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!

You show with each additional post that you are ignorant of how SSI works, how investments work and how government works.

*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.

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.”

if you can name say, three countries where its worked to the benefit of the citizens

Can you name three countries that have historically produced economic output and investment opportunities that are similar or better than the US?

One thing not mentioned here is that privatizing SS is Bush’s idea.

Ummm…it hasn’t been mentioned because you’re 100% wrong.

From The Progressive in 1998:

[Clinton] signaled that he would entertain a whole range of changes to Social Security, including privatizing part of the system: letting workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market, instead of having the Social Security Administration invest those taxes in Treasury bills.

Clinton is not the only Democrat singing the privatization tune. Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, has been belting it out for some years now.

Mother Jones even talked about it back in 1996.

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.

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.

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.

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.

please, please run on this in 2008

I might add that I seriously doubt any Democrat will be running on the recommended fix in the linked editorial:

the program could be made indefinitely sustainable by a combination of increased payroll tax revenues and reasonable benefit cuts

“Vote for us! We’ll raise taxes AND cut benefits!”

You say cut some area of government services but offer no area that could be cut.

I have a whole list of federal government services and agencies that we could argue about cutting.

You may think it’s “liberal” to say that you should pay for what you buy

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.

Unless you want to move from theory to concrete, shut your pie hole.

I didn’t realize you wanted to argue about the entire government spending structure.

please, please run on this in 2008

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.

Unless you want to move from theory to concrete, shut your pie hole.