Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
John McCain supports privatizing social security.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Unlike liberals, conservatives can save and invest on their own without the government nanny watching over it.
Oh, my God! The horror, the horror!
Allowing people to make their own decisions about what to do with their own savings is so…un-liberal.
Ok, guys, if you feel its such a strong idea I 1000% support you campaigning on in it in 2008.
President-elect Clinton/Gore/Obama/Clark/Etc. thank you in advance.
Oh, come on, Jesus Christ. There is nothing good that can come from privitizing social security. Nothing. Apart from killing thousands of people in the middle east to support the military-industrial complex, it’s the single stupidest idea ever to enter the mainstream.
Nimrod! How can you say that? Think of the poor starving investment bankers and stock brokers out there who want a chunk of your social security. A broker friend of mine has real obligations, payments on summer homes, BMW payments for his 16 year old daughter and country club dues. It is not fair to deny him the opportunity to profit at the expense of retirees on fixed incomes. What were you thinking?
_
Yes, I have to admit that Nimrod’s excellent economic analysis was very convincing. I was especially moved by his point that…that…
Oh, wait…never mind.
Of course, it never occurs to you that someone who can afford these things is successfully making money for others. Otherwise, people wouldn’t continue paying him.
We’re definitely better off with government employees making those decisions for us.
Yes I would love to put my life in the hands of a profit-driven private corporation and its faceless board of directors who place the whether I live or die below their own profit margins rather than an imperfect but focused beuracracy because I AM A GOD DAMNED MORON
I see. Those lifelong bureaucrats in government (not the politicians but the actual government employees) who keep their jobs no matter how well they perform are not “faceless”?
You are certainly unaware of how profit-driven capitalism benefits investors.
Maybe you could explain a little about the economics rather than just pronounce the idea “the single stupidest idea ever to enter the mainstream” since you have a problem with capitalism.
Here’s a great quote from Milton Friedman to get you started:
Well Nimrod, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I think you’re a moron for feeling the way you do, as the private sector has created more wealth for individuals that any bureaucracy ever has.
But even if you believe this, pray tell, why would you want to deny all the morons who want to invest their social security contributions from being able to do so?
Isn’t that what IRA’s are for now? Why should the government dictate how I save for retirement?
BTW, I just was talking to some folks from Lithuania who were here on a work visa. Did you know that “guest workers” have to pay FICA tax but are not entitled to it? Why is that?
Also, you guys do know how this private SSI is supposed to work, right? You contribute to your personal account for years and years, and then when you retire, the gov’t takes it all and doles it out monthly. After they take their cut. Just like social security does now.
So where is the benefit?
I think the opposition to privatized social security is that those not of the investor class lack the savvy to make wise choices with their contributions. Allowing others to depart from the plan would undermine the safety net that FICA was originated to be. The fact that SS was never intended to be a retirement plan is irrelevant because of the way SS has become relied upon so heavily by a significant percentage of Americans. Leave SS alone but encourage retirement investment outside of that plan by allowing retirement contributions to be tax free above and beyond the small investment tools of Roth IRA’s.
“I see. Those lifelong bureaucrats in government (not the politicians but the actual government employees) who keep their jobs no matter how well they perform are not faceless?”
That’s convincing. Pick on the least important adjective in my sentence. Besides, I was one of those once.
Look, I’m not an economist, but I know how well privitisation’s worked out for the coal industry, the tin industry, the railways, the GPO, the steel industry, and pretty much everything else we don’t do very well anymore. Applying that philosophy to something as important to individual people as the welfare state, just on the general principle that the Government can’t be trusted with anything and the free market can, is irresponsible at best, completely stupid at worst.
I agree with this, but the government is already taking 7.65% of your income for FICA. That is a significant chunk of your income that’s getting a horrible rate of return.
So you disagree with the statement that when you spend your own money “then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.”
You’re arguing that when people spend their own money they are going to be “irresponsible,” but when the government spends other people’s money then it is spent responsibly.
Riiiight.
Simple question privatizers: name a country where this kind of provatizing has benefited its citizens. Take England, for instance, Brokerage houses strongly warn people to keep their money in the government run program. Many countries find that the government programs outearn the private programs by as much as 3 or 400%.
Cripes, do some simple math! Take $2K per year (about 7.65% of $30,000) and run an investment calculation to see how much you would have after 40 years (working from age 25 to 65). Compare that to the amount of money that person will get from Social Security assuming he lives 20 more years.
Obviously, a person is not going to make a straight $30K for 40 years, but the example is simple enough.
Also consider that if you die before or soon after you retire, you don’t have that SS money to pass on to your family.
If a person doesn’t want to risk investing their FICA money, then they can put it in a low yield secure fund and aquire a little money like SS provides now.
So much for liberals being for choice.
You don’t need to be a faecologist to know that shit smells.
Mine smells like roses.
I know this argument won’t register with the trolls on the board, but the money you pay into FICA is for your retirement – it is for the current retirees. We have a “pay as you go” system in this country.
In order to fund both current retirees and a new privatized retirement program, we’d need a second layer of taxes. If you are going to promote “privatized plans,” you are really talking about more taxes. If you believe in that, please go to the American people and ask for it.
We either pay the costs of fixing SS now, or we’ll pay much more later. However, it’s typical liberal thinking to go straight to tax hikes. We could consider cutting spending in less essential areas, but not even today’s Republicans will try that. Maybe now that they’re in the minority they will restrain some spending.
JWG, you really are pretty ignorant. You may think it’s “liberal” to say that you should pay for what you buy, but most people call that sound fiscal policy. We borrowed $550 billion last year and you are asking for more spending. You say cut some area of government services but offer no area that could be cut.
Unless you want to move from theory to concrete, shut your pie hole.
Just wanted to throw in my two cents: please, please, please run on this in 2008.
I have a whole list of federal government services and agencies that we could argue about cutting.
Actually, I didn’t say that at all. Can’t you read? You stated privatization would require “more taxes” and I called THAT a liberal response. My libertarian response is to prioritize spending and cut less important items.
See, I CAN read. Try it sometime.
I didn’t realize you wanted to argue about the entire government spending structure.
You’re correct that the public doesn’t want to pay to fix SS now. Our credit card mentality is to put off making hard fiscal decisions now and end up paying more money to fix it in the future.
I might add that I seriously doubt any Democrat will be running on the recommended fix in the linked editorial:
“Vote for us! We’ll raise taxes AND cut benefits!”
JWG, show me your list of federal agencies that you could cut to solve a $550 billion budget shortfall. If you can’t, you are not offering serious solutions.
If you are offering up Social Security “privatization” without discussing how you pay for it, you are not offering serious solutions.
Either talk about something outside the realm of hopeless generalities or shut up. It is that simple.
I wonder if Oliver has his own 401k plan in which he’s allowed to control where the money is invested. If he is, he’s a hypocrite.
Not to all conservative trolls…
Social Security is a “pay as you go” system. That means that you are NOT financing your retirement with your contributions. Does this compute with y’all? Do you understand the implications?
Until y’all learn a little more about the levers of government, you are not arguing a sensible point.
Note to all conservative trolls…
Social Security is a “pay as you go” system. That means that you are NOT financing your retirement with your contributions. Does this compute with y’all? Do you understand the implications?
Until y’all learn a little more about the levers of government, you are not arguing a sensible point.
Note to all conservative trolls…
Social Security is a “pay as you go” system. That means that you are NOT financing your retirement with your contributions. Does this compute with y’all? Do you understand the implications?
Until y’all learn a little more about the levers of government, you are not arguing a sensible point.
One thing not mentioned here is that privatizing SS is Bush’s idea. All his brainchilds have been failures up to this moment. I can’t believe there’s still people out there (JWG, and now McCain) who are shaking their pom poms on this.
Ummm…it hasn’t been mentioned because you’re 100% wrong.
From The Progressive in 1998:
Mother Jones even talked about it back in 1996.
It says in your link that Clinton entertained a range of ideas, one of which was privatization. Bush PICKED the idea and campaigned for it. That’s a hell of a lot different than entertaining a notion.
Did you even pay attention to what you originally wrote?
I’ll be on board for this privatizing thing if you can name say, three countries where its worked to the benefit of the citizens. It’s just that easy.
JWG, you are not a serious thinker.
There is no reason that the U.S. couldn’t use SSI trust funds to buy stocks and bonds. That is not even an issue.
The trust fund was supposed to be a temporary vehicle to help the baby boomers through retirement. Unfortunately, Republicans can’t balance a checkbook, so it gets netted in with other government income / expenditures. Remember the “lockbox” idea?
Investment capital tends to do better than government debt – until stock markets fold – which has happened in many countries around the world. Frankly, we don’t want high returns on government securities because that is a sign that they are risky.
You show with each additional post that you are ignorant of how SSI works, how investments work and how government works.
In short, you are not a legitimate representative of the “other side.” Until you do understand these things, you should probably live by Mark Twain’s wisdom on such matters: “It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
*giggle*
That’s alright. I’m not here to make money for you. I make plenty for myself and my family with my investment ignorance.
If people are happy supplying almost 8% of their income to the government for the promise that they’ll get some money back from the government that barely beats inflation, then so be it.
I just thought that liberals wanted to help the poor rather than keep them poor. My mistake.
JWG, still stupid after all these years…
See, the thing about Social Security is – it’s THERE. As opposed to in some shitweasel short-seller’s offshore account.
Hmmm…so all of these 401k and 403b retirement plans are destined for failure, eh?
And why would the federal government, including the Congress, allow their employees to choose investment options rather than use Social Security?
Man, those people in Congress must be crazy!