Bush Moves to Privatize Social Security
 

Bush Moves to Privatize Social Security

This is good news. We all know that social security is fucked up. Mostly because of 2 reasons.

1. Social security funds are raided to fund other government projects. A private fund cannot be raided for pork projects.

2. Comparing what an individual puts into social security and what they get out, when adjusted for inflation, retirees would get a better rate of return if they put that same money into a basic checking account.

I see no reason not to do this, except for those who trust the government more then they trust the private sector. So far the government has completley fucked up the retirement plan they've promised. The private sector collectively can't possibly do worse then the govenrment has. If nothing else, this would put individuals in charge of their money, rather then trusting the government to do so.

thats not good. Strict measures will be put in place I assume?

Social security has always been a ponzi scheme and will be a complete failure no matter how you work it.
Privatizing it though is not a solid choice either. If we must have it, letting the citizens run it is bad medicine for an old wound.
What happens when those people who made bad choices need help? Well of course the government will step in.

Real simple solution, instead of social security as it is. Give us the same program Congress, the Senate, ect. get. Trust me that is a solid program.

Sounds sweet, other than the 2 trillion dollar deficit it causes :)

I so wish that Bush wouldn't try to mess with things he doesn't understand it's going to be decades before we are out of the financial mess he is putting us into...

Kind of right idea. Stupid plan though.

So if grandma makwes bad choice I should have to make sure she doesn't eat dog food? Money invested in a CD at a bank will get you better returns than SS will.

Quote:

Real simple solution, instead of social security as it is. Give us the same program Congress, the Senate, ect. get. Trust me that is a solid program.

You mean like Kerry's health care plan. That went over well.

They did that in Sweden couple of years ago. A certain percentage is still in the government pension fund and the rest is private, for you to decide where you want to put it.

When this happened was pre-IT bubble burst, so of course shit load of people put their money in high-risk IT funds, and we all know what happened with those :)

But it's a great way for the gov to put the responsibility in your own hands. If you end up losing money, it's not their responsibility. You're on your own.

I don't like the whole thing.

Socially Security is ripping off more Americans then any spammer or con artist ever did.

The only defense I hear against privatising social security is that people just aren't smart enough to manage their own money and it will all be gone before they retire -- guess what, its already gone. The US government cooks the accounting books so bad that it makes Enron look like the Vatican.

I did not support Kerry's health care plan. I do however believe that if we keep Social Security we should have the same plan as what the government themselves use.

Were all fucked
I was anyway but now all people relying on it will.

When SS first started in 1935 the average life expectancy was 62 and you had to be 65 to recieve benefits. Doesn't take genius to figure out this was a scam from the start.

Singles stock investment is not investment at all, it's gambling. Mutual funds are thousands of times less risky.

There's not enough money in the world for eveyrone to have that kind of retirement plan. That's basically social security, the plantinum plan. We can't afford to run social security while offering the basic plan. How are we supposed to upgrade it?

Sorry. With "funds" I meant mutual funds.

The 100% IT mutual funds around the time when the bubble burst didn't do too well..... but they performed well for couple of years at least ;)

the current social security system is set up to fail. When it started most people lived to be early to mid 60's. Now the norm is mid 70's and many are living longer.

In the next 2-5 years the baby boomers will be retiring and will draw heavily on the system and it could be a situation where there is actually more going out than coming in.

the constant raiding of the SS surplus over the years had crippled it. Bush himself promised to not touch it, but did and even budgets for tapping into it.

I'm for privatizing it if it means that people will still have the money automatically taken out of thier checks and there is a sound plan put in place. If the people are left to take the money themselves and invest it, it will never happen. For every person that takes that extra 7-8 % (15.3% if you are self employed ) and invests it as they should, there will be 10 people that will just spend the money and not worry about it which could land us with many, many people reaching thier retirement age and having nothing to live off of and we quickly become a welfare state.

It could work, something needs to be done, I just hope they really make sure they know what they are doing.

Then give all the politicians the current plan, betcha they will find a way to fix it lightning fast.

Industry funds do that, they rise and fall with the industry. That still happens when you buy index funds, they rise and fall with the economy as it goes through its cycles of recession, recovery and growth. That's pretty much unavoidable if you want a reasonable rate or return. The Dow Jones Industrial average has an average growth rate of 11.8% per year over its entire existence. That beats the pants off of any CD, bond or other investment with a steady rate of return.

I think that it is more of a way for Bush and his friends to make some extra cash before leaving office.


Where there is a will, there is a way.

I would LOVE to do that to those bastards who hold themselves higher and better then everyone else. However, they would have to legislate it, which means they would be shooting themselves in the foot. I don't see it happening short of a revolution. The same goes for term limits. :(

Bush has made a proposal, therefore whatever it is, it's crooked. You would probably say that if he came up with a plan you had been advocating for years. Contrariness is one of the traits of sheep.

The problem with privatizing social security is that the money that's collected in payroll taxes today, goes out to pay for today's retirees.
There isn't an account anywhere with your name on it....the money comes in and it goes right back out.

If you take money out of that system and put it into private accounts, you may indeed get a good rate of return on that money....but the government will be 2 trillion short over the next 10 years in payments that need to be made to people who are retired now.

So where do we get that money? More borrowing and deficits? Or higher payroll taxes? (Which hit the poor and middle class much harder than the upper class)
I just don't see this happening.

I would like it if the crap was cut out of the budget. The military has way too big of a piece of the budget. Don't even think about cutting the VA, I'm talking active duty programs. We don't need a 500,000 man military, programs to research bunker busting nukes and other such things.

At least some of the younger people may have a chance at having something!

The US Government is and has been technically bankrupt if you really do the math.

But don't tell anyone. They've mastered the Ponzi scheme to perfection.



:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Why isolate social security?? Duh?

You not know the US has never had one trade surplus in 25 years, has a massive trade debt, is pledged up to the hilt in almost every aspect of financial life - from corps to personal.

I can't actually think of even one area of manufactuing that has a trade surplus in the US with the exception of arms shipments to other countries. It is just lala land.

There was a, now hidden, report from the US Treasury - the most extensive ever done which had some truths and advocated an immediate and sustained tax level of 50%. It also highlighted the fact that the real debt mean't, at that time (spring 2002), that 94% of all homes and the contents in them were owed to other nations. Clearly this has since taken a turn for the worse and probably a negative equity.

And ya expect Bush to handle the economy??

He could not count the number of zeros in the 30 something trillion owing to US people in the social security fund.

:1orglaugh

Yeah, letting the big banks handle the SS might be a good move but what about all the people that have been paying SS for many years? Will they just transfer it over or does it mean......... :helpme

The big problem with privatization is that you are paying for you fathers social security check. Once the cash stops flowing in who will pickup that bill?