in a matching 401K, will do for them later. They will be the left later on that hollers for government to take from those of us who HAVE saved and give it to them because it's not fair.
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger,

You should be a political operative, you've got the spin down pat! Talk about "war is peace" style double speak! :spin:

The U.S. is intended to be a democracy! You are speaking of a "pure" democracy as when every person in a small town votes on every single decision. Cute spin, but misleading.

The term "total compensation" means that all the costs of an employee including social security! Employers do pay a contribution to their employees S.S.! The less of a % Privatization will require the worker to pay into the system the less % his employer pays also! Again, cute spin, but misleading.

A good president would serve the desires and needs of the public and lead the public to make an informed choice whether to have S.S. as a simple safety net or a substantial retirement system funded to be solvent! If we as Americans are willing to fund it and make it solvent as a retirement program, who is Bush to veto it! He's been around the Saudi royalty to much! Bush and his corporate supporters don't want Americans to ever be able to make a democratic, informed choice for a expanded S.S. or national health care program! It's contrary to their selfish corporate interests! Bush and the wealthy already have theirs! All the conservative legislators fighting S.S. and national health care will access a great health care and retirement system payed for by the taxpayer, won't they? They'll have no problem taking everything they can get! Don't kid yourself, it's not just Democrats that see through this scheme.

One of the obvious problems is with an American debt/savings rate compostite of less than 1% what happens to those who don't have the self control to save! Do we step over them in the gutter when they are 70 and penniless? Likely they'll wind up on a government program the taxpayer will get stuck with! If those types will contribute a higher % of their wages to create a retirement, let them be responsible and do it! Bush's problem is that employers will likely be asked to increase their contribution and they want to REDUCE the current %!

I did collective bargaining negotiation for over 20 years and the current direction is that employers want to have nothing to do with their employees needs. They want the employee to be just another resource, a capital creating tool. I pay you $12.50 an hour and I owe you nothing more! Figure out your own health care and retirement needs on your own! Your a just a resource, a tool! If I move my company to Mexico or Vietnam my labor costs go down and I don't need to pay for your human needs! Either that or let's convert the American worker to the level of a Mexican or Vietnamese worker!

You can spin this issue into American patrotic terms of self responsibility, but the worker is catching on to the truth of Privatization! It's all about employers cutting costs, not Bush caring about the worker!

:spin:
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mr. D said:
Stinger,

You should be a political operative, you've got the spin down pat! Talk about "war is peace" style double speak! :spin:
Mr. D. when you start you response with such nonsense and hyperbole I am tempted to not even read the remainder.

The U.S. is intended to be a democracy!
No it is not. The founding fathers were quite adamant that they were NOT creating a Democracy. We are a Federal Republic government by a Constitution.

You are speaking of a "pure" democracy as when every person in a small town votes on every single decision. Cute spin, but misleading.
I'm speaking of a DEMOCRACY as a form of government, we are not one and should not be one. We do use some democratic means to accomplish some local and state issues but I challenge you to list one DEMOCRATIC means we the people have on the national level.

The term "total compensation" means that all the costs of an employee including social security! Employers do pay a contribution to their employees S.S.!
No YOU pay it, it's money that would otherwise be paid to you.

The less of a % Privatization will require the worker to pay into the system the less % his employer pays also! Again, cute spin, but misleading.
What specific plan are you talking about?

A good president would serve the desires and needs of the public and lead the public to make an informed choice whether to have S.S. as a simple safety net or a substantial retirement system funded to be solvent!
OK and your point is? This is exactly what Bush is doing but the Democrats have thrown down the gauntlet to any SS reform.


If we as Americans are willing to fund it and make it solvent as a retirement program, who is Bush to veto it!
If that's what you want then elect a President that says he will do it. Bush ran on the premise he would NOT raise SS taxes and he won.

He's been around the Saudi royalty to much!
Your specious arguements are quite boring.

Bush and his corporate supporters don't want Americans to ever be able to make a democratic, informed choice for a expanded S.S. or national health care program!
Why would people who work for corporations who have a vested interest in solidifying SS for the future want to do any such thing? If all you have are these baseless assertions and invectives then take your arguements to AOL.

One of the obvious problems is with an American debt/savings rate compostite of less than 1% what happens to those who don't have the self control to save!
A privitized SS would REQUIRE the employees to contribute a certain percentage of the incomes, where do you get the idea otherwise?

I did collective bargaining negotiation for over 20 years ...................
Well that explains a lot about your arguements.

and the current direction is that employers want to have nothing to do with their employees needs.
Actuallyu the current direction is that employees have finally seen how the unions have screwed them and want nothing more to do with them.

They want the employee to be just another resource, a capital creating tool. I pay you $12.50 an hour and I owe you nothing more!
They don't, that's why they are call fringe benifits.

Figure out your own health care and retirement needs on your own!
Why is your employer responisible for your health care, why is he obliged?
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Mr. D said:
Stinger,



Don't kid yourself, it's not just Democrats that see through this scheme.

One of the obvious problems is with an American debt/savings rate compostite of less than 1% what happens to those who don't have the self control to save! Do we step over them in the gutter when they are 70 and penniless?





:spin:
Democrats see that Privatized S.S. is just the thing we need. They know that S.S. is screwed soon, they just don't want it now because, one, a Republican would get credit for it, and they feel that we aren't totally screwed yet and there's no hurry, but if there is a problem why not fix it now? Don't blame debt. If we start now, if there is any weaknesses with P.S.S. then we will be able to fix them and get good at it. And isn't it better to be fixing those problems whenever S.S. isn't comepletly bankrupt, so if, for some wierd reason P.S.S. fails we still have a litte S.S. I don't know, do you think we should start now?
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr. D said:
Stinger,

You should be a political operative, you've got the spin down pat! Talk about "war is peace" style double speak! :spin:

The U.S. is intended to be a democracy! You are speaking of a "pure" democracy as when every person in a small town votes on every single decision. Cute spin, but misleading.

The term "total compensation" means that all the costs of an employee including social security! Employers do pay a contribution to their employees S.S.! The less of a % Privatization will require the worker to pay into the system the less % his employer pays also! Again, cute spin, but misleading.

A good president would serve the desires and needs of the public and lead the public to make an informed choice whether to have S.S. as a simple safety net or a substantial retirement system funded to be solvent! If we as Americans are willing to fund it and make it solvent as a retirement program, who is Bush to veto it! He's been around the Saudi royalty to much! Bush and his corporate supporters don't want Americans to ever be able to make a democratic, informed choice for a expanded S.S. or national health care program! It's contrary to their selfish corporate interests! Bush and the wealthy already have theirs! All the conservative legislators fighting S.S. and national health care will access a great health care and retirement system payed for by the taxpayer, won't they? They'll have no problem taking everything they can get! Don't kid yourself, it's not just Democrats that see through this scheme.

One of the obvious problems is with an American debt/savings rate compostite of less than 1% what happens to those who don't have the self control to save! Do we step over them in the gutter when they are 70 and penniless? Likely they'll wind up on a government program the taxpayer will get stuck with! If those types will contribute a higher % of their wages to create a retirement, let them be responsible and do it! Bush's problem is that employers will likely be asked to increase their contribution and they want to REDUCE the current %!

I did collective bargaining negotiation for over 20 years and the current direction is that employers want to have nothing to do with their employees needs. They want the employee to be just another resource, a capital creating tool. I pay you $12.50 an hour and I owe you nothing more! Figure out your own health care and retirement needs on your own! Your a just a resource, a tool! If I move my company to Mexico or Vietnam my labor costs go down and I don't need to pay for your human needs! Either that or let's convert the American worker to the level of a Mexican or Vietnamese worker!

You can spin this issue into American patrotic terms of self responsibility, but the worker is catching on to the truth of Privatization! It's all about employers cutting costs, not Bush caring about the worker!

:spin:

you jumbled a bunch of words togethor, however I didn't find anything really factual about it. It's all opinion, it seems.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Of course social security should be privatized. Why do I need the government to babysit my money for me for several decades? If you think that people are too stupid and irresponsible for save for their retirement, I suggest you take a look at the government's checkbook before deciding that they're more responsible. If people don't save for their retirement, that's not my problem. There's no reason to punish responsible people to reward irresponsible people.

And of course, there's the fact that simple demographic statistics show that the current social security system is not sustainable. Even if you raise the retirement age or lower the benefits, you're only looking at a quick fix to buy a few more years.
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
128shot said:
you jumbled a bunch of words togethor, however I didn't find anything really factual about it. It's all opinion, it seems.
I guess I didn't put it in Bush's simplistic terms! Of course it's opinion!
Fact = data that can be proven to be accurate to any reasoning man! Of course it's opinion, not fact! :roll:

Only people like Bush think they speak in facts! As Bill Mahr said, Bush explains everything in very simple terms because that's the way the people behind the scenes running the country explain things to him. Example: How easy the war in Iraq will be, it's cost, the Iraqi people's greeting us like liberators, WMD, etc., etc., but that's another topic to disagree on! My fear is that soon Bush will declare "mission accomplished" again from another aircraft carrier, leave, and then blame the Iraqi's for not doing their part when it flys apart! I sure hope I'm wrong on this one! I want to be wrong!

(Back to my my jumble of words about Social Security!) :lol:

Everyone that simplistically says that if people don't save that's their problem haven't been paying attention! That's the same type of argument as not requiring motorcycle helmets. When stuborn boobs become brain damaged we all pick up the medical and welfare bills! We won't let seniors lay starving in the gutter because they haven't prepared for retirement no matter what you think. We'll wind up paying for them anyway! Let people pay into S.S. at a higher rate that will provide a modest retirement income and a solvent system. It's done with retirement programs and annuities in the private sector all the time! It ain't rocket science! Everything can't be done when you don't want to do it! Insurance companies do it all the time, so it also can be done through the government investing our money instead of spending it. My in laws started one in the 60's and it provides well for them in retirement! It's another false argument! I'm for requiring people to pay into S.S. so I don't have to support them on welfare programs and in county hospitals! Many people will not save for retirement voluntarily! For those who prove they're contributing to a retirement program like public employees or others with a retirement program, let them opt out if they wish! Our U.S. debt to saving rate is below 1% and you think everyone is going to save for retirement responsibly! They won't, and then the responsible types will get stuck with the tab when some seniors don't have a dime in retirement! (I'm a senior and I don't need S.S.!)

The purpose of privatization is to reduce the contributions of employers, period! Social Security could be fixed and made solvent and that's what the majority of Americans want based on polls, but our present administration is against it just like a national health plan! We can spend billions all over the world, and give tax breaks to the oil companies during record profits, but Social Security and a national health plan is just too expensive and too complicated! What a load of fertilizer Americans get frightened into by our country boy leader from the top 1%!

So, how much bad decision making and lack of "knowledgeable" leadership do some Americans need to endure before they understand what the rest of the world already knows?
 
Last edited:

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr. D said:
I guess I didn't put it in Bush's simplistic terms! Of course it's opinion!
Fact = data that can be proven to be accurate to any reasoning man! Of course it's opinion, not fact! :roll:

Only people like Bush think they speak in facts! As Bill Mahr said, Bush explains everything in very simple terms because that's the way the people behind the scenes running the country explain things to him. Example: How easy the war in Iraq will be, it's cost, the Iraqi people's greeting us like liberators, WMD, etc., etc., but that's another topic to disagree on! My fear is that soon Bush will declare "mission accomplished" again from another aircraft carrier, leave, and then blame the Iraqi's for not doing their part when it flys apart! I sure hope I'm wrong on this one! I want to be wrong!

(Back to my my jumble of words about Social Security!) :lol:

Everyone that simplistically says that if people don't save that's their problem haven't been paying attention! That's the same type of argument as not requiring motorcycle helmets. When stuborn boobs become brain damaged we all pick up the medical and welfare bills! We won't let seniors lay starving in the gutter because they haven't prepared for retirement no matter what you think. We'll wind up paying for them anyway! Let people pay into S.S. at a higher rate that will provide a modest retirement income and a solvent system. It's done with retirement programs and annuities in the private sector all the time! It ain't rocket science! Everything can't be done when you don't want to do it! Insurance companies do it all the time, so it also can be done through the government investing our money instead of spending it. My in laws started one in the 60's and it provides well for them in retirement! It's another false argument! I'm for requiring people to pay into S.S. so I don't have to support them on welfare programs and in county hospitals! Many people will not save for retirement voluntarily! For those who prove they're contributing to a retirement program like public employees or others with a retirement program, let them opt out if they wish! Our U.S. debt to saving rate is below 1% and you think everyone is going to save for retirement responsibly! They won't, and then the responsible types will get stuck with the tab when some seniors don't have a dime in retirement! (I'm a senior and I don't need S.S.!)

The purpose of privatization is to reduce the contributions of employers, period! Social Security could be fixed and made solvent and that's what the majority of Americans want based on polls, but our present administration is against it just like a national health plan! We can spend billions all over the world, and give tax breaks to the oil companies during record profits, but Social Security and a national health plan is just too expensive and too complicated! What a load of fertilizer Americans get frightened into by our country boy leader from the top 1%!

So, how much bad decision making and lack of "knowledgeable" leadership do some Americans need to endure before they understand what the rest of the world already knows?

I'm going to ignore the rest of it, since thats not the issue I have with you.


If you pose an opinion, don't shove down everyones throat as fact. Yes, it did come off that way, at least to me.


Now, if you want to actually support your opinion with facts and data to back it up, go right ahead.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mixed View said:
I need arguments for and against Privitezed Social Security. What are the benifets and what are the weaknesses of this?
We already have private social security. When you save money, buy stocks, or open a 401k or IRA, you are opening a private account.

The question is whether to maintain a national social insurance plan, like the social security we have. One main benefit is of SS is that we don't have to deal with hordes of old men and women begging for food at stoplights because they are starving to death.

I'm not sure why we need to give the government dole to folks like Warren Buffet, however.
 

Ausonius

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Social Security was sabotaged when President Reagan raided the trust fund and used the money to pay for general fund expenditures; and now, President Bush argues, disingenuously, that since the government has misspent the money, that that's good reason for reforming ("eliminating") Social Security and replacing it with private investment accounts. The truth is that Privatization will be primed with borrowed money while employment taxes will be pumped into the equity markets, which will effectively scuttle the program and shift the blame for when it finally founders. It will be cold comfort for the participants who, when they need a life buoy, find that it has been replaced by a lottery ticket and the number for Dial-a-Prayer.

Many states have "opt-out" retirement programs for teachers and government employees, and not just a few of them are bankrupt as in the case of Orange County, California. At this moment, the City of San Diego, once held up as a model alternative to Social Security, is considering filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy to deal with its insolvent public employee's retirement system.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-24-99.html
http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=C092503
http://www.sandiegomag.com/issues/may04/featured0504.asp
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
At least Reagan temporarily solved the crisis, and if he had gone and offered personal accounts, he could have solved it altogether. Is it any wonder that 90% of Chileans opt for personal accounts?
 

Ausonius

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You've been eating too many jelly beans. In the real world, we can't live on Ronald Reagan's jelly beans.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do like jelly beans, but I rarely eat them because the only place to get them in town is at the ultra-expensive peanut store. Still, I do hold it to be true that we should privatize social security. It has been done in other nations and proven a success.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Axismaster said:
I do like jelly beans, but I rarely eat them because the only place to get them in town is at the ultra-expensive peanut store. Still, I do hold it to be true that we should privatize social security. It has been done in other nations and proven a success.
Assuming you mean private accounts as the Bush Admin proposed; what is your solution for old folks who either were unlucky in their investing, or outlive the balance of their accounts? Let them beg at stoplights?
 

zymurgy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This concept is an oxymoron. :doh

Seriously, are we going to turn a blind eye on the privatized guy that can't afford his situation in old age?
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mixed View said:
I need arguments for and against Privitezed Social Security. What are the benifets and what are the weaknesses of this?
How about the fact that FDR, a Democrat and the man who started the whole thing, declared that Social Security was only supposed to be a SHORT-TERM program! He warned the country that such a program would become corrupt and be used as a pot of money politicians would raid! BOY, was he a genius! He said it was imperative for Americans to have control of their own money and to see to their own futures!

Here is another case for you. 60 Minutes did a story 2-3 years ago about an experiment the goverment started back in the 60s with a small town, I believe it was in Texas. The citizens of the town no longer were required to pay any Social Security, but the money they would have been paying was deposited into an Investment account/program of some type (which THEY chose) for them by the goverment. The accounts set up were set up in such a way that they could not touch them until around age 60. The money, unlike Social Security, would be theirs. If someone died, the whole amount was transfered into their spouse's account. When the individuals started getting of the age where they could colect, their accounts were analyzed.

Each one of these individual had more money and were receiving monthly allotments from their retirement accounts than the average American of the same age was receiving from Social Security...by a significant amount (I can not remeber how significant)! It was pretty substantial, though! Also, the individuals had the added benefit being that the money was theirs! If they dies, the money either went to a spouse or their surviving family members.

The goverment pretty much buried the story and no other person has ever been allowed to do the same since!

The fact is that FDR was right! Individuals need to be responsible for their own retirement plans! The Federal Govt could help set up direct deposits of money taken from their pay earmarked for S.S. to go directly into a safe program that draws more interest than the Federal Govt could give. They could also set the terms of the program where people could not touch the money until age 60/65, as was done with this town reported on 60 minutes. IT HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY!

The problem, however, is the very thing FDR himself warned us about! Social Security has become and is now a pot of money the Goverment collects from your pay check in your name and dips into it whenerver they want/need any money! They will be EXTREMELY unwilling to give that up. The best thing they like about the program is that when you die, your money - all that you have paid in for years, basically becomes the Federal Goverment's! Yeah, your survivcing spouse gets the higher of the two, but if she takes yours, she loses hers! So, you're still getting $crewed! FDR nailed it right on the head when he gave that warning years ago.

Kerry said before the 2000 elections that Social Security would fail in the future. Even President Clinton in his administration said it! All of a sudden, during the election, though, Kerry changed his tune and denied it. Leading economists will still tell you today that as the baby boomers and more and more people come of age, the strain of more people taking out than paying in will eventually collapse Social Security!

Pay now or pay later! There are plans out there that involve a 'weening' off of Social Security without any of those receiving it or about to from being forced to take any cuts in benefits. It will cost money, though, only to save that money and the future of our elderly Americans. As long as people - politicians - continue to consider it to be the '3rd Rail' and fail to do anything about it, all they are doing is riding the hoss until its heart explodes! In another way, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Politicians are willing to ride Social Security as is, maintaining a program that is not in the best interest of the American people yet provides them with Milliuons and millions of 'mad money, until it dies/dries up/collapses!

For anyone who thinks I am nuts and seeks to discredit me and/or defend social security I have 1 simple way you can shut me up and prove that social security is a great program: Step up and volunteer to do this --

You and I are going to go to a bank of YOUR choosing and open up a JOINT Checking account. The rules for this account are as follows:

1. YOU deposit a percentage of your paycheck into the account EVERY paycheck!
2. YOU do NOT get to touch any of the money until you are 65. If I decide that number should be higher, I'll let you know.
3. I get to dip into it anytime I need some extra cash....oh, and I don't have to pay it backl!
4. If you die for any reason, the cash all goes to me, NOT your family!

Sounds like a great plan, right?! Well, that is what you are doing RIGHT NOW!

On one last note - the truly scary thing is that your Social Security program is being managed by guys like THIS:

I was flipping through the channels one night, and I come accross Kerry on a talk show. He said that if he was king, he would make it where no one has to pay any taxes! You could make all you wanted and spend all you made; HOWEVER, when you died, EVERYTHING WOULD GO STRAIGHT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT! :screwy :wow:
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ausonius said:
Many states have "opt-out" retirement programs for teachers and government employees, and not just a few of them are bankrupt as in the case of Orange County, California. At this moment, the City of San Diego, once held up as a model alternative to Social Security, is considering filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy to deal with its insolvent public employee's retirement system.
This is an area of privatization of SS that has not been explained adequately to me so far. The up side 'sounds good', but what about the down side and what if, as someone has brought up, you outlive your nestegg? What happens when there is no more money? When you retire you have to buy an annuity with your money, what happens if the return is not enough to live off of?

The city easyt65 is talking about is Galveston. What they did was 'opt-out' of SS and enhanced their retirement plan. When they retire, all they will have is their retirement plan, others that stayed with SS have their retirement plan AND SS.

The ideal situation would be to have a retirement plan (or 401 or similar plan) with SS as a back up or supplement. Unfortunately a lot of people have no pension plans from their employers and don't make enough money to establish one on their own, so they rely solely on SS as their retirement income. If you think that's a lot of money, according to SSA, the average Social Security payout is $955 a month, $11,460 annually. It was designed to be a safety net. It's doing its job.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I described above, if it wanted to, the federal Govt. could set up a program that deducts that same amount of money earmarked as SS and put it, instead, into a personal program/retirement plan for you that has been established where you can not begin to touch it until retirement age. THAT way every person is FORCED to have their own personal retirement plan; however, the money would entirely be theirs with NO WAY the Federal Govt could touch it! Of course, the govt. not being able to touch it is why it will never happen - they like the pot from which they can dip...which is one of the reasons why the system is projected to fail!
 

Ausonius

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Privatization is being sold to the younger generation because, heuristically, they are less risk adverse where Social Security is presented as a prospective loss. This, and other arguments in favor of privatization, represent a false perception. Social Security was never intended to be an investment; it is a safety net for our society.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ausonius said:
Social Security was never intended to be an investment; it is a safety net for our society.
It may have never been intended to be that, but it has BECOME that! It is also a MANDATORY program in which the Federal Govt steals your money! You do not get the return on your money from the govt that you could get on your own, and they take YOUR money when you die. They also use YOUR money whenever they want while it is supposed to be drawing interest for YOUR retirement. Its a Federal Scam.

Bush even mentioned a program that would be a combination of the current plan and the one I proposed. The Federal goverment could still take out money for Social Security, a SMALLER amount, to be used in the SAFETY NET program that Social Security was designed to be. The other part being ataken out, the majority, could be placed in those retirement accounts where they would be drawing a higher interest that the Federal Govt. can provide until we are eligible for retirement, and where the federal govt could not tap it or take it if you die!

Faced with an option that deprives the federal Govt. of a vast pot of money from which to tap any time they want and which they could not take once the individual is dead, of course the Federal Govt is opposed to it! I find it amazing that the Democrats were the founding party for this current program, that their President warned us all about the ills of social security, and yet they are the biggest supporters of status quo to date!

There are alternatives, better alternatives that would benefit this country, which it is our political leaders' jobs to safeguard and ensure....but greed and $$ are standing in the way!
 
Top Bottom