Question
What if… Bush had succeeded in privatizing Social Security?
Tags: Bush, John McCain
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
What if… Bush had succeeded in privatizing Social Security?
Tags: Bush, John McCain
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
I’d be happy. Right now I’m being forced to pay into a system knowing I’ll get a negative return on my money.
I’m being forced to pay into a system knowing I’ll get a negative return on my money.
Social Security is not a get rich scheme.
Then the government would really be invested in bailing out and accommodating every bit of bad behavior there was by these investment banks — because then every politician in the US would be on the hook for answering why the markets ate the investments.
Anon – You’re right it’s theft. It’s my money. I should get to keep it and put it away for retirement. Instead the .Gov takes it from me with the promise that I *might* get some of it back in ~50 years.
It has nothing to do with “get rich ” schemes and everything to do with allowing people to save that money for their own retirement.
LOL, to Republicans, everything in life are “get rich” schemes.
And Mike, you would not be happy, you would be homeless when you turned 65.
And Mike, you would not be happy, you would be homeless when you turned 65.
And anyone who – for whatever reason – becomes fully or partly unable to work BEFORE they turn 65.
Don’t forget, Mike. If you die before you retire, the gov’t gets to keep all you put into the system.
the gov’t gets to keep all you put into the system
Bullcrap, it goes to your surviving spouse or dependents.
*blows smoke off barrel of LieGun and re-holsters*
Not only that, but the Gov. keeps pushing up the age at which you can start collecting. At this rate I’ll have to live to 80 to collect.
Now if the .Gov were paying me interest on all the money they’re “keeping” for me I’d feel better about the whole system, but they’re not.
Imagine someone forcing you to pay them money on a regular basis for years witth the understanding that not only will the money you pay them not appreciate, but they’ll be taking from it over the years and you may very likely not even get back the sum of what you’d given them all those years. Would you think of such an arrangement as a wise decision? Of course not. The fact that the gov is the intermediary here doesn’t change things.
the Gov. keeps pushing up the age at which you can start collecting.
Next on FOX: “Increased life span: A Democrat conspiracy?”
Hmmm… I’m seeing political ramifications here. Yet another Bush idea that would have produced dire consequences. Think senior citizens aren’t thinking about this right now?
It should be more than senior citizens — it should be everyone who has plans of retiring.
Now if the .Gov were paying me interest on all the money they’re “keeping” for me
God you are a dope on economics. First of all, Social Security is not an investment plan. It is a covenant. It is a promise made by the young to the old. It is a social contract. It is the way we take care of our parents in America. Yes of course some people can take care of their parents better through private means. But some can not. So Social Security is the way we take care of ALL our elderly. This inclusiveness is what Republicans object to.
Secondly, Social Security DOES pay you interest. Even if only due to the fact benefits keep up with inflation, you get back more than you put in, especially if you live a long time.
Thirdly, Social Security is not an investment scheme. If the government were to “keep” “your” money for you , do you know what they would have to do? They would have to INVEST it in the private sector. And if they do that, there is the possibility you might LOSE your money. And it wouldn’t be Social SECURITY anymore, it would be Social Crapshoot.
Not to mention, that kind of money flowing into private equities would destroy capital markets as we know them. Price information would be lost; market decisions would be made by government fund managers.
No, the money is kept in the Treasury and is not invested, because the US Treasury is the safest investment in the world. Not the highest yield, but the safest.
“First of all, Social Security is not an investment plan.”
Of course it’s not, and that’s the problem. They’re taking money I could be saving for my own retirement and putting it into one huge “common good” trust that the Gov. can’t keep it’s damn hands out of.
Do you really think I’m going to get back more than what I put in? One that assumes I live long enough to collect. Two it assumes the Gov. manages the Social Security fund so that the money will actually be there (which they’ve proven they don’t.) Third it assumes continued solvency of the system.
John McSame wants to privatize your social security..just like Bush. Imagine if our social security benefits had been put into the Ponzi Scheme called Wall Street.
Yup, the repukes want that social security to “play with” on Wall Street, to back up their already failed, graft/corrupt system.
If social security had been privatized it would have disappeared into the 9 trillion debt left by the Bush regime. Our children and grandchildren will not be better off than we are today….they will be under a mountain of debt living in a 3rd world country.
MikeW. I thought you had a disability if so are you not collecting Medicaid? There are millions of people who are disabled should we just ignore them, let them die, whats your plan for them, the elderly and the children?
Agreed, Cassandra. However, on the political scope right now… say in Florida… seniors and soon to be seniors (a lot of which vote on this issue and are members of AARP) might be asking this question.
Anon, brilliantly said.
“MikeW. I thought you had a disability if so are you not collecting Medicaid? ”
No, I am not collecting Medicaid.
Anon, you’re the dope. Social Security is not an investment of any kind, it’s a direct redistribution of wages from working folks to retirees and/or their dependents, who may or may not have paid any portion of their income into the “trust fund” in the first place. If more money comes in than is paid out, the government spends the surplus on whatever they can earmark to themselves.
One that assumes I live long enough to collect.
You don’t have to be live long to collect. All you have to do is become disabled at any age, and then you will become a card-carrying Socialist, collecting SSI and Medicaid.
Unless of course you have been contributing to a private long term care insurance plan?
Two it assumes the Gov. manages the Social Security fund so that the money will actually be there
The engine for the Treasury’s ability to pay is US GDP growth. Lack of faith in Social Security is a profound statement of pessimism in America’s ability to succeed economically.
The biggest threat to GDP growth is the US deficit and debt, brought on by GOP borrow-and-spend policies.
In other words, if the US cannot pay Social Security, it will be because we are already screwed.
And it is important to note that Social Security is currently healthier than Lehman Bros.
it’s a direct redistribution of wages from working folks to retirees and/or their dependents, who may or may not have paid any portion of their income into the “trust fund” in the first place.
I think you are starting to get it now. Congratulations.
Mike
..,,,,,,,,,, allowing people to save that money for their own retirement…..and those who are too poor to “save” and a barely making it, will line I-95 with tin cups begging to stay alive……I can see it now………Jesus, I hope we are better then that.
And it is important to note that Social Security is currently healthier than Lehman Bros.
True, true.
Unbelievable! Just on Fox News a reporter asked John McCain what the letters GOP means. He hesitated and stated , “From what I’ve hear they mean Get Old People.”
John McCain is so old his Social Security number is in Roman Numerals
Shut up and enjoy your Ken-L-Ration, grampa!
But seriously, what I’d like to hear right now from a presidential candidate is a proposal for regulatory tightening (margin requirements, debt/equity requirements, etc.) in return for a partial privatization. Not one or the other, but both at the same time. I’d take regulations first, but I wouldn’t trust Reid and Pelosi to hold up their end.
G Rex
“But seriously, what I’d like to hear right now from a presidential candidate is a proposal for regulatory tightening (margin requirements, debt/equity requirements, etc.) in return for a partial privatization.”
Now do you really think one of the candidates actually visit this blog even if it is the best in Delaware?
G Rex
But I agree with you! Also, maybe we need to put an end to these ARM mortgage loans and stick with fixed rates!
I’m sure Biden has people monitoring, at least to make sure nobody says nasty things about Beau.
“No, the money is kept in the Treasury and is not invested, because the US Treasury is the safest investment in the world. Not the highest yield, but the safest.”
That is laughable. There is no “lockbox” as we learned a few years ago. It’s filled with IOU’s.
I have got news for you – that is what is known as the “faith and credit of the US Treasury.” It is what funds all future obligations of the US. It is based on the expectations of the productive output of the nation.
Do you really understand how modern debt-backed currency works?
Do you really think the US Treasury is supposed to keep mattresses stuffed with money?
Privatize S.S. ? OMG!!!
SHARON
Once again you are wrong my brother died when he was 42 years old left a wife and six kids Social security kicked in and paid the widow and her children. look if you trolls are going to post here at least have your facts right. however i know that is to much to ask because like mcshame and sarah you will repeat the lie.
Don’t even start w/ this privatizing Social Security arrangement. Look out the mortgage debacle now Mike W.!!!! You can’t trust people to finance their own homes, and they’re being bailed out…do you really think I want to underwrite those who didn’t have the discipline to save or plan for retirement? No thanks….Remember SS was only meant to “bridge” your expenses in the retirement years, not cover ’em!!! Take a look at what you REALLY contibute to SS, and the cap too that is placed….I don’t truly think I’m going to complain if my check comes through monthly of what I’ve put into it….as either a 16 yo cashier or middle-age worker. And as far as being age 80 to begin collecting (which I doubt), I’m glad the government has moved the bar….the original recipients averaged about 13 months in collections before demise. Now we certainly have improved our quality of life and expectancy since the program enacted in the 1930’s….isn’t the trade off for that the responsibility to provide for yourself in those extra years added? What the government needs to move forward with is the retirement laws etc…that create this mindset that 62-65 is the magic number to sit back and enjoy the spoils…and the AARP welcomes you at age 50 to begin the process….We end up paying out LOTS of money to people who enjoy a heck of a quality of life for an additional 20-30years…but will complain about the subsidy check? My parents’ generation are all enjoying a wonderful “second life”, sans kids, jobs, and responsibilities thanks to their wise investments, pension plans, better health care than their parents, and SS. I don’t begrudge any of that…but the financial outlay from the system needs to mirror the realization and adjustment of the system to the life expectancy of today. Without that correction…Mike W. it is a WONDERFUL “investment”!!!!
If we removed the cap and taxed all income we could reduce the rate we and the employer pays and the result would be more benefits for all.the way the system is now my son gets a 7.5% pay increase by the first of February and his employer does also.
Unlike SS itself, the proposal to privatize social security WAS a “get rich” scheme. For investment bankers, brokers etc. Part of the financial mess that we are currently in comes from the “commoditzation” of instruments and obligations that are not backed by anything other than other instruments and obligations. It is the house of cards that our entire financial sector is built upon. The creation of these new and wonderous instruments have been partially in an effort to direct the massive funding sources that came from the creation of pension savings accounts. The massive influx of funds from institutional investors trying to place 401K etc money drove (in part) the creation of these instruments as there were not enough traditional investment opportunities to absorb the glut. As a nice side effect of the creation of these things, it made investment bankers and their companies really, obscenely rich. So there was incentive to find even more of these opportunities. Privatization of Ss would have provided the next glut of funds, which in turn would have led to the creation of riskier and riskier investment instruments, based less and less on real capital. Granted this is a very simplistic explanation of the issue, but it does go to the core.
Someone above had it right, SS is not a way to “get rich”, nor should it be for anyone. It is rightly called a social compact; and to be fair, our version of this compact is based on a socialist design. But it has worked, and will continue to work so long as we view ourselves as caretakers and not investors.
Mike W. has a point, it isn’t fair that he has to contibute if he doesn’t want to, but this is not an individual decision, it is a social decision and one made long ago and for all the right reasons. I would suggest that if Mike wanted to have an opt out provision it should be with the firm committment from him and his family that they will not ever seek support in the case of the failure of his own personal safety net. After that fails him “are there no prisons or workhouses?”
After all, isn’t that what our failing financial institutions need right now instead of government bail outs?
“After all, isn’t that what our failing financial institutions need right now instead of government bail outs?”
I tend to agree with you except that letting all these banks fail pretty much collapse the U.S. economy. As bad as gov. bailouts are they’re the lesser of the two evils.
So you are saying that the Government should stay out of the way to allow business do what it wants, no matter how reckless, when “times are good” but should always be there to catch the falling behemouths “because they are too important to fail”? That’s a really interesting way to encourage sound judgment and good behavior on the part of our corporate citizens.
Without batting an Eye the fed comes up with 85 billion of AID for AIG Bush agrees and McSame agrees after disagreeing so i really don’t know where McSame stands on this issue and neither does he. However, repuks agree but would disagree if this were for Health Care or to aid the middle class
I oppose these bailouts on principle, however pragmatism tells me it has to be done. It’s a lot like this election. You have two shitty options, so you choose the least disastrous one.
We’re in a shitty situation, now what’s the best way to get out of it? I don’t like these bailouts one bit, but its’ better than what we’d see if we let all these banks fail. Doing so would impact far more than just the stock market and housing market.