NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure many of you Americans have heard Bush's plan to "save" social security...

Well, I don't know much about it, but what I know, is that it seems that current and simpler method is better. The proposed method would be a real web.

Click here for the video (http://www.ecolanguage.net/)

BEWARE - you might have to think! ;) and I don't know about you, but I hate thinking logically late at night.

Bush is an idiot. It's fine how it is.

Bush is an idiot. It's fine how it is.

:rolleyes:

Sure its easier now, but a couple of years down the road, the current system wont be able to handle it, and thats not something I want to happen to me. It has to be done, whether libs want to admit it or not, the current system is running itself dry the way it was set up decades ago. They had no idea the economic world power, and cash flow out of the US, would come to be.

Click here for the video


any chance of a transcript for us narrow-band fossils?

This is an ingenius plan. I wish Clinton was able to be re-elected again, but damn ass laws are there. Bush is an idiot...seriously.

any chance of a transcript for us narrow-band fossils?
Love to help you, but I'm not that fast at typing and I have the attention span of...ooooh! Look at that bird!

I'm sure many of you Americans have heard Bush's plan to "save" social security...

Well, I don't know much about it, but what I know, is that it seems that current and simpler method is better. The proposed method would be a real web.

Click here for the video (http://www.ecolanguage.net/)

BEWARE - you might have to think! ;) and I don't know about you, but I hate thinking logically late at night.

Those who say "bush is an idiot" need to seriously re-examine just how well-thought out this plan is. Scare the pants off voters, or fall back and rely on apathy, push through on the plan anyway. Once the damage is done, blame it on your opponents, who were trying to save such a "flawed system" in the first place. Rely on voters having a short-term memory, destroy politically any group of induvidual that speaks out against it.

Contingencies and back-up plans are all in place already, I assure you this "idiot" idea is well thought-out.

The plan will make trillions of dollars for the middle men and businesses who would benifit from this tremendous screwing-over of every single American. It sums up to attempted rackettering, price-fixing, disruption of critical services to the American retirees. All of this disguised as an attempt to save something that is not in danger.

A masterstroke of corruption. Truly, worthy of so much more praise than simple idiocy.

Nicky, I think you are distorting the President's plan, but not to worry. An alternative has been proposed by a few Senators. It's a plan to cap the payroll tax, limit Congressional raiding, and provide personal accounts. Simply put, all surplus funds will be saved or invested in personal accounts. I don't have a lot of details, but it sounds promising. DeMint, Graham, and Santorum are the co-sponsors.

I personally don't see how anyone in their right minds could possibly object to privatization of Social Security - if it is done correctly. Considering that the money I've been paying into Social Security for many years now is supposed to be mine, I want to be the one who controls how it is invested, thank you very much. As I see it, the three main issues that any plan to fix Social Security needs to address include ownership, inheritability, and choice.

Congress must no longer be permitted to raid Social Security to fund other government programs - I think we can all agree on that much. If the money is deposited into private accounts, no one else will have their greedy little mitts on it. These personal accounts can be limited to low risk or even risk-free investments, such as Treasury bills, for example (to calm fears about risky stock market investment of retirement funds), and could also be passed on to ones heirs.

Here is one possible plan to consider: http://www.socialsecurity.org/congressional/proposals/demint.html

And here is another: http://www.socialsecurity.org/catoplan

Has this thread died already?

Since my post #10 in this thread has gone unchallenged, I assume that everyone agrees with the basic premise that Social Security must be privatized. Great! Then which plan do you think is best?

I don't trust privatisation, I only trust the nutcases in government slightly more because they have more red tape and accountability


Why don't you just let Social Security stay as it is then invest extra money in your own private ventures, like your tax returns or whatever. Then you have BOTH.

Ihatevacations']I don't trust privatisation, I only trust the nutcases in government slightly more because they have more red tape and accountability


Why don't you just let Social Security stay as it is then invest extra money in your own private ventures, like your tax returns or whatever. Then you have BOTH.

I do have a 401K and a Roth IRA, both of which I fund to their limits. But that isn't the point, is it? If the government said that they wanted to take your first-born child and pointed out that you could always have others, would you say, "Oh, okay then - go ahead"? The point is that the money is mine and I obviously can't trust the government to keep their dirty hands off of it. The only real solution is private accounts.

So, have you actually looked at either of the plans to which I posted links in post #10? If so, what do you feel is wrong with either of them and why?

False analogy

Ihatevacations']False analogy

Perhaps it's not the best analogy I could have used, and I admit it's a bit on the dramatic side, but I still think it helps you to see my point - i.e., that the money that I earned and is supposed to be there for my retirement should not be kept in the government cookie jar - yes?

Perhaps it's not the best analogy I could have used, and I admit it's a bit on the dramatic side, but I still think it helps you to see my point - i.e., that the money that I earned and is supposed to be there for my retirement should not be kept in the government cookie jar - yes?
No, that was a bullshit analogy, I stopped reading soon as you made the comparison

Since my post #10 in this thread has gone unchallenged, I assume that everyone agrees with the basic premise that Social Security must be privatized. Great! Then which plan do you think is best?
I have a better idea. To Hell with privatization and just give us back the surplus. That keeps Congress from spending it and I would get to keep more of my money every year.

Ihatevacations']No, that was a bullshit analogy, I stopped reading soon as you made the comparison

Okay - forget the analogy and simply focus on the point I'm trying to make. My retirement funds, consisting of the wages I've earned over my lifetime, do not belong in the government cookie jar, to be raided at their whim. You have the burden of rejoinder - either advance the argument by presenting a counterpoint, or concede the point and be done with it.

I have a better idea. To Hell with privatization and just give us back the surplus. That keeps Congress from spending it and I would get to keep more of my money every year.

Part of the plan would include giving us back the surplus by distributing it into the private accounts of every wage earner who has paid into Social Security.

Okay - forget the analogy and simply focus on the point I'm trying to make. My retirement funds, consisting of the wages I've earned over my lifetime, do not belong in the government cookie jar, to be raided at their whim. You have the burden of rejoinder - either advance the argument by presenting a counterpoint, or concede the point and be done with it.
Last I checked, Social Security money is paid back to you. Granted they do raid it, but that does not counter my point. Stop them from being able to pull funds from areas they should not be allowed access to

i've read his plan to 'save' social security... after such his choice of words for the matter seem a bit odd. everntually we will have the choice of paying into SS or not. If you dont then the money you would pay into it the gov. still gets but it goes into accounts you cannot touch until you reach a certain age. It also has a much higher interest rate than you could get anywhere else. and noone else can touch your money. granted its a bit more lon winded with many big words that would hurt your brain in it but thats basically what it comes down to. You pay into SS or you give the gov. your money and in a few years you can get it back *nods* at better than bank interest rates.
wether this is a good idea or not i dont know but thats the basis of his plan

the problem is a difference of opinion on what social security is. Conservatives view it as supplimental income drawn from a mandatory savings account held by the government with a bit of disability and life insurance thrown in. Liberals look at it as welfare for old people, with some welfare for sick and widows and children thrown in for good measure.

The difference? If you put in less than you take out then it is welfare. That is where it is headed and why liberals are trying to put the burden on the highest taxpayors instead of just modernizing it.

The lesson learned from United, Enron and others is that you really should trust nobody but yourself to take care of your future. The LAST people I trust is the dumbasses in Washington, yet liberals insist on handing them their checkbooks, and granting them authority to raid everyone elses. That is the trouble with allowing people who don't pay taxes to vote on fiscal policy.

The lesson learned from United, Enron and others is that you really should trust nobody but yourself to take care of your future. The LAST people I trust is the dumbasses in Washington, yet liberals insist on handing them their checkbooks, and granting them authority to raid everyone elses. That is the trouble with allowing people who don't pay taxes to vote on fiscal policy.

This is interesting. Because we take the same example and draw VERY DIFFERENT lessons from it.

From my firsthand experience with Enron, I would say the problem came about because of reckless privitization in the energy industry, that created an unregulated market that allowed corperations like Enron to exploit their situation. With no one checking their books correctly, and the entire industry in their pocket, Enron was left to run unchecked, unemcumbered by oversight, they created a massive scam.

Enron wasn't dumb, they were smart. They cooked the books, padded pockets, greased palms, and ran an effective campagin to railroad those who would question them. They made billions of dollars, made the cover of every financial magazine, they were the Wal-Mart of the Energy world. It was all a scam though, and EVERYONE got played.

Thousand of people who worked for Enron, who knew NOTHING of this horrible scheme, were tricked by slick schemes to make them re-invest in the company. After all, the stock was on fire, wasn't it? I can't tell you how many people put their savings into Enron stock; everyone on Wall St. said buy, they were doing well, they had profits aplenty, why worry?

Enron's policies for its employees were specifically designed to take advantage in them; for example your 401k plan HAD to have a minimum of 50% Enron stock.

Read that part over again. Enron FORCED its 401k plan to be self-enriching. Employees had NO CHOICE but to put half their savings in their own company. Now that was a little odd now, wasn't it? Federal regulations on such requirements? Lax; too many loopholes, not enough regulation.

The result? When Enron went under, it took half of every single employee's retirement accounts with it. My family lost tens of thousands of dollars.

Thanks to this, my parents are now scrambling in the last few years before retirement to scrape together money to retire on. Its a heart-wrenching sight. What lesson can we draw from this? Loopholes, deregulation/privitization as a wonder-drug, POWER VACCUMS, lack of oversight; all these things led to this disaster.

And yet the answer to this problem would be to REMOVE the last, most basic of safety nets from under my parent's feet? The last insurance against the cold winter of their last years? This plan, that would throw their savings to the jackals of the market's whims?

I would call anyone who wants that a fool or a heartless person, only concerned with their OWN well being. Its NOT welfare, its a safety net; you know, for those people who happen get involved with the NEXT Enron, United, WorldCom, etc.

What could someone SAY to people in that position? "Sorry, through no real fault of your own, you've lost all your money to a brilliant scam on a global level...tough luck, have fun in the homeless shelter." We desperately need this societal insurance policy against all these "atrocities" in the business world.

Personally, I'd like having the option of increasing my returns by placing it in a private investment.

This is interesting. Because we take the same example and draw VERY DIFFERENT lessons from it.

From my firsthand experience with Enron, I would say the problem came about because of reckless privitization in the energy industry, that created an unregulated market that allowed corperations like Enron to exploit their situation. With no one checking their books correctly, and the entire industry in their pocket, Enron was left to run unchecked, unemcumbered by oversight, they created a massive scam.

Enron wasn't dumb, they were smart. They cooked the books, padded pockets, greased palms, and ran an effective campagin to railroad those who would question them. They made billions of dollars, made the cover of every financial magazine, they were the Wal-Mart of the Energy world. It was all a scam though, and EVERYONE got played.

Thousand of people who worked for Enron, who knew NOTHING of this horrible scheme, were tricked by slick schemes to make them re-invest in the company. After all, the stock was on fire, wasn't it? I can't tell you how many people put their savings into Enron stock; everyone on Wall St. said buy, they were doing well, they had profits aplenty, why worry?

Enron's policies for its employees were specifically designed to take advantage in them; for example your 401k plan HAD to have a minimum of 50% Enron stock.

Read that part over again. Enron FORCED its 401k plan to be self-enriching. Employees had NO CHOICE but to put half their savings in their own company. Now that was a little odd now, wasn't it? Federal regulations on such requirements? Lax; too many loopholes, not enough regulation.

The result? When Enron went under, it took half of every single employee's retirement accounts with it. My family lost tens of thousands of dollars.

Thanks to this, my parents are now scrambling in the last few years before retirement to scrape together money to retire on. Its a heart-wrenching sight. What lesson can we draw from this? Loopholes, deregulation/privitization as a wonder-drug, POWER VACCUMS, lack of oversight; all these things led to this disaster.

And yet the answer to this problem would be to REMOVE the last, most basic of safety nets from under my parent's feet? The last insurance against the cold winter of their last years? This plan, that would throw their savings to the jackals of the market's whims?

I would call anyone who wants that a fool or a heartless person, only concerned with their OWN well being. Its NOT welfare, its a safety net; you know, for those people who happen get involved with the NEXT Enron, United, WorldCom, etc.

What could someone SAY to people in that position? "Sorry, through no real fault of your own, you've lost all your money to a brilliant scam on a global level...tough luck, have fun in the homeless shelter." We desperately need this societal insurance policy against all these "atrocities" in the business world.

And when the government spends all that money, like it's been doing? What are you going to tell them then?

The money is not going to be there.

And when the government spends all that money, like it's been doing? What are you going to tell them then?

The money is not going to be there.

Really? When will that happen...do you even know? And how simple would it be to prevent that from happening? Dare I say the words, "raise taxes", you know, every 30 or 40 years, to keep the thing in a surplus? Why not, I don't know, close the loopholes that allow them to raid it? Why wouldn't running the damn thing like its supposed to be run work?

You know, little things that will go a lot father than spending 4 trillion dollars on some thouroughly corrupt plan to divest the American taxpayers of their safety net. Need I ask where the 4 trillion will come from in the first place? Last I checked the Feds weren't swimming in money.

Nah, lets just scrap the whole damn system...after all, it only protects the entire American public.

<snip>
Very, very eloquent. Last I heard, social security had 40 years before it ran out of money. And that was assuming that the economy didn't grow at all. Can't find the link to the article though.

And yet the answer to this problem would be to REMOVE the last, most basic of safety nets from under my parent's feet? The last insurance against the cold winter of their last years? This plan, that would throw their savings to the jackals of the market's whims?

I would call anyone who wants that a fool or a heartless person, only concerned with their OWN well being. Its NOT welfare, its a safety net; you know, for those people who happen get involved with the NEXT Enron, United, WorldCom, etc.

What could someone SAY to people in that position? "Sorry, through no real fault of your own, you've lost all your money to a brilliant scam on a global level...tough luck, have fun in the homeless shelter." We desperately need this societal insurance policy against all these "atrocities" in the business world.

Could you please point that out to me the privatization plan that would require or even allow investing 50% of one's retirement funds in a single company - because I seem to have overlooked it.

What I can't figure out is why so many people seem to think the answer to the problems caused by having the government in charge of Social Security is to continue keeping Social Security in the hands of the same government that has been raiding it all these years! So if the fox has been in charge of the henhouse all these years, and the hen population keeps on dwindling, the answer is to keep the fox in charge of the henhouse and simply tell him not to raid it anymore??? Yeah, that'll work. :rolleyes:

Could you please point that out to me the privatization plan that would require or even allow investing 50% of one's retirement funds in a single company - because I seem to have overlooked it.

What I can't figure out is why so many people seem to think the answer to the problems caused by having the government in charge of Social Security is to continue keeping Social Security in the hands of the same government that has been raiding it all these years! So if the fox has been in charge of the henhouse all these years, and the hen population keeps on dwindling, the answer is to keep the fox in charge of the henhouse and simply tell him not to raid it anymore??? Yeah, that'll work. :rolleyes:

...Did you read my post or skim it? Because you seem to have seriously misunderstood me.

The point is this; without proper regulation, industries WILL do what they can to make money. There is no shame in this; but it does mean that more unscrupulous members of society will take advantage of the system for their own personal gain. That is why we have seen, continue to see, and will ALWAYS see episodes like Enron, Worldcom, etc.

Guess what, that applies to the government as well! Without proper regulation, the government will continue to raid Social Security. There's no shame in that, but it does mean that it needs to be protected with LAWS. Not suggestions. Laws that, if broken, will provide people with recourse. Simply saying "stop raiding social security" won't work, but legislation specifically enacted for that purpose just might.

If you lose your money in the stock market, its gone. It doesn't matter HOW you lost it. That's the game you play. That's the market, it goes up, but it also goes DOWN, and people can be ruined if it goes down. If you give social security to the market, people can be ruined...permenantly, and without recourse.

Do you not see the difference? The government is poorly run, but we CAN make it run better, and if we fail to make it better and people lose money, they can sue the government, they can vote the bums out, they have options. If Enron takes your money, you are NOT gonna get it back. Period.

If we divest people of their safety net, you are gambling with peoples lives. Some people will make more money with private accounts, but EVERYONE gets old. I don't think its wise to sacrafice everyone else so a few can get a little better return on their investments.

Really? When will that happen...do you even know? And how simple would it be to prevent that from happening? Dare I say the words, "raise taxes", you know, every 30 or 40 years, to keep the thing in a surplus? Why not, I don't know, close the loopholes that allow them to raid it? Why wouldn't running the damn thing like its supposed to be run work?


When it was first introduced, There were 100+ people to support the money going into SS, to support each person taking from SS. When the baby boomers retire, we're going to be at a defecit--more people taking from SS than are putting into it. That's when it will fail.

RAISE TAXES? WTF are you thinking? My money is my money--no one else has a "right" to it. Period.


You know, little things that will go a lot father than spending 4 trillion dollars on some thouroughly corrupt plan to divest the American taxpayers of their safety net. Need I ask where the 4 trillion will come from in the first place? Last I checked the Feds weren't swimming in money.


I don't like Bush's plan any better than what's there now. But letting the individual figure out what they're going to do costs taxpayers a lot less. It's not my job to support anyone else but me and my family. SS should be completely eliminated and force the average citizen to wake the fuck up, and take responsibility for their own lives, instead of living off the teat of the nanny state and stealing from others.


Nah, lets just scrap the whole damn system...after all, it only protects the entire American public.

No, it doesn't protect the American public. It protect the socialization of inept programs, by using horrible investing methods. It's not enough to live on when someone retires already.

When it was first introduced, There were 100+ people to support the money going into SS, to support each person taking from SS. When the baby boomers retire, we're going to be at a defecit--more people taking from SS than are putting into it. That's when it will fail.

RAISE TAXES? WTF are you thinking? My money is my money--no one else has a "right" to it. Period.


**laughs** Dire words indeed. Prove it.

You're right. They don't have a *right* to it, but they can raise taxes to help pay for social security, which would benifit millions of people. The same as if they had raised them to but new bombers for the US military, or for road work on our highways. Guess what? Sometimes, just occasionally, raising taxes HELPS people more than it hurts. A radical idea, but these are radical times.

Perhaps you don't like even the idea of taxes in the first place? Would you rather EVERYTHING be privitized, and we all just pay as we go? Honestly now, just where DO you draw the line between your personal fortune, and the fate of the naiton as a whole? Would you even pay for a military to protect us?

...Did you read my post or skim it? Because you seem to have seriously misunderstood me.

The point is this; without proper regulation, industries WILL do what they can to make money. There is no shame in this; but it does mean that more unscrupulous members of society will take advantage of the system for their own personal gain. That is why we have seen, continue to see, and will ALWAYS see episodes like Enron, Worldcom, etc.

Guess what, that applies to the government as well! Without proper regulation, the government will continue to raid Social Security. There's no shame in that, but it does mean that it needs to be protected with LAWS. Not suggestions. Laws that, if broken, will provide people with recourse. Simply saying "stop raiding social security" won't work, but legislation specifically enacted for that purpose just might.

If you lose your money in the stock market, its gone. It doesn't matter HOW you lost it. That's the game you play. That's the market, it goes up, but it also goes DOWN, and people can be ruined if it goes down. If you give social security to the market, people can be ruined...permenantly, and without recourse.

Do you not see the difference? The government is poorly run, but we CAN make it run better, and if we fail to make it better and people lose money, they can sue the government, they can vote the bums out, they have options. If Enron takes your money, you are NOT gonna get it back. Period.

If we divest people of their safety net, you are gambling with peoples lives. Some people will make more money with private accounts, but EVERYONE gets old. I don't think its wise to sacrafice everyone else so a few can get a little better return on their investments.

Yes, I read your post in its entirety. Did you read mine? You seem to be making the assumption here that a privatization plan would allow for risky investments, which is completely unwarranted. Once again - all investment options should be no-risk or very low-risk only. Given that premise, what is the problem with allowing individuals to have private accounts that the government cannot touch? How would that be riskier than keeping our retirement money in the government cookie jar, as we are currently doing? As long as contributing to Social Security is mandatory, I think I should be able to count on that money being there when I need it - wouldn't you agree? And if the safeguards are in place to keep me from gambling that money away before I even make it to retirement - where's the problem?

**laughs** Dire words indeed. Prove it.


Actually, no--you prove the opposite. You're the one that seems to think that SS is the end-all-be-all.


You're right. They don't have a *right* to it, but they can raise taxes to help pay for social security, which would benifit millions of people. The same as if they had raised them to but new bombers for the US military, or for road work on our highways. Guess what? Sometimes, just occasionally, raising taxes HELPS people more than it hurts. A radical idea, but these are radical times.


It's not a radical idea--the government has been doing it since Lincoln's time. It's just that many have accepted it and rolled over. It's not my job to support millions of others--they're responsible for themselves. Or maybe they're not adults?


Perhaps you don't like even the idea of taxes in the first place? Would you rather EVERYTHING be privitized, and we all just pay as we go? Honestly now, just where DO you draw the line between your personal fortune, and the fate of the naiton as a whole? Would you even pay for a military to protect us?

I would pay for the services I'd use. The roads, the military, garbage collection, water and sewer, things like that.

Voluntary charity is one thing. Robbery to support a bloated, ineffective government and the poorly planned (and managed) programs they create is another.

Force is force, regardless the intent behind it. No one has the right to force someone else to do something. Can't stop someone from doing drugs if they choose and you can't force people to support other people. Can't stop people from marrying those that they love (regardless of gender) and you can't take away guns from those that haven't hurt anyone.

It's called freedom.

Seems you want the nanny state telling you and everyone else what to do. Just because someone was elected into office doesn't mean they're suddenly wiser than you, or have any interest other than their own at heart.

Actually, no--you prove the opposite. You're the one that seems to think that SS is the end-all-be-all.

Seems you want the nanny state telling you and everyone else what to do.

Tie goes to the defender ;) You prove its in such dire trouble. Because I see little need to believe that, I see no evidence to suggest its running out of money in the real world.

It is however, like all government programs, in need of oversight and reform. I can't even begin to comprehend what you would mean by "end-all-be-all"; we're talking about retirement safety nets, not some crazed utopian ideal here.

...And that last part I won't even dignify with a response. I asked you a question based on your responses, there's no need to turn this into some pointless partiasan name-calling. Hell, I'm not even part of a party, so I doubt we could call it that ;).

Well crap. Its 7 in the morning and I haven't hit the sack yet...Its gonna be a rough day, lets hear it for massive amounts of caffine. TGIF.

I would pay for the services I'd use. The roads, the military, garbage collection, water and sewer, things like that.
So your against funding public schools you don't go to? Or roads you don't use? People going wahh wahh its my money I don't want to help no one but myself need to use all the moeny they have obviously pooled by not paying taxes EVER and by a little island in the south pacific and live there not paying taxes to themselves

Tie goes to the defender ;) You prove its in such dire trouble. Because I see little need to believe that, I see no evidence to suggest its running out of money in the real world.


Okay--here's the generalized view: Our country is running at a defecit, yes? Our country is in debt, yes? How are we going to kick out more and more for a system when we can't pay our bills?


It is however, like all government programs, in need of oversight and reform. I can't even begin to comprehend what you would mean by "end-all-be-all"; we're talking about retirement safety nets, not some crazed utopian ideal here.


A retirement safety net is a utopian ideal.


...And that last part I won't even dignify with a response. I asked you a question based on your responses, there's no need to turn this into some pointless partiasan name-calling. Hell, I'm not even part of a party, so I doubt we could call it that ;).


It's not name calling. You want the government to decide how people live. You want to take more of everyone's money. That's pretty much how a nanny state operates.


Well crap. Its 7 in the morning and I haven't hit the sack yet...Its gonna be a rough day, lets hear it for massive amounts of caffine. TGIF.

Oog. That I will be empathetic about. That will suck.

Ihatevacations']So your against funding public schools you don't go to?
[/qutoe]

Nope--especially since I don't have children. My parents decided to have children and they paid their property taxes to put me through school. That's how it should work--you decide to have a kid, you fund the education for them.

[QUOTE='[NS]Ihatevacations']
Or roads you don't use?


I don't use them all--nor will I ever. It doesn't make sense to pay for them all.

Ihatevacations']
People going wahh wahh its my money I don't want to help no one but myself


No, that is not it at all. I want the freedom of choice to choose where I put my resources. To my family. Why the heck would I want to help you out, when I don't know anything about you, or what you do? Would you just drop a $10 bill into a box that just said, "charity", without knowing if it were going to the NRA, or Planned Parenthood, or the Humane Society, or the organizer's (of any organization) car? That's what you're doing with government. You're paying for the war in Iraq, research to see how many cow farts cause atmospheric issues, and a whole bunch of things we don't even know exist.

Ihatevacations']
need to use all the moeny they have obviously pooled by not paying taxes EVER and by a little island in the south pacific and live there not paying taxes to themselves

You seem to think that those who make over $50K don't pay anything. We're paying for most everything in this country.

This is interesting. Because we take the same example and draw VERY DIFFERENT lessons from it.

From my firsthand experience with Enron, I would say the problem came about because of reckless privitization in the energy industry, that created an unregulated market that allowed corperations like Enron to exploit their situation. With no one checking their books correctly, and the entire industry in their pocket, Enron was left to run unchecked, unemcumbered by oversight, they created a massive scam.

Enron wasn't dumb, they were smart. They cooked the books, padded pockets, greased palms, and ran an effective campagin to railroad those who would question them. They made billions of dollars, made the cover of every financial magazine, they were the Wal-Mart of the Energy world. It was all a scam though, and EVERYONE got played.

I'd hardly call criminal activity 'smart'.

Thousand of people who worked for Enron, who knew NOTHING of this horrible scheme, were tricked by slick schemes to make..
Nobody made them, just their greed.
them re-invest in the company. After all, the stock was on fire, wasn't it? I can't tell you how many people put their savings into Enron stock; everyone on Wall St. said buy, they were doing well, they had profits aplenty, why worry?
I find it difficult to believe none of them ever heard of the term 'diversify'. It takes a real dumbshit to invest their entire life savings into just one thing. A ten minute meeting with a financial advisor could have fixed that.

Enron's policies for its employees were specifically designed to take advantage in them; for example your 401k plan HAD to have a minimum of 50% Enron stock.
Um, no, you contributions were MATCHED with Enron stock - a very different thing sincve it was given for free.

Read that part over again. Enron FORCED its 401k plan to be self-enriching. Employees had NO CHOICE but to put half their savings in their own company. Now that was a little odd now, wasn't it? Federal regulations on such requirements? Lax; too many loopholes, not enough regulation.

The result? When Enron went under, it took half of every single employee's retirement accounts with it. My family lost tens of thousands of dollars.
The stock which was free - big deal. If you bought more in addition to what was already being given to you... see prior comments about 'diversification'.

Thanks to this, my parents are now scrambling in the last few years before retirement to scrape together money to retire on. Its a heart-wrenching sight. What lesson can we draw from this? Loopholes, deregulation/privitization as a wonder-drug, POWER VACCUMS, lack of oversight; all these things led to this disaster.
Pretty much defines how the government runs social security now. One investment, no diversification, no accountability.

And yet the answer to this problem would be to REMOVE the last, most basic of safety nets from under my parent's feet? The last insurance against the cold winter of their last years? This plan, that would throw their savings to the jackals of the market's whims?
Um, no. It would throw it to your parents whims. They could stay as is. They could invest in CDs or whatever else. Nobody telling them what they can or cannot do.

I would call anyone who wants that a fool or a heartless person, only concerned with their OWN well being. Its NOT welfare, its a safety net; you know, for those people who happen get involved with the NEXT Enron, United, WorldCom, etc.
If you get money from other taxpayors disproportionate to your contribution, it is welfare. Pretty simple. As far as safety nets go, I don't trust the government any more than any other institution and a considerable amount less than many. Ony a fool would place their future in the hands of politicians, only a sadist would force everyone else to.

What could someone SAY to people in that position? "Sorry, through no real fault of your own, you've lost all your money to a brilliant scam on a global level...tough luck, have fun in the homeless shelter." We desperately need this societal insurance policy against all these "atrocities" in the business world.
There are private ways to insure oneself and your portfolio against market losses or underperformance. The only portfolio likely to get hozed would be one where the owner was fool enough to place all of their money in one thing ala Enron. If that happens, 'tough shit dummy'is my reply. In the very unlikely event of a total economic meltdown... cash of any kind would really not be very useful - no matter who was providing it. It is more likely that it will be business as always - in which case even the most conservative portfolio would produce a benefit far greater than the current social security benefit for those who choose to participate. for those who don't participate - well - enjoy mediocrity.
As for me - I prefer that congress not be able to get their grubby little meat-hooks into MY security plan every time they get the hankerin for pork.

I don't really want to put my money in to Social Security. I'd rather invest it and avoid paying the SS witholding tax so that I could get a solid return on my money, as opposed to the insignificant returns under the current program.

Still, I don't see why an investment component, say in TIPS or something else with a steady, guaranteed value is not included in the program.

I don't really want to put my money in to Social Security. I'd rather invest it and avoid paying the SS witholding tax so that I could get a solid return on my money, as opposed to the insignificant returns under the current program.

Still, I don't see why an investment component, say in TIPS or something else with a steady, guaranteed value is not included in the program.

what system? The current or proposed? In the propsed you could invest as you wish. I understand they are going to propose certain restrictions (similar to 529 plans) to prevent people from self-destructing their acounts. I also suspect they may do something akin to the benefits offered by variable annuity GMIBs. (guranteed minimum income benefits). There was a non-restricted type accout I heard about too, but to get it one would have to sign a ton of very scary waivers and other stuff to discourage all but the most experienced investors.

Ihatevacations']Last I checked, Social Security money is paid back to you. Granted they do raid it, but that does not counter my point. Stop them from being able to pull funds from areas they should not be allowed access to

My friend; the money the government is supposed 'to pay back' to you - Mr. Vacations - has been cut quite considerably in the last few years and is likely to be cut again. Your benefit, your money. Yours. You should be pissed.

It started when they began taxing social security, then again when they postponed the full eligibility age.

You see, the GOVERNMENT, not you, decided what benefit you will receive and they can change it on a whim - which politicians have plenty of. There is no contract for a benefit to you. You cannot sue them when they renig or change your benefits.

Meanwhile, what do you think happens with the current surplus? They don't keep it in cookie-jars. They buy treasuries - the only option the government really has. This creates a very low yield and also then puts the funds into the general ledger of the government with nothing but an IOU to social security. (Meaning future benefits will have to be paid out of general tax collections and not just social security revenues) It is a vicious cycle of debt. If you think only the wealthy will have to foot that bill you are sadly mistaken. Social security is not welfare for old people. It is a social insurance plan. It is grossly outdated and the benefits over-expanded. It was designed when ships and trains still ran on steam engines. It is in desperate need of modernization.

If you have any reasonable level of income your total return on social security is miniscule. Any cuts will reduce it to negative returns - ten it is no longer insurance, no longer a benefit - it is welfare. Plain and simple. Several months ago I created a post with online calculators and other stuff. If you like I'll dig i up and post a link here.

Sadly, the people who it affects the most show the least interest in learning about the crisis, the mechanics or any other things. They have not yet learned that politicians are the wrong people to put your faith in.

Very, very eloquent. Last I heard, social security had 40 years before it ran out of money. And that was assuming that the economy didn't grow at all. Can't find the link to the article though.
Incorrect. Economic growth has no effect. It is population based. Unless we start ending people's retirement artificially and prematurely the essential problem is unlikely to change.

Fourty years may seem like a long time to you, but it is not. At the end of that period if nothing has been done you will be left too old to do anything about it. Your benefit could be cut as much as 25%. The benefit you've been promised and paid for - slashed. Nobody accountable for it. There is no contract, nobody to sue for breach. The only promise is provided by politicians who will retire with their own luxurious plan - (which is apart from social security!) These politicians only answer to the rules which they get to make up and change as they wish! (Which they do often)

DO NOT TRUST THEM!

(snip).

It is however, like all government programs, in need of oversight and reform. I can't even begin to comprehend what you would mean by "end-all-be-all"; we're talking about retirement safety nets, not some crazed utopian ideal here.

(snip) .
Why does the government have to be the sole providor of a retirement safety net? Why cannot it be like auto insurance? You are required to have it by law (if you drive), but you are not forced to use an inefficient government program.

You, my friend, have far too much faith in the government. There is a reason why "...all government programs, need oversight and reform."