NationStates Jolt Archive

President Bush has said that one of his priorities as president will be a partial privatization of Social Security. It may turn into full privatization sometime after he's gone. The stock market rallied after he won reelection, in part because they are giddy about possible Social Security money entering the stock market. So you now know where Wall Street stands on the issue :). I just want to know your thoughts.
As for mine? Speculate all you want. I'm just too tired to make my case tonight, and defend it.

President Bush has said that one of his priorities as president will be a partial privatization of Social Security. It may turn into full privatization sometime after he's gone. The stock market rallied after he won reelection, in part because they are giddy about possible Social Security money entering the stock market. So you now know where Wall Street stands on the issue :). I just want to know your thoughts.
As for mine? Speculate all you want. I'm just too tired to make my case tonight, and defend it.

He never said that.

Source ?

He never said that.

Source ?
Do you need me to source the fact that the sky is blue? Any observer would note that Bush has said that Social Security reform is a top priority.

Do you need me to source the fact that the sky is blue? Any observer would note that Bush has said that Social Security reform is a top priority.

Yes I do, you don't know why the sky is blue either.

If you can precis it - why the sky is blue that is - I will forgive you for your snotty answer.

Yes I do, you don't know why the sky is blue either.

If you can precis it - why the sky is blue that is - I will forgive you for your snotty answer.
It wasn't snotty, just stating the facts. If you really want to know, however, I have an article.
http://www.newsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-bzwall054030415nov05,0,4299048.story?coll=ny-nybusiness-headlines
Note the President's language.

It's better than what the dems are saying "let it sit" won't work at all.

President Bush has said that one of his priorities as president will be a partial privatization of Social Security. It may turn into full privatization sometime after he's gone. The stock market rallied after he won reelection, in part because they are giddy about possible Social Security money entering the stock market. So you now know where Wall Street stands on the issue :). I just want to know your thoughts.
As for mine? Speculate all you want. I'm just too tired to make my case tonight, and defend it.

For some elders, all their income is by social security. Think if all you potential income was invested in a company due to privatised social security. Think if a company crashes. That individual loses all. Remember Enron? Remember how many employees lost all of their pension due to Enron crashing and burning? That number of people that lost their pensions would increase by the thousands if social security was privatised.

For some elders, all their income is by social security. Think if all you potential income was invested in a company due to privatised social security. Think if a company crashes. That individual loses all. Remember Enron? Remember how many employees lost all of their pension due to Enron crashing and burning? That number of people that lost their pensions would increase by the thousands if social security was privatised.
Thats why you don't invest everything in one stock. I don't think any financial advisor with more than a 4th grade education would propose that. With diversified portfolios, taking a look at the stock markets over the past 45 years will show why it is benificial.

As a matter of principa,l I say abolish SS entirely. A matter of actual policy the best the US can manage is partial privitization. Full Privitization isn't going to appen in the next several decades, and the type of reforms really necessary to make it cost effective (say, making it a supplement to raise the pre-tax income of all seniors to a minimum of $25,000/yr) and still useful are just not going to happen ever. I don't know what is worse, the absurdity of the lock-box or the fact that people believe in it. Anyway, SS needs reform, because as much as I do not want my parents to move in with me I'm damn well not paying half my income in taxes to support them on SS, which I is what an unreformed SS sytem will be costing in 20 years.

The idea of privatizing Social Security is absurd. Some people have said abolish Social Security altogether, I say abolish the stock market altogether.

I'm sure that companies will happy to find ways to lock up another people's money for their own benefit in this new system! Pork barrelling by big business I say.

Do it now. The Federal Government wasn't set up to be our retirement fund.

I'm sure that companies will happy to find ways to lock up another people's money for their own benefit in this new system! Pork barrelling by big business I say.
To the extreme. Did you read the link a few posts above?
"It would be a bonanza," said Richard Bove, an analyst for Punk Ziegel & Co. in Manhattan, of the Bush plan, which would let money in individual accounts be invested in stocks and bonds. "Nothing in the history of the securities industry would come close to the benefit that will be created if in fact Social Security is privatized."
...
Private financial managers and mutual fund companies would rake in at least $940 billion in fees over 75 years.
No wonder they're so happy about it. There was nothing in the article about what benefits the average Joe Public would get from it. Just that the investing companies and brokers would be creaming it.
Yeah, good reason to privatise. :rolleyes:

I think that having total control over our Social Security pensions should be everyone's right. Noone should be forced to do so, however. After all, it is your money. It wasn't left under a pillow by the Tooth Fairie, it is money that you have contributed. I don't think the government should be allowed to dole peoples money back to them as it sees fit if they disagree with that.

Do it now. The Federal Government wasn't set up to be our retirement fund.

No, no they were not.

So why is the sky blue then?

Because light is multicolored, but our atmosphere bends it in such a way that we only see the blue aspect of it(except through water or a prism). For more info on the exact scientific properties of light, google Maxwell's photonic equasions.

I might as well come outta the closet on this.
Senior citizens control over 70% of the nation's wealth already. With the elimination of the inheritance tax, this wealth should be transferred to their children. We are subsidizing those that don't even need the money! It's time to take that Social Security wealth, and put it into private hands. Those that find the market too risky can put it into cash, which does good when the rest of the market tumbles. Otherwise, put it into the stock market. Read this article by Martin Feldstein. He is an intellectual proponet of privatization, and as many speculate, George Bush's next choice for Fed Chairman.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html

People should be allowed to opt out of the beurocrat-rationed state ponzi pension scheme and invest their money in free market solutions.

Why do leftists want to force people to put money into an imploding pyramid investment?

For some elders, all their income is by social security. Think if all you potential income was invested in a company due to privatised social security. Think if a company crashes. That individual loses all. Remember Enron? Remember how many employees lost all of their pension due to Enron crashing and burning? That number of people that lost their pensions would increase by the thousands if social security was privatised.

That is a quite common misconception which the Democrats want you to believe.

Actually it is not the current retirees who would be eligible but rather, the younger workers. The current plan is to allow them to invest a portion (10% I heard somewhere) in any way they want; stocks, bonds, treasury notes, CDs, etc. - though it may not be withdrawn.

For most young participants the returns of even the most conservative option would grow at a rate faster than their social security benefit.

Meanwhile the current beneficiaries would see no change - as the system is still running at a surplus.

Future benefits paid by the govt could then be reduced (by 10% or so) , but with 90% of it still certain. Then the private account makes up for the rest.

My personal feelings are this is close to the right answer, but not quite perfect. I have seen how bad most investors are. Many people really are clueless. I don't like the idea of having to bail out the dufus's of the future.

I do, however, agree that it needs to be fixed and they are going in the right direction. I think a good solution would be to make the private accounts something like the 529 plans run by most states. Diversification is not an option then. On top of that the govt could provide an insurance on the performance of the account - similar to what many variable annuties offer today - where if someone's account does not return a rate comparable to their regular benefit the government makes up the difference. For this benefit the govt collects a small fee for the insurance.

I think that my plan would make both sides happy - and I would not have to worry somabout bailing out e dumbass who invests his private account in pork-bellies, solar-powered underwear, or worse.

I worked hard for my money - let me do what I want with it! Why should it be ok for the government to take it and not invest it well enough for me to get it back 40-50 years from now? I am extremely happy with my investments for my 401K - why not let me have the option to invest my own SS money, too?! And for those who actually trust the government with their money for the next 40 years, have that option for them, too!

Besides, as other have posted, SS wasn't meant to be a person's only income upon retirement.

If I were Bush I'd advocate a partial privatization for those who are willing to

I might as well come outta the closet on this.
Senior citizens control over 70% of the nation's wealth already. With the elimination of the inheritance tax, this wealth should be transferred to their children. We are subsidizing those that don't even need the money! It's time to take that Social Security wealth, and put it into private hands. Those that find the market too risky can put it into cash, which does good when the rest of the market tumbles. Otherwise, put it into the stock market. Read this article by Martin Feldstein. He is an intellectual proponet of privatization, and as many speculate, George Bush's next choice for Fed Chairman.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
But what percentage of the senior population controls that wealth? I don't know the answer, but seeing as wealth is already concentrated in the upper income brackets to a degree unseen since the Gilded Age, I doubt it's very high. So what we end up with is the wealthy elderly doing fine and a huge swath of the population at the bottom fucked over--as per usual.

Not to mention that we would still have the problem of guarantees. Social Security, for better or for worse, is backed up by the credit of the US government. There is no backup for the stock market--it's a risky venture all the way around, and everyone getting into it knows that (or should). So if their entire retirement is tied up in the stock market, then in the case of corporate malfeasance a la Enron or Adelphia or or any of the others, or more importantly, in the case of a cyclical downturn as happens every so often, where do the people who got shat on go for relief? Are we as a country willing to let them starve on the streets? That's what you have to ask yourself.

But what percentage of the senior population controls that wealth? I don't know the answer, but seeing as wealth is already concentrated in the upper income brackets to a degree unseen since the Gilded Age, I doubt it's very high. So what we end up with is the wealthy elderly doing fine and a huge swath of the population at the bottom fucked over--as per usual.
Please, don't use that word. I think it makes you come across as silly. Fortunatly, I know you better.
In any case, what is the deal with you saying that the socio-economic situation is doom and gloom? Is it because you live near the dying Silicon Valley? But I digress.
If you want high concentrations of wealth, go to any period before now. Poverty levels have come down every year except the last two, and median incomes are steadily rising.
Not to mention that we would still have the problem of guarantees. Social Security, for better or for worse, is backed up by the credit of the US government. There is no backup for the stock market--it's a risky venture all the way around, and everyone getting into it knows that (or should). So if their entire retirement is tied up in the stock market, then in the case of corporate malfeasance a la Enron or Adelphia or or any of the others, or more importantly, in the case of a cyclical downturn as happens every so often, where do the people who got shat on go for relief? Are we as a country willing to let them starve on the streets? That's what you have to ask yourself.
Am I willing to let grandma and grandpa starve on the street? Yes. Why? Because grandma and grandpa were stupid if they got there. With a diversified portfolio, and a few cash assets, they'd do fine even when markets are bad. Privatizing Social Security doesn't mean that all savings must go into the stock market. Some can go into cash, bonds, etc. All it takes is a little common sense on the part of the investor. They can even just leave it in a bank account to collect interest, if they wish. Interest rates are usually high in bad times, so I expect that it'd do fine in there.
Also, the government is not meant to be a nanny. It is meant to be a policeman, and nothing more. Social security is nothing but a giant slush fund. A large chunk of people's payroll goes in, and little in benefits come out. Where that money went is irrelevant. All that matters is that it dissappeared on the government's watch. They're irresponsible every time they have a major economic task. Social Security is no different.
And btw, I've posted the above article before. I'm wondering why you haven't commented on it.

That is a quite common misconception which the Democrats want you to believe.

Tell that to the Enron employees who were locked out of their stock accounts right before Enron burned.

[QUOTE=New Anthrus]Not all of us want to spendthe rest of our lives on Wall Street. We want to actually have some time of our life where there is little to no stress in the daily routine. Usually, people who actually like spending time on Wall street are the ones who are investing from age 6 onward.

Tell that to the Enron employees who were locked out of their stock accounts right before Enron burned.

[QUOTE=New Anthrus]Not all of us want to spendthe rest of our lives on Wall Street. We want to actually have some time of our life where there is little to no stress in the daily routine. Usually, people who actually like spending time on Wall street are the ones who are investing from age 6 onward.

Invest in a stock market tracker the returns are 2-3% greater per year than the beurocrat run ponzi scheme you want to force everyone to use.

Tell that to the Enron employees who were locked out of their stock accounts right before Enron burned.

[QUOTE=New Anthrus]Not all of us want to spendthe rest of our lives on Wall Street. We want to actually have some time of our life where there is little to no stress in the daily routine. Usually, people who actually like spending time on Wall street are the ones who are investing from age 6 onward.
I invest a fair share, and yet I don't spend time watching it. All I have to do is check the quotes once in a while. If I want to buy or sell something, I call my broker, but that is rare. Most brokers nearly always advise people to hold securities anyhow.

Tell that to the Enron employees who were locked out of their stock accounts right before Enron burned.

[QUOTE=New Anthrus]Not all of us want to spendthe rest of our lives on Wall Street. We want to actually have some time of our life where there is little to no stress in the daily routine. Usually, people who actually like spending time on Wall street are the ones who are investing from age 6 onward.
Did you even bother to read past the 'misconception' line you quoted? I doubt it, or else you wouldn't post such a non-sensical reply.

But what percentage of the senior population controls that wealth? I don't know the answer, but seeing as wealth is already concentrated in the upper income brackets to a degree unseen since the Gilded Age, I doubt it's very high. So what we end up with is the wealthy elderly doing fine and a huge swath of the population at the bottom fARked :) over--as per usual.



Actually the wealth is spread similarly across demographics. I was a bit surprised when I looked it up. I don't remember if it was assets, income or both, but I think it was assets.



Not to mention that we would still have the problem of guarantees. Social Security, for better or for worse, is backed up by the credit of the US government. There is no backup for the stock market--it's a risky venture all the way around, and everyone getting into it knows that (or should). So if their entire retirement is tied up in the stock market, then in the case of corporate malfeasance a la Enron or Adelphia or or any of the others, or more importantly, in the case of a cyclical downturn as happens every so often, where do the people who got shat on go for relief? Are we as a country willing to let them starve on the streets? That's what you have to ask yourself.

Actually, i you had read all of my post you'd know that the current proposal only allows participants a small amount of their witholdings to manage themselves. You fear is unfounded because it is impossible.

Also, please look closer at my post, for thos investors who chose to place their private accounts in 'the market' (vs many other options) there is a way to back it up. Also, properly allocated portfolios (like many 529s) are somewhat insulated from economic cycles.

I do agree with you and think that accounts should be restricted in a way (like the 529s are) to prevent people from making dumbass speculative investments.

I do agree with you and think that accounts should be restricted in a way (like the 529s are) to prevent people from making dumbass speculative investments.
Still, only a fool would place all, or even a chunk of their life savings into a risky investment. That's where common sense should come in. Never invest more than one can afford to part with.

Invest in a stock market tracker the returns are 2-3% greater per year than the beurocrat run ponzi scheme you want to force everyone to use.
Really, before anyone posts on this thread they really oughta look at this:
Social Security Calculator (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/) My current returns are -.81% Right, NEGATIVE returns. Leave it to the government to do that.

You should know also this:
Long-term performance of various assets vs inflation (http://www.martincapital.com/longterm/LngTrm1.htm)
look at the tables more than the chart, and be aware the chart is logarithmic.

Fact: According to the Social Security Administration, the current system will require a total of $27 trillion (in constant 2004 dollars) more revenue than it will receive in taxes over the next 75 years (http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1802.cfm)

Social Security Basics (http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm143.cfm)

You may not like the Heritage Foundation, but the present the facts here in very clear detail.

Still, only a fool would place all, or even a chunk of their life savings into a risky investment. That's where common sense should come in. Never invest more than one can afford to part with.
DOn't confuse investing with gambling.

There is a myth about safe investments - the fact is there are none. Every investment offers a risk of some sort. It is possible to lose money with everything, including FDIC insured CDs from quality depositories.

The question isn't about investing in something with no risk, (impossible) the trick is in knowing the risks you are comfortable with and investing within them.
Two tasks which are considerably harder than most investors/savers are aware of.

You may not like the Heritage Foundation, but the present the facts here in very clear detail.

They're are still biased against social security as seen in the writing style.

I would have more faith in privatization if I saw business executives who commit fraud (opps a business mistake) on a large scale getting punished really bad.

Remember the savings and loan losses and the level of punishment handed out.

How many of the execs at Enron, worldcomm, etc., have been punished?

Don't forget a few investment firms "took" small time investors as well.

Privitising social security will probably lead to many instances of retirements getting wiped out by "business mistakes"

For me it should be an option. You can take the goverment or you can tell them you want to do it.

That way the people that know how to invest can handle it and those that don't know how or can't learn can be covered.

The main problem that has lead to bad returns on subsidized social security isn't the efficiency of the system, it actually is amazingly efficient. It's that politicians see it is a barrel to scoop money from. Truely lock social security up so no one can touch it but those who it is meant for and you'll see most of its problems disappear.

That being said, I wouldn't trust the general public to handle its own finances, especially in this generation.

Am I willing to let grandma and grandpa starve on the street? Yes.
Is anyone else here willing to let Anthrus starve in the streets? I know I am.

The main problem that has lead to bad returns on subsidized social security isn't the efficiency of the system, it actually is amazingly efficient. It's that politicians see it is a barrel to scoop money from. Truely lock social security up so no one can touch it but those who it is meant for and you'll see most of its problems disappear.

That being said, I wouldn't trust the general public to handle its own finances, especially in this generation.

Locking it would solve the problem but both parties would probably fight the motion!

They're are still biased against social security as seen in the writing style.

.


Way to reinforce your willing ignorance. It must help you feel better.

I would ask you to specify what part you found objectionable, but then that would mean I believed you actually read it.

Howdy,

I actually take an ultra-libertarian position on socialist government services like Social Security. The government should give back all the money it basically stole from us in one lump sum and Social Security should then be dissolved. I am getting a better return with my .5% Savings Account Annual Rate than I get with my Social Security account. Private Industry can handle retirement funds much better than whatever plan the government can make up.

The main problem that has lead to bad returns on subsidized social security isn't the efficiency of the system, it actually is amazingly efficient. It's that politicians see it is a barrel to scoop money from. Truely lock social security up so no one can touch it but those who it is meant for and you'll see most of its problems disappear.Pointless, actually locking up the money would be a bad thing and who cripple the economy. One of the things people don't realize is that government spending is a form of investment, when the government builds roads & schools and all that they are providing an infrastructure from which further wealth can be garnered later. All the excess money taken in from social security taxes over the years has been invested, and now we are reaping the returns on that investment in the form of a highly developed nation which can prduce lots of wealth. The problem is that by hiding the money off the books in SS the politicans felt less accountable and did not invest it very wisely (can you say "helium reserve", sure we might use blimps again in war). But regardless of the efficency of the government, the monies have been invested which is generally seen as a good thing to do with bucketloads of extra revenue.

That being said, I wouldn't trust the general public to handle its own finances, especially in this generation.

Ya know why it's "this generation" which is least equipped to take care of itself? All the programs designed to cuddle people through life.

Personal responsibility and common sense are like muscles, if you don't have to use them, they wither away.

Craig

Basicly the Republicans want to make the US economy almost like that of pre-1929 where Government is smaller. As an Independent I like the idea of small government. However, this SS solution would bring us all back TO 1929 IF the market ever fails again AND another Democrat would most likely run to fix it again and establish leftist policies over the already-established right-wing.
Amazing how history can repeat itself.

Way to reinforce your willing ignorance. It must help you feel better.

I would ask you to specify what part you found objectionable, but then that would mean I believed you actually read it.

No worries Bozzy, my willing ignorance has taught me to notice people who will never be convinced of anything then their own opinions.

I don't comment on stuff unless I read it.

You people do realize that people almost always get 2 or 3 times more money out of social security than they put in, right? That's why there's an issue with social security in the first place, there won't be 2 or 3 times more people working than the baby boomers when they retire.

Pointless, actually locking up the money would be a bad thing and who cripple the economy.

The money wouldn't be locked up. It would be loaned out at an interest rate to whomever is willing to borrow it.


One of the things people don't realize is that government spending is a form of investment, when the government builds roads & schools and all that they are providing an infrastructure from which further wealth can be garnered later.

One of the very worst forms of investment possible is government spending. The government must first tax the people before it can spend any money. When it taxes people it upsets the balance of the market because the government spends money differently than the people would. The government is also inefficient, only spending a percentage of the taxes it takes in, the rest is lost in the bureaucracy. Whenever possible it is far better to make sure that the people are the ones doing the investing, not the bureaucrats or the politicians.


All the excess money taken in from social security taxes over the years has been invested, and now we are reaping the returns on that investment in the form of a highly developed nation which can prduce lots of wealth.

We're a highly developed nation in spite of government squandering our money, not because of it. America was the world's leading economic power long before Social Security was ever a tiny notion in Roosevelt's Stalin loving little head. It is the people of America, not the government, that are responsible for all economic activity. It is the free and open market that has made us rich, not central planning by a bureaucrat.

But regardless of the efficency of the government, the monies have been invested which is generally seen as a good thing to do with bucketloads of extra revenue.

The money would have been "invested" without government meddling and it would have been used far more wisely by the American people.

We're a highly developed nation in spite of government squandering our money, not because of it. America was the world's leading economic power long before Social Security was ever a tiny notion in Roosevelt's Stalin loving little head. It is the people of America, not the government, that are responsible for all economic activity. It is the free and open market that has made us rich, not central planning by a bureaucrat.
At the time Social Security was implemented, America wasn't the world's leading economic power.

At the time Social Security was implemented, America wasn't the world's leading economic power.

We were on par with the European powers even before WWI. Of course our clear dominance didn't make itself apparent until after WWII when all of Europe was destroyed and we had roughly 50% of the world's economy, but if you want to give that credit to Social Security then you need your head examined.

We were on par with the European powers even before WWI. Of course our clear dominance didn't make itself apparent until after WWII when all of Europe was destroyed and we had roughly 50% of the world's economy, but if you want to give that credit to Social Security then you need your head examined.
I believe Germany was the leading economic power before and during WW2. During the 60's it was the USSR if I'm not mistaken.

I think people need to learn that you're not supposed to live on your social security income. It should be a supplement to your savings that you've put away during your life.

I believe Germany was the leading economic power before and during WW2. During the 60's it was the USSR if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know where one would find those statistics for easy confirmation, however, theh difference between the US and Germany, or any European power for that matter, after 1900, was small. The USSR was an economic wreck, I find it unlikely that it was ever ahead of the US in absolute terms, but it might have had some relative superiority in whatever sector the Soviets focused their slave labor on.

I don't know where one would find those statistics for easy confirmation, however, theh difference between the US and Germany, or any European power for that matter, after 1900, was small. The USSR was an economic wreck, I find it unlikely that it was ever ahead of the US in absolute terms, but it might have had some relative superiority in whatever sector the Soviets focused their slave labor on.
Ouch that's harsh and untrue. The USSR under Khrushchev had fantastic economic output. There was no slaves. The slaves were during antiquity.

Ouch that's harsh and untrue. The USSR under Khrushchev had fantastic economic output. There was no slaves. The slaves were during antiquity.

The Soviets whipped their people into whatever productions the government's war machine required. Everyone under the USSR was a slave from the first day of the Revolution until the wall came down. They didn't own property, they were forced to work, they had no freedom, no rights, they were slaves.

The Soviets whipped their people into whatever productions the government's war machine required. Everyone under the USSR was a slave from the first day of the Revolution until the wall came down. They didn't own property, they were forced to work, they had no freedom, no rights, they were slaves.
As opposed to the US where people didn't work and were free to stand idle for instance...

As opposed to the US where people didn't work and were free to stand idle for instance...

Yes, anyone in the US who doesn't want to work has the right not to.

It's better than what the dems are saying "let it sit" won't work at all.

It will work just as well as it works now which is ok. How will it work better by splitting the money between people on welfare, who need it, and shareholders in Welfare Inc, who don't?

I believe Germany was the leading economic power before and during WW2. During the 60's it was the USSR if I'm not mistaken.
Untill the end of the '50's Germany, the Western part, was number 2. But during the ´60´s it fell behind Japan.

The Soviets whipped their people into whatever productions the government's war machine required. Everyone under the USSR was a slave from the first day of the Revolution until the wall came down. They didn't own property, they were forced to work, they had no freedom, no rights, they were slaves.

This is actually bollocks. On a day to day basis, most of them didn't have to work if they didn't want to. Of the vast majority who did work, many of those worked in absurdly overmanned unproductive state industries, basically doing nothing all day.

They all got just about enough to eat, and a place to live, and a reasonable education, and reasonable healthcare. And they owned all their personal property, clothes, books etc.

They had the right to education and healthcare, incidentally. And the right to go to a bar and buy cheap vodka, and the right to play jazz and write novels. Although they weren't free to publish whatever they wanted.

Yes, anyone in the US who doesn't want to work has the right not to.

The right to starve to death in the street - now that's a right worth defending.

They all got just about enough to eat, and a place to live, and a reasonable education, and reasonable healthcare. And they owned all their personal property, clothes, books etc.
The education under the Soviets was more then just reasonable.

The right to starve to death in the street - now that's a right worth defending.
Anthrus would happily let his grandma and grandpa starve in the street if they have not saved enough money for retirement. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn´t it?

This is actually bollocks. On a day to day basis, most of them didn't have to work if they didn't want to. Of the vast majority who did work, many of those worked in absurdly overmanned unproductive state industries, basically doing nothing all day.

So? The state still had coerced labor; you can't disqualify that by pointing to government inefficiency allowing many people to not work anyways.

They all got just about enough to eat, and a place to live, and a reasonable education, and reasonable healthcare. And they owned all their personal property, clothes, books etc.

Possession is not ownership. Just because the government doesn't explicitly own your toothbrush doesn't mean that you have the right to property. Furthermore, if all you're looking for in life is a meal and a place to live then slavery should fit you just fine. The government needs its monkeys healthy and smart enough to do whatever tasks it needs done.

They had the right to education and healthcare, incidentally. And the right to go to a bar and buy cheap vodka, and the right to play jazz and write novels. Although they weren't free to publish whatever they wanted.

They didn't have the right to these things seeing as how not everyone was able to get them. The government would dole those things out as it thought was required to keep its slave force in good operation. The entertainment was just to help keep down rebellion. The fact of the matter is that nothing you've said disproves what the USSR was, indeed it supports my description.

The education under the Soviets was more then just reasonable.

Yes, it was so good that anyone who could got the heck out of there and went to the free world where their talents would be well rewarded. Did you think the Berlin wall was just for show?

Yes, it was so good that anyone who could got the heck out of there and went to the free world where their talents would be well rewarded. Did you think the Berlin wall was just for show?
It is now. And wether you like it or not, education under the Soviets was excellent. Regardless if they tried to get out or not.

The right to starve to death in the street - now that's a right worth defending.

There are plenty of people who get sufficient wealth, even before the usual retirement age, to be idle if they choose. Most decide not to because they like the work or they replace their motivation to work from money to power.

It is now. And wether you like it or not, education under the Soviets was excellent. Regardless if they tried to get out or not.

I made no comment on the state of their education because it has nothing to do with my point. Apparently the Soviet apoligists here think that you can justify a brutal tyrannical regime which enslaves its people by pointing out that it has a "nice" education system or that it feeds them. I guess it was "nice" if you wern't one of the people being systematically murdered under Stalin's regime. I guess it was "nice" if you could ignore the fact that you were mere chattle to the government under every Soviet regime.

I made no comment on the state of their education because it has nothing to do with my point.
Then how am I supposed to understand this then?
Yes, it was so good that anyone who could got the heck out of there and went to the free world where their talents would be well rewarded.

Then how am I supposed to understand this then?

You are to understand it as exactly what it says. Soviet education produced some brilliant individuals. Those brilliant individuals were desperate to get out of the Soviet regime because it was quite horrid.

You are to understand it as exactly what it says.
Hmmmm...it doesn't realy say Soviet education produced some brilliant individuals.

Hmmmm...it doesn't realy say

We'll I thought I was explicit the first time, indeed I was even more explicit the second time, what more do you want? Keep in mind, the education system had nothing to do with my point and detracts nothing from the reality of what the USSR was and how it treated its people.

We'll I thought I was explicit the first time, indeed I was even more explicit the second time, what more do you want?
Your money, your house and your sister/wife/daughter/niece and car.

Your money, your house and your sister/wife/daughter/niece and car.

You'd make a great communist then, they want what someone else has too.

You'd make a great communist then, they want what someone else has too.
Communism has some good points as does capitalism, enviromentalism etc...
I do not clinge myself to just one ideology.

Communism has some good points as does capitalism, enviromentalism etc...
I do not clinge myself to just one ideology.

What is good about communism?

What is good about communism?
Education for all. Not just those that can pay for it.

Education for all. Not just those that can pay for it.

So you have no problem with child labor then?

So you have no problem with child labor then?
Eeeh...since when is education child labor?

Eeeh...since when is education child labor?

Under Marx's communism education is to be paired up with forced child labor in industry.

The Empire of Presidency would like to purchase this power of making something so public private, only to make it public again; giving the impression to the public that it is something personally theirs.

The Empire of Presidency would like to purchase this power of making something so public private, only to make it public again; giving the impression to the public that it is something personally theirs.
Here you go. Thats 29,95 Euro's.

Under Marx's communism education is to be paired up with forced child labor in industry.
Well, unlike you I was completely clear in my statement. Communism like Capitalism etc has good points. And capitalism also used child labor if I remember correctly.

Private means for profit. Social security will never be a money maker, unless it isn't paid out, but no business would bid for the contract of managing it unless they knew they were going to make big bucks off of it. How? Perhaps they'll use the money as a private bank account and skim off the interest. Or they'll make it harder for people to collect (despite having paid into it their whole working life), or they'll just declare bankruptcy and screw everyone. At least when it's run by the government, we can be fairly certain they don't have to make a certain amount of profit each year. I am totally against the privitization of social security.

Well, unlike you I was completely clear in my statement. Communism like Capitalism etc has good points. And capitalism also used child labor if I remember correctly.

Capitalism as a philosophy is merely the free market. Nothing is coerced. Marx would coerce child labor whether you like it or not. You like the educational aspect of communism then you must surely like child labor to.

You like the educational aspect of communism then you must surely like child labor to.
If you say so.

Private means for profit.

Actually in this case all "privatization" would do is put some of your Social Security tax into an account with your name on it. You would then be able to invest this money for a higher rate of return in government approved (verified for safety) mediums of investment. It would not be farmed out to a private company.

Under Marx's communism education is to be paired up with forced child labor in industry.
Ouch that's a load of bullshit.
It is explicit in the communist manifesto : social education for all, ban on child labor. It is the socialist who banned child labor in the first place. The capitalists said it would make the economy colapse.

Actually in this case all "privatization" would do is put some of your Social Security tax into an account with your name on it. You would then be able to invest this money for a higher rate of return in government approved (verified for safety) mediums of investment. It would not be farmed out to a private company.
It means it isn't social security anymore.

Vox Humana, I was impressed with your disassebley of arguments I didn't make. I was adressing the concepts that SS funds could be locked away (not invested at competative rates on the capital market) and only doled out to intended recipients, and that government spending produces nothing (while government "investment" may be unwise and inefficent, it is in fact a form of investment and does stregnthen the infrastructure that permits the national economy to prosper - the question of it's efficency relative to private investment does not negate either the fact of it's existance or the impact of it). I desired only to correct common misapprehensions about the way the system works, not to justify the system or begin a debate of the merits of government spending (in genreal), for without a basic understanding of how SS works, an intelligent debate on the merits of privatizing SS is impossible.

It means it isn't social security anymore.

Nor would it be secure. It would be left to the varagries of the market, of which the average person is completely ignorant. Mutual funds are sold to people with the idea that it is a great money maker...but how many people lost their life savings in the market crashes a couple of years ago? If people want to play with the market, let them invest money outside of their social security. Social security needs to be secure, and provide for the people that paid into it, no matter what. Mutual fund investing, without a good understanding of the market, is no better than gambling on horse races.

Ouch that's a load of bullshit.
It is explicit in the communist manifesto : social education for all, ban on child labor. It is the socialist who banned child labor in the first place. The capitalists said it would make the economy colapse.

The free market means getting rid of all restrictions, including minimum wage, labour laws (8 hour work days, minimum age requirements, benefits etc) with the idea that the market, in its own best interest, will provide these things without government intervention. Well Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' is still invisible and unfelt in those countries of the Majority World (re: poor) that have opened their doors to the free market. Pakistani children still make rugs in sweatshops, people in many countries still work 18 hour days with no overtime, and benefits are non-existent for the majority of workers. Labour unions (those terrible, socialist engines of change) fought hard to bring in regulations to help workers, and now capitalists want to get rid of that worker advantage. Well, it's working, but your free market has yet to outdo the unions (for the majority of people, for as in all things, there are exceptions).

Ouch that's a load of bullshit.
It is explicit in the communist manifesto : social education for all, ban on child labor. It is the socialist who banned child labor in the first place. The capitalists said it would make the economy colapse.

Capitalists never said it would make the economy collapse; it was already in quick decline before it was ever banned. As wages rose, it was no longer necessary to have child labor.

There were kids sweeping chimneys long before the caps came to power.

I do agree, however, that communism does not result in child labor.

Capitalists never said it would make the economy collapse; it was already in quick decline before it was ever banned. As wages rose, it was no longer necessary to have child labor.

There were kids sweeping chimneys long before the caps came to power.

I do agree, however, that communism does not result in child labor.
But child labor has been banned thanks to the actions of socialists.
The communist party's primary target during Marx times was to ban child labor.
The capitalist conservatives of the time resisted such a change, saying it would damage the economy (which was already in bad shape at the time).
Well this is how it happened in Europe at least. I don't know so much about US history, sorry.
I do agree that child labor existed long before capitalism and that capitalism didn't invent it. I'm just saying that social progress in general and ban of child labor in particular is what socialism is all about.
It may sound obvious but some people have been denied access to information about socialism for decades and now they think everything they have is provided by free market.

But child labor has been banned thanks to the actions of socialists.
The communist party's primary target during Marx times was to ban child labor.
The capitalist conservatives of the time resisted such a change, saying it would damage the economy (which was already in bad shape at the time).
Well this is how it happened in Europe at least. I don't know so much about US history, sorry.
in the US, as far as i know, the people who worked to abolish child labor weren't necessarily socialists, though they believed in many socialist ideals (such as a shared societal responsibility for child labor conditions, etc). in America, activists TEND to be left-wing or socialist-leaning, though they often will self-identify as capitalist because of American values.

http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html

I've found this. It explains the history of US child labor, which is closely linked with the history of compulsory education for all children.

http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html

I've found this. It explains the history of US child labor, which is closely linked with the history of compulsory education for all children.

Thanks for the link.

That makes sense, as education is preferable over labor, but without that opportunity, they might as well be working. Of course, it's a whole different story when we start to talk about forced labor.

This beckons the question: if child labor laws were all repealed in the developed countries, would children head off to factories in droves? I should think not, regardless of mandatory schooling.

Ouch that's a load of bullshit.
It is explicit in the communist manifesto : social education for all, ban on child labor. It is the socialist who banned child labor in the first place. The capitalists said it would make the economy colapse.

I suggest you actually read the communist manefeso.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Vox Humana, I was impressed with your disassebley of arguments I didn't make.

So you were talking about a form of privatization which, to my knowledge, has never been advocated. Sorry, I assumed you were talking about the form of privatization which has been proposed by President Bush.

DOn't confuse investing with gambling.

There is a myth about safe investments - the fact is there are none. Every investment offers a risk of some sort. It is possible to lose money with everything, including FDIC insured CDs from quality depositories.

The question isn't about investing in something with no risk, (impossible) the trick is in knowing the risks you are comfortable with and investing within them.
Two tasks which are considerably harder than most investors/savers are aware of.
Still, cash investments are far, far safer than anything else. With the FDIC in existence, the most likely way that anyone can loose is either a.) an accute financial crisis in the US, or b.) an invasion of the US, neither of which are likely in our lifetimes. In that respect, tresury securities may be even safer, as they are backed with the full credit of the US government.

At the time Social Security was implemented, America wasn't the world's leading economic power.
But it was both before and after the Great Depression. During it, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia saw rapid economic growth.

Private means for profit. Social security will never be a money maker, unless it isn't paid out, but no business would bid for the contract of managing it unless they knew they were going to make big bucks off of it. How? Perhaps they'll use the money as a private bank account and skim off the interest. Or they'll make it harder for people to collect (despite having paid into it their whole working life), or they'll just declare bankruptcy and screw everyone. At least when it's run by the government, we can be fairly certain they don't have to make a certain amount of profit each year. I am totally against the privitization of social security.
I would be perfectly happy if it were in government accounts, as long as it meant three things. First, that these accounts were tax-free. Secondly, that any and all contributions are voluntary, not mandatory, so long as the employer provides matching funds. And finally and most importantly, that the person can save or invest that money where ever he/she pleases. It's really no different than an overgrown 401(k).

Nor would it be secure. It would be left to the varagries of the market, of which the average person is completely ignorant. Mutual funds are sold to people with the idea that it is a great money maker...but how many people lost their life savings in the market crashes a couple of years ago?
That is naturally gonna happen once every few years. It's the business cycle. However, as it is a cycle, the economy, and all the stock quotes, rebound, usually as strong or stronger than before. Besides, mutual funds are generally safer than single stocks. And as the managers generally know more about the market than the average investor, mutual funds generate better returns.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
I keep posting this article, which has the bulk of my arguements. However, no one has dared comment on it. Will someone at least be brave enough to support or attack this report?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
I keep posting this article, which has the bulk of my arguements. However, no one has dared comment on it. Will someone at least be brave enough to support or attack this report?

Ok grant me the fact I am not a major economist......

"This essay, however, will not discuss the financial insolvency of Social Security but will focus instead on the more fundamental economic effects of continuing with an unfunded system."

This is a convient sidestep of it's going to be all gone argument. I have heard more then one person say SS is fine if you eliminate the two parties(which ever one is in power) from using it as a slush fund for when times are bad.

"Under the current Social Security system, each generation now and in the future loses the difference between the return to real capital that would be obtained in a funded system and the much lower return in the existing unfunded program. Shifting to a privatized system of individual mandatory accounts that can be invested in a mix of stocks and bonds would permit individuals to obtain the full real pretax rate of return on capital. This would mean a larger capital stock and a higher national income."

Well is sounds nice but my mom was invested in a mix of stocks and bonds lost about 1/4 of her retirement. This system makes the HUGE assumption that no financial company or corperate executives would ever do anything wrong.

Has anybody recovered their loses from the Savings and Loan scandle? What about the current fraud(ie enron, worldcom)?

"Conservative assumptions imply that Social Security privatization would increase the economic well-being of future generations by an amount equal to 5 percent of GDP each year as long as the system lasts. Although the transition to a funded system would involve economic as well as political costs, the net present value of the gain would be enormous—as much as $10-20 trillion"

Ok but considering the approaching babyboomer retirement how would that be possible? More people drawing out then paying into the fund.

"Instead of the usual mix of tax increases and benefit cuts, we can move to a system based on mandatory, individually owned private savings accounts."

All right what about the federal insurence protection? Is the majority going to be under 100K?

As with anything it looks good on paper.

But are you willing to trust your retirement accounts with businessmen these days?

I suggest you actually read the communist manefeso.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
It means ban child labor and replace it with education, focus education on industrial production (it means focus on education for work, as opposed to religious education for instance).
It makes a lot of sense and it is why it has happened in all developped countries.

We were on par with the European powers even before WWI. Of course our clear dominance didn't make itself apparent until after WWII when all of Europe was destroyed and we had roughly 50% of the world's economy, but if you want to give that credit to Social Security then you need your head examined.
Perhaps before WWI we were, but the Great Depression hit us harder than most other countries. As we all know, the Great Depression was caused because of stock speculation.
The reasons that the U.S. rose back to prominence is two things: the purchase of weapons by the government to fight the war, thus increasing production, and the institution of the welfare by the government.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
I keep posting this article, which has the bulk of my arguements. However, no one has dared comment on it. Will someone at least be brave enough to support or attack this report?

I support it. Cato's great.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
I keep posting this article, which has the bulk of my arguements. However, no one has dared comment on it. Will someone at least be brave enough to support or attack this report?
I didn't read the whole article, but one of the things that he stated was that privatizing Social Security would increase saving. This is false. Most people don't make enough to live on now, how are they going to put money away for the future?

I didn't read the whole article, but one of the things that he stated was that privatizing Social Security would increase saving. This is false. Most people don't make enough to live on now, how are they going to put money away for the future?

Most people make enough to live on now.

They would be better off putting the money taken from them for SS into private investments.

They would be better off putting the money taken from them for SS into private investments.
Except that they wouldn't put the money into private investments, they'd spend it.

Except that they wouldn't put the money into private investments, they'd spend it.

Lol, yeah, a bunch of politicians in a building thousands of kilometres away, who have never met you, always knows whats best for you and your family.

Craig

The core of Jello's argument seems to be that people who have a little less control in their own lives, and the government should have more.

The point was made earlier that Social Security would be solvent if the government would quit raiding it to make ends meet. This is nice to talk about, but will never happen.

Also, why is it illegal and unethical for a private individual to structure a retirement plan the way social security is structured, but for the government, suddenly it's ethics at its best?

i for one support a ss/privatization split...just give me a little more of my own money to invest the way i see fit rather than a gov't that can't even keep itself out of debt... a well diversified investment plan will also protect from a single bad company destroying your savings..the people who were destroyed by enron and world com had ( for the most part) set all of their investments into stocks for those companies only

Ok grant me the fact I am not a major economist......

"This essay, however, will not discuss the financial insolvency of Social Security but will focus instead on the more fundamental economic effects of continuing with an unfunded system."

This is a convient sidestep of it's going to be all gone argument. I have heard more then one person say SS is fine if you eliminate the two parties(which ever one is in power) from using it as a slush fund for when times are bad.

"Under the current Social Security system, each generation now and in the future loses the difference between the return to real capital that would be obtained in a funded system and the much lower return in the existing unfunded program. Shifting to a privatized system of individual mandatory accounts that can be invested in a mix of stocks and bonds would permit individuals to obtain the full real pretax rate of return on capital. This would mean a larger capital stock and a higher national income."

Well is sounds nice but my mom was invested in a mix of stocks and bonds lost about 1/4 of her retirement. This system makes the HUGE assumption that no financial company or corperate executives would ever do anything wrong.

Has anybody recovered their loses from the Savings and Loan scandle? What about the current fraud(ie enron, worldcom)?

"Conservative assumptions imply that Social Security privatization would increase the economic well-being of future generations by an amount equal to 5 percent of GDP each year as long as the system lasts. Although the transition to a funded system would involve economic as well as political costs, the net present value of the gain would be enormous—as much as $10-20 trillion"

Ok but considering the approaching babyboomer retirement how would that be possible? More people drawing out then paying into the fund.

"Instead of the usual mix of tax increases and benefit cuts, we can move to a system based on mandatory, individually owned private savings accounts."

All right what about the federal insurence protection? Is the majority going to be under 100K?

As with anything it looks good on paper.

But are you willing to trust your retirement accounts with businessmen these days?
Like I said, it's all part of the business cycle, one of the most reliable aspects of humanity. Your mother will probably gain that money back, assuming she didn't panic and dump her securities.
As for the government, remember, this is an academic economist, not a politician. He probably has little interest in Social Security's political ramifications, just the economic ones. However, from a more practical standpoint, any privatization of the system will take time, so Washington doesn't have to swallow a bitter pill.

I didn't read the whole article, but one of the things that he stated was that privatizing Social Security would increase saving. This is false. Most people don't make enough to live on now, how are they going to put money away for the future?
Most people don't make enough now? Most every American family has a house with at least one bedroom and bathroom, a TV set, and one car. I was even surprised to find out that most families even have air conditioning. If most people don't have enough money, then why did they buy all of these items? Even those below the poverty rate in the US has more than the middle classes of many countries. If most families in the US make an income (which they do), then for most of that time, they have money left over to either save, or spend on luxuries. If they don't, they can find spare cash somewhere. The average American family swims in net worth, but is either afraid to admit it, or has far too much debt. There is always enough income to save, but I'd reccomend that, before we do, we cut down on our extravagent spending habits. I'm not saying that this is all families, but for the ones that are in debt, they usually have no one but themselves to blame.

Most people don't make enough now? Most every American family has a house with at least one bedroom and bathroom, a TV set, and one car. I was even surprised to find out that most families even have air conditioning. If most people don't have enough money, then why did they buy all of these items? Even those below the poverty rate in the US has more than the middle classes of many countries. If most families in the US make an income (which they do), then for most of that time, they have money left over to either save, or spend on luxuries. If they don't, they can find spare cash somewhere. The average American family swims in net worth, but is either afraid to admit it, or has far too much debt. There is always enough income to save, but I'd reccomend that, before we do, we cut down on our extravagent spending habits. I'm not saying that this is all families, but for the ones that are in debt, they usually have no one but themselves to blame.
Yes, but that's my point, that people, for whatever reason, don't save money, usually because of debt. If they're not saving money, they wouldn't have anything to fall back on when they retire. If that's the case, then you've taken the "security" out of social security.

Lol, yeah, a bunch of politicians in a building thousands of kilometres away, who have never met you, always knows whats best for you and your family.

Craig
Not at all. But "a bunch of politicians in a building thousands of kilometres away, who have never met you" are capable of providing social security when most people wouldn't be capable, for whatever reason, of doing so for themselves.

The point was made earlier that Social Security would be solvent if the government would quit raiding it to make ends meet. This is nice to talk about, but will never happen.



That is actually incorrect. I provided links earlier where you could have learned that. You should become knowledgeable in a subject before you form an opinion.

Yes, but that's my point, that people, for whatever reason, don't save money, usually because of debt. If they're not saving money, they wouldn't have anything to fall back on when they retire. If that's the case, then you've taken the "security" out of social security.
I find that debt is a personal problem. It usually comes along because people spend more than they have. Even in catastrophic cases, like an illness, debt incurred by that can easily be solved by saving a little. That's why I'm beginning to favor mandatory saving more and more, in place of quite a few taxes. That's what I hope to do with Social Security, only except to allow a little more freedom with the money than under the current system.

bump

Not at all. But "a bunch of politicians in a building thousands of kilometres away, who have never met you" are capable of providing social security when most people wouldn't be capable, for whatever reason, of doing so for themselves.


Moral hazard. Why exhibit intelligent financial planning when the government will take care of us when we fail? Let people sink or swim for themselves.

Not at all. But "a bunch of politicians in a building thousands of kilometres away, who have never met you" are capable of providing social security when most people wouldn't be capable, for whatever reason, of doing so for themselves.

Which is why you have to put your money into the scheme? Hmmm.

Any system based on fueling expansion and reaping rewards is doomed to fail at some point in the future because, by nature, all expansion is limited. Whoever invented the terms "credit" and "investment" was likely planning world domination...or they were just doing favors for their friends :). Either way, they'll probably end up being the downfall of western civilization (oopsie!!)

Any system based on fueling expansion and reaping rewards is doomed to fail at some point in the future because, by nature, all expansion is limited. Whoever invented the terms "credit" and "investment" was likely planning world domination...or they were just doing favors for their friends :). Either way, they'll probably end up being the downfall of western civilization (oopsie!!)

Heh heh:

"All imaginable inventions have already been invented." - Manager of the American Patent Agency Charles Duell 1899

Moral hazard. Why exhibit intelligent financial planning when the government will take care of us when we fail? Let people sink or swim for themselves.
Letting people sink is a moral hazard.

Which is why you have to put your money into the scheme? Hmmm.
Initially, yes, though, of course, now it's become, as many have said, a slush fund for politicians. (Holy commas, Batman!)

Letting people sink is a moral hazard.

Moral hazard - econ term meaning lack of incentive to avoid misfortune. Like when the IMF bails out countries with poor economic policies.

(*bump*)

Actually, privatized social security isn't really new, in Chile for example, there have been privatised pension systems (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/07-31-99.html) which proven to be a success.

(*bump*)

Actually, privatized social security isn't really new, in Chile for example, there have been privatised pension systems (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/07-31-99.html) which proven to be a success.
That's pretty good. Chile is also a fairly prosperous country, and until recently, it had the highest GDP per capita in Latin America.

That's pretty good. Chile is also a fairly prosperous country, and until recently, it had the highest GDP per capita in Latin America.

Right behind that other free-trade practicing country, Argentina.

Right behind that other free-trade practicing country, Argentina.
Yep. They trade that position year after year. And Argentina has recovered nicely from that little financial crisis. But I digress.

It's partially privatised, not all of the social security is privatised. But I do think that this just shows that the corporations can be trusted more then the government. For example here in the Netherlands, the government is taking away much of the social security, nobody can stop them. Corporations couldn't do that (breaking of a contract) and would immediatly get sued.

I'm intrested if it will work in the United States, the companies are somewhat more nasty there, however I'm fairly sure it will. The keynesian system has been causing enough damage for the recent years, it's time that we dismantle the social democratic state and start using Hayek and Friedman instead of Keynes.

privatization is better than no reform...

He never said that.

Source ?

Social Security is a "Ponzi-scheme" that was rail-roaded-in by FDR-democrats. No one has an "account". When you die, your family gets nothing. When they run out of "new" money, they raise the retirement age, and lower the cost-of-living increase. Medicare is a similar unfunded democrat hoax.

Social Security is a "Ponzi-scheme" that was rail-roaded-in by FDR-democrats. No one has an "account". When you die, your family gets nothing.
That's only partially true. If you served in the military, your family can collect some of your social security after your death.

That's only partially true. If you served in the military, your family can collect some of your social security after your death.
Actually, my dad died when I was a child, and I actually get a social security check. He was never in the military. Now if my mom died, however, I'd never be paid. It was made before women could be breadmakers. I'm not endorsing Social Security, btw. I don't want to collect that check, and if I weren't a minor, I'd give it to charity instead of myself. It's hypocritical to take it, even though it isn't much.

Interesting article on the issue.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041122-782131,00.html
It mentions the Chile model, the most successful attempt at public pension reform. I believe that they deserve a closer look.

Interesting article on the issue.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041122-782131,00.html
It mentions the Chile model, the most successful attempt at public pension reform. I believe that they deserve a closer look.

Thanks for the link. I especially liked this comment:


"What does it mean when every truck driver and waitress becomes a stockholder?" asks Michael Tanner, an economist at the Cato Institute and one of the architects of the private-account movement. "You can create inheritable wealth for low-income people and minorities. If you turn those truck drivers and waitresses into stockholders, they vote and behave very differently."

bump

He never said that.

Source ?

Bush said it in the second debate. The one where they were taking questions from the people... I may still have it on tape, I watched several times after the debate for the sheer fun of it.

privatization is better than no reform...

If reform for its own sake is all you're looking for, I'll take everyone's social security money. Tada, reform!