Social Security Reform is BACK Baby!

[quote name='KrAzY3']Well, there are still societies that consider children and human beings to have financial value. They can and are sold and traded. It is also rather common in some countries for internal organs to be bought and sold. Not to say I justify this, but I certainly do not justify taxing a right person at a greater percentage just because they can spare it. Which was the heart of my comparison.[/quote]

Well that is very few societies and is not a position taken officially by any country, it is more of a position taken by individuals due to greed than societal norms, though they may play a part. There was a time when some of that was true, but the period of that being culturally acceptable is, maybe with a few exceptions I can't think of, for the most part over. Organs being bought and sold is different that forcing innocent people to do that as well. But, in the end, we are dealing with what western society, particularly american society, finds acceptable. We have few boundaries if we bring in all societies.

It is not universally accepted that taking more just because someone has more is ok. As my car comparison was alluding to. Or, if you want more examples that don't involve children and organs, how about a homeless guy and someone with a huge house. If they don't even use a few rooms, I suppose we should demand they house the homeless guy, right? I mean, they don't even use the rooms much less need them and the guy really needs the house!
Click to expand...

That didn't take long. We don't find it acceptable to force any person to give room to any stranger. And while I have an strong opinions on what should be done for homeless people, it's not relevant here. The concern with taxes is how much is acceptable. If you take 5k from someone who makes 20k and or take 0 from them and 55k from someone who makes 200k you are taking a higher percentage from the richer person, but the effect of taking 25% is much greater for the poorer person. Statistically paying 25% is the same, but in reality, the effect that 25% has on peoples lives, it isn't.

And before you say something about oh that's not taxes, taxes are acceptable propery is different... not really, the IRS can and does repo property hence the comparison is valid.
Click to expand...

The government can also put you in a psychiatric institution and kill you. The situations that result in this are different than what is being discussed.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The government can also put you in a psychiatric institution and kill you. The situations that result in this are different than what is being discussed.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the heads up.

Your IP address has been logged, the FBI notified and the men are on their way to your residence.

I thought I'd never be rid of you.

Now for the rest of you mentally deranged fools..... MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
[quote name='usickenme']"reality"?? to that I say. Maybe. Remember the dire predictions of the 10-15 year problem is based a ridiculously low rate of growth.[/QUOTE]

The reality also is that the problem is so gigantic that there is no way we will magically grow out of it unless we have 15% growth per year (nigh impossible) or start allowing a lot more immigrants in to work and pay Social Security, thus lessening the demographic part of the problem.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']A few does not equal 45 million americans.[/quote]

You're quoting Democratic talking points as truth as well as PAD does Republican ones. Only 20 million lack health care through the year, and 45 million "at some time during the year." Not that it isn't a problem, but much like most rhetoric in Washington, it obscures the truth.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The concern with taxes is how much is acceptable. If you take 5k from someone who makes 20k and or take 0 from them and 55k from someone who makes 200k you are taking a higher percentage from the richer person, but the effect of taking 25% is much greater for the poorer person. Statistically paying 25% is the same, but in reality, the effect that 25% has on peoples lives, it isn't. .[/QUOTE]

My contention, as I said before is that if it is too much for a poor person to pay, it is too much period. I think so many things could be done to make government at all levels more responsible with their spending. I believe many things can be done to A: Fix loopholes that allow some very wealthy people to avoid taxes, and B: To insure that people are taxed at a even percentage. C: Reduce waste

You can keep doing the "it is ok to take more from people that have more" but at the end of the day you are dismissing the idea of personal property entirely. Yes, we accept taxes. True, but we have to be responsible in how we do it and fair in all respects. Yes, we should be fair to the poor. We should insure that the burden on them is not too great. On the other hand, we should not force a rich person into paying a much higher percentage just because they can "spare" it. That line of logic knows no bounds. As I said, the IRS can already take property from people if they do not pay their taxes. If we say eh, ok they have more sure take more. When do you stop? When does it end? Each time the government needs more money, I hear people saying sure just take more from the rich. Sure, go ahead. Cut taxes for the poor and raise them on the rich. What happens next time we need more money? Or the time after? You end up with the redistribution of wealth, you have the potential for reclaiming any property and reclaiming what society at that time might consider property. It really is a road I think we should avoid. And the end of the road is one in which, one man gets a 5 dollar speeding ticket and another gets a 100,000 dollar speeding ticket. A world in which, one person pays 60 or 70% taxes and another pays no taxes (making the latter person a complete burden of society and essentially a ward of the state).

What gives us the right to take more merely because people have more? May be we should redistribute test scores while we are at it. Hey, they earned those As but they don't need them all, give them to the lazy guy in the back of the class who is flunking. While we are at it, lets redistribute clothes. I mean hey, my wardrobe sucks. I know a few guys, that while they don't pay taxes and don't earn shit sure do have some nice duds. I should be able to help myself, because after all they really don't need a pair of nikes for each day of the week. I mean, relative to what we each have they can spare their more clothes than I can. Hell, let's start redistributing video games on the board. Some people have hundreds of games while others have only a few. That isn't fair, I mean who needs hundreds of games? They don't do they? So, they should give them to the people with less. I mean, I could go on all day talking about property. I could point out that one person might pay 5 bucks for a game and another pay 50 bucks for the same game. That's not fair, the one that paid 5 should give the one that paid 50, 20 bucks to even it out. I mean, they got such a good deal I'm sure they could spare it.

The fact is that in most cases, what we have is due to our priorities, talent and motivation. My brother makes 75,000 a year. Not that much, but more than a lot of people. The guy also risks his life on almost a daily basis, he comes home covered in filth as well as bruises and cuts and scrapes. He isn't highly educated, but he busts his butt and he makes a fair amount of money. Who has a right to say that he should give up what he worked so hard for at a higher percentage than someone who makes less? I was in Burger King yesterday, I saw a crew of people that were inept, lazy and apathetic. Yes, they make much less than my brother, but my brother works much harder and quite literally gives more of himself. What right is it of anyone to say that he is less deserving of what he has earned than they are? America loves sports, so our sports starts make millions. We give our money freely, we go to events and watch the games and we reward them for their greatness. Why then should we come in and say that simply because they make more we are entitled to a greater percentage of it (once again, they will always pay more in taxes, I'm just saying a greater percentage makes no sense)? Once again, I could go on all day but the bottom line is you should be able to keep as much as is possible of what you have earned. For one part of society to say ok, you earned this here you go... and another to go, well you don't need it so we're taking it back is pretty ridiculous.

Make a flat tax, hell I'll even concede not implementing it until after a certain amount of earnings for the sake of compromise. But, make the tax, make it a fair and reasonable flat tax and get rid of the loopholes, stop trying to rely on one tiny portion of the population to pay for all the government's spending. Be reasonable, be responsible, be fair. That's all I ask.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']My contention, as I said before is that if it is too much for a poor person to pay, it is too much period. I think so many things could be done to make government at all levels more responsible with their spending. I believe many things can be done to A: Fix loopholes that allow some very wealthy people to avoid taxes, and B: To insure that people are taxed at a even percentage. C: Reduce waste............

Slippery slope logic does not equal a good argument.

....................

Make a flat tax, hell I'll even concede not implementing it until after a certain amount of earnings for the sake of compromise. But, make the tax, make it a fair and reasonable flat tax and get rid of the loopholes, stop trying to rely on one tiny portion of the population to pay for all the government's spending. Be reasonable, be responsible, be fair. That's all I ask.
[/quote]

In many cases any tax a person (particular those such as single mothers or fathers) making 20k pays is too much. Much of the rest of your post is an exercise in slippery slop logic. It's not an argument based in reality. "If we have abortions then that means we devalue unborn life. Unborn people are alive and since we don't value them we soon won't value newborns. Then we won't value infants, and then the elderly. Pretty soon we'll allow everyone to be killed because we don't value life anymore and, therefore, allowing abortion is the gateway to mass genocide". I think most people would find that absurd. But that's the type of argument you use, as well as many other people (such as those opposing euthanasia and same sex marriage). Your argument (what I didn't quote) isn't much better.

Taking 20% from everyone is the same percentage wise, but in actual effect on people lives it is a much, much greater amount to the poor person. The rich person is getting off light since the money being taken is of much less value to them in most cases.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Taking 20% from everyone is the same percentage wise, but in actual effect on people lives it is a much, much greater amount to the poor person. The rich person is getting off light since the money being taken is of much less value to them in most cases.[/QUOTE]

Simply put, I agree. $1,000 to a guy making $20,000 means a hell of a lot more than $1,000 to a guy making $200,000. As long as we don't go overboard in an attempt to redistribute wealth, I don't why the guy making $200,000 shouldn't have to pay more. After all, we do have to provide for the common welfare to some degree.

An even bigger problem are all the tax loopholes and some of the richest not paying any tax or little tax due to the loopholes, however, and that should be part of any tax discussion. The IRS estimates that $350 billion goes uncollected each year. What I can tell you is that ain't coming from the poor. Perhaps if all these loopholes were closed and Congress wasn't so happy to spend our money on bridges to nowhere we'd not have the fiscal difficulties we have.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yes, Congress has chickened out on any real reform because, as I said, the Democrats and the AARP have succeeded in their campaign to scare people enough to oppose any meaningful changes, while Bush's series of pro-reform speeches were a dismal failure.

The system is not broken in the present day, obviously, because we have a surplus within the Social Security program; in other words, we take in more in Social Security taxes than is paid out. As you should know, and probably do, the problem is in future years when the Baby Boomers start retiring and we start paying out more than is taken in. There are multiple problems related to this development in the program, which will happen in only about 10-15 years:

1. There is no extra money saved to pay out since Congress has spent that money by taking it every year for a very long time to cover other costs and never replenishing it. Both parties can obviously share the blame here.

2. To pay promised benefits, taxes would have to drastically be raised or spending drastically cut in other areas. Alternatively, the government could break their promises to retirees and cut benefits. A large cut would be necessary as we move more and more into a deficit in the program.

3. Assuming some upward pressure on payroll taxes, that would seriously damage the economy and create a real problem with then less jobs and prosperity leading back to less SS taxes leading back to pressure to increase the payroll taxes more.

And those are just the reality of Social Security problems that are coming up. Ideally, I'd say the program should be phased out and younger workers be allowed to take their money and invest somewhere with greater return, which would benefit everyone. Unfortunately this would require the government to be responsible and also to cover transition costs, which seems incredibly unlikely at the present time given the environment I've already discussed above.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you that, following current trends, the system will be in trouble in one to two decades.

I disagree that privatization or benefit cuts are the only answer. I think Americans like having a safety net for those less fortunate than ourselves -- let's face it, who can be certain that they will never count themselves as part of those numbers? And I think Americans would be willing to consider higher taxes to ensure the future health of that safety net.

Privatization is NOT a safety net. It is a gamble. In the market there are winners and there are losers. And you are saying, if you lose, too bad. The American public has rejected that position. They believe there is a certain standard of living that everyone in a country as prosperous as ours should be entitled to.

The privatization debate has taken place and the public has soundly rejected it. I expect the same will happen with the proposed program cuts. So the only other option is a tax increase. Let's have that debate and see what people say.

Gore had his much-derided "lockbox," but you know what? It would have provided money towards saving the system, and would not have required a tax hike. Instead, Bush squandered the money on a tax cut and a foolish war, and we are left having this debate.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
You're quoting Democratic talking points as truth as well as PAD does Republican ones. Only 20 million lack health care through the year, and 45 million "at some time during the year." Not that it isn't a problem, but much like most rhetoric in Washington, it obscures the truth.[/QUOTE]

According to the census it was 45. 20 million is the number of unemployed uninsured americans, which also includes people such as housewives.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Thanks for the heads up.

Your IP address has been logged, the FBI notified and the men are on their way to your residence.

I thought I'd never be rid of you.

Now for the rest of you mentally deranged fools..... MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA![/QUOTE]

"They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa.
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time "
 
[quote name='dennis_t']I agree with you that, following current trends, the system will be in trouble in one to two decades.

The privatization debate has taken place and the public has soundly rejected it. I expect the same will happen with the proposed program cuts. So the only other option is a tax increase. Let's have that debate and see what people say.[/quote]

Gore had his much-derided "lockbox," but you know what? It would have provided money towards saving the system, and would not have required a tax hike. Instead, Bush squandered the money on a tax cut and a foolish war, and we are left having this debate.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Gore's "lock box" would have precipitated major tax increases or major budget cuts to pay for freezing up Social Security receipts. You do realize what our champions do with all the "extra" money collected in the name of SS, right ?

Social Security should be eliminated over a ten year program. Current recipients could be bought out with lump sum payments and the program should be shut down allowing people to begin saving that few thousand dollars a year for a real nest egg instead of giving it to the government to bloat their pork programs. Yes, it would be a tremendous burden to our deficit for the next ten years to buy out current recipients, but the freed up cash could allow for continuous growth over that 10 years so that the economy and tax reciepts could catch up with spending. The federal government also has tremendous resources and assets that could be sold to private interests for profit to offset the immediate cost of the buyouts. It would be a win-win situation.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Privatization is NOT a safety net. It is a gamble. In the market there are winners and there are losers. And you are saying, if you lose, too bad. The American public has rejected that position. They believe there is a certain standard of living that everyone in a country as prosperous as ours should be entitled to.[/quote]

Obviously you are completely ignorant of the entire history of the stock market. Unless you're arguing there will be a historic shift after 80+ years in financial market trends?

[quote name='dennis_t']The privatization debate has taken place and the public has soundly rejected it. I expect the same will happen with the proposed program cuts. So the only other option is a tax increase. Let's have that debate and see what people say.[/quote]

As I said before, the public has been duped by the fear-mongering of Democrats and the AARP, and even the rejection of the fact that there is a problem down the road.

[quote name='dennis_t']Gore had his much-derided "lockbox," but you know what? It would have provided money towards saving the system, and would not have required a tax hike. Instead, Bush squandered the money on a tax cut and a foolish war, and we are left having this debate.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to convince me that Bush and Congress have combined during his administration to spend out the wazoo, although I might argue specifics (some parts of the tax cut, for instance).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously you are completely ignorant of the entire history of the stock market. Unless you're arguing there will be a historic shift after 80+ years in financial market trends?[/QUOTE]

With Bush in office all bets are off but anyhoo while we all know there are peaks and valleys in the economy the point is that the downward trend might last a decade or so.

You know possibly someones whole entire retirement period, the elderly cant really weather the storm and waiting for the next boom.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Actually, Gore's "lock box" would have precipitated major tax increases or major budget cuts to pay for freezing up Social Security receipts. You do realize what our champions do with all the "extra" money collected in the name of SS, right ?[/QUOTE]

This is the very same money that Bush squandered on tax cuts. Have we had tax increases with that money gone? Have we had major budget cuts with that money gone?

It's the very same money, bmulligan.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously you are completely ignorant of the entire history of the stock market. Unless you're arguing there will be a historic shift after 80+ years in financial market trends?[/QUOTE]

So you are saying that no one has ever lost their shirt in a bad investment?

Because that is the risk -- that some people will invest poorly and be left with nothing. On the other hand, Social Security guarantees everyone some small amount of money to live on in their dotage.

There is no such guarantee in a market-based scheme, and you know it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']With Bush in office all bets are off but anyhoo while we all know there are peaks and valleys in the economy the point is that the downward trend might last a decade or so.

You know possibly someones whole entire retirement period, the elderly cant really weather the storm and waiting for the next boom.[/QUOTE]

So your argument really is that long-term historic trends will change, and that people's long-term investments wiill be affected by short-term recession or depression events. Evidently you really are ignorant about the financial markets. Obviously you've never invested a penny in your life.

[quote name='dennis_t']So you are saying that no one has ever lost their shirt in a bad investment?

Because that is the risk -- that some people will invest poorly and be left with nothing. On the other hand, Social Security guarantees everyone some small amount of money to live on in their dotage.

There is no such guarantee in a market-based scheme, and you know it.[/QUOTE]

You foolishly and without warrant assume that people will be allowed to invest in junk bonds or dot-com enterprises or something. It could easily be set up to allow only mutual funds or the like. Like Msut you show you know little to nothing about the stock market, not to mention the actual privatization plans out there.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']This is the very same money that Bush squandered on tax cuts. Have we had tax increases with that money gone? Have we had major budget cuts with that money gone?

It's the very same money, bmulligan.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and that very same money would be going to very different places. Tax cuts being 'squandered' stay in your pocket as a consumer. You get to keep the money and save it, invest it, or spend it. This creates equity, market value, or more tax revenue for the government, respectively. 'Squandering' the SS receipt surplus into a lock box effectively removes it from the economy, shrinking it by however much the government confiscates. It doesn't get spent on programs (i.e., government jobs which trickle back as more tax revenue from payroll and related consumer spending from their salaries) and the fed has to borrow money from somewhere else to cover receipts. Where do you think they'll get it ? Just print more Franklins ?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You foolishly and without warrant assume that people will be allowed to invest in junk bonds or dot-com enterprises or something. It could easily be set up to allow only mutual funds or the like. Like Msut you show you know little to nothing about the stock market, not to mention the actual privatization plans out there.[/QUOTE]

I know enough to know studies have shown Social Security outperforms mutual and index funds. In fact, if you click the Washington Post link below, you'll find that three-quarters of people would receive less under the privatization plan Bush flogged than they would under traditional Social Security.

Money quote: The results "showed a disappointing outlook for investors in the personal accounts relative to the rhetoric of their promoters," concluded Shiller, a leading researcher in stock market volatility who gained fame in the late 1990s for his warnings of a stock market bubble.

And of course, none of this takes into account all those fees charged by the investment firms handling these accounts -- a damn sight more than the overhead of Social Security, which has a reputation as one of the nation's most efficient agencies.

So give up all the talk about how people will do better under a privatized Social Security system. It just isn't true.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

http://www.brookings.edu/es/dynamics/papers/sspriv/sspriv.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48341-2005Mar18.html

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503

http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cd/d11b/d1194.pdf
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, and that very same money would be going to very different places. Tax cuts being 'squandered' stay in your pocket as a consumer. You get to keep the money and save it, invest it, or spend it. This creates equity, market value, or more tax revenue for the government, respectively. 'Squandering' the SS receipt surplus into a lock box effectively removes it from the economy, shrinking it by however much the government confiscates. It doesn't get spent on programs (i.e., government jobs which trickle back as more tax revenue from payroll and related consumer spending from their salaries) and the fed has to borrow money from somewhere else to cover receipts. Where do you think they'll get it ? Just print more Franklins ?[/QUOTE]

Uhhh....doesn't that lockbox money eventually get into the hands of Social Security recipients? If so, don't they end up spending it, thus contributing to the economy?

And regarding the fed borrowing money to cover receipts for programs -- again, isn't that what we've got under the Bush tax cuts? Where's the difference, except that we also are out an opportunity to fix Social Security with that extra cash?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So your argument really is that long-term historic trends will change, and that people's long-term investments wiill be affected by short-term recession or depression events. Evidently you really are ignorant about the financial markets. Obviously you've never invested a penny in your life.You foolishly and without warrant assume that people will be allowed to invest in junk bonds or dot-com enterprises or something.[/QUOTE]


No, although like I said with W leading all bets are off.

What I said is that the short term (5-15?) years may be all of someone retirement and they cannot weather the storms.

You know this because I wrote it in plain English and you are just being dishonest now.

As for the junk bond thing, Enron seemed a real safe investment about 5 minutes before the scandal.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']I know enough to know studies have shown Social Security outperforms mutual and index funds. In fact, if you click the Washington Post link below, you'll find that three-quarters of people would receive less under the privatization plan Bush flogged than they would under traditional Social Security.

Money quote: The results "showed a disappointing outlook for investors in the personal accounts relative to the rhetoric of their promoters," concluded Shiller, a leading researcher in stock market volatility who gained fame in the late 1990s for his warnings of a stock market bubble.

And of course, none of this takes into account all those fees charged by the investment firms handling these accounts -- a damn sight more than the overhead of Social Security, which has a reputation as one of the nation's most efficient agencies.

So give up all the talk about how people will do better under a privatized Social Security system. It just isn't true.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

http://www.brookings.edu/es/dynamics/papers/sspriv/sspriv.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48341-2005Mar18.html

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503

http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cd/d11b/d1194.pdf[/QUOTE]

Those articles don't prove anything. Did you even read them? They point out that critics of privatization say it will be worse while proponents say it will be better. Whoop-de-damn-do. The point is that the critics assume trends will change, while proponents depend on long-term trends. Which do you prefer? I prefer the one with the track record of being better.

And these are totally voluntary in most plans, allowing people who WANT TO to invest part of their Social Security tax into personal investments. Why do you oppose me being able to take my money out of the soon-to-be-bankrupt Social Security program and taking my chances (they are very, very good) elsewhere?
 
[quote name='Msut77']No, although like I said with W leading all bets are off.

What I said is that the short term (5-15?) years may be all of someone retirement and they cannot weather the storms.

You know this because I wrote it in plain English and you are just being dishonest now.[/quote]

Nope, you evidently still don't understand. Privatization would be phased in, and most plans allow you to stick with Social Security if you want to. If you work for 50 years, believe me, a recession/depression is not going to last that long. At worst you'll hit a downturn when you start withdrawing or during your withdrawal years and end up with less of a difference than ideally could be, but still more than Social Security would yield.

[quote name='Msut77']As for the junk bond thing, Enron seemed a real safe investment about 5 minutes before the scandal.[/QUOTE]

And if you knew anything about investing and mutual funds, you'd know you don't rely on just one company. I'm sure you've heard of diversifying...or maybe not since you still don't seem to understand the market and its history.
 
ITS TEH HERD TO UNDERSZATN!!!

My concerns are mostly with startup costs and the artificial influx of capital that would be the result of the program.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Those articles don't prove anything. Did you even read them? They point out that critics of privatization say it will be worse while proponents say it will be better. Whoop-de-damn-do. The point is that the critics assume trends will change, while proponents depend on long-term trends. Which do you prefer? I prefer the one with the track record of being better.

And these are totally voluntary in most plans, allowing people who WANT TO to invest part of their Social Security tax into personal investments. Why do you oppose me being able to take my money out of the soon-to-be-bankrupt Social Security program and taking my chances (they are very, very good) elsewhere?[/QUOTE]

If you prefer the better track record, then you will choose Social Security, in which everyone gets a guaranteed return with no risk. (And your reference to very, very good chances undermines your whole case -- even with very, very good chances, some will lose, as opposed to SS where everyone is guaranteed a safety net.)

And the voluntary nature of the privatization plan is a red herring designed to hasten the system's demise, so don't even bother with that ruse. People pulling their money out will bankrupt the system, not save it.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Uhhh....doesn't that lockbox money eventually get into the hands of Social Security recipients? If so, don't they end up spending it, thus contributing to the economy?[/quote]

What part of "lock box" doesn't make sense? It's locked in a box and no one spends it until it's needed for distribution which could be 20 years from now. Until then, it's disappeared. Of course, when it is distributed via social security, it'll go mostly to the pharmecutical companies instead of into circulation. And, if it's not invested to grow in the 20 years time, it will be worth 1/4 of it's deposited value by the time it's returned.

And regarding the fed borrowing money to cover receipts for programs -- again, isn't that what we've got under the Bush tax cuts? Where's the difference, except that we also are out an opportunity to fix Social Security with that extra cash?
Click to expand...

The difference is that the defecit becomes an even larger becuase more money must be 'borrowed' from other sources to pay for the current budget.

I do agree with you on the privatization plan. People pulling their money out of the fund will bankrupt the system faster. Bush, though, planned for only a portion of your SS contribution to be invested into private accounts. God only knows what would happen to stock prices with such an influx of money. And who decides which mutual funds to invest in ? Could the fed give money to a private company for this? isn't that a breeding ground for corruption and creative accounting in another overblown an unaccountable bureaucracy? I just don't see this as feasable.

I say buy out the current SS recipients and let us keep our money to risk it as we see fit. I don't need the government telling me how to invest my money, or doing it for me. Bush telling me about private accounts is an insult to my freedom as an american.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is amazing how intellectually bankrupt and bereft of thought princes posts are.[/QUOTE]

This coming from the amazingly informed "gentleman" who is convinced that the market will tank due to George W. Bush and who thinks the average investor has all their money in Enron or a single company's stock...and those were just arguments on this page.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']And the voluntary nature of the privatization plan is a red herring designed to hasten the system's demise, so don't even bother with that ruse. People pulling their money out will bankrupt the system, not save it.[/QUOTE]

So some people not contributing money and not getting a return will bankrupt the system which is already going bankrupt? Strange and illogical argument.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So some people not contributing money and not getting a return will bankrupt the system which is already going bankrupt? Strange and illogical argument.[/QUOTE]

Not at all, since it is a pay-in and pay-out, self-perpetuating system. You as a youngster pay in and your money goes to support the old folks who currently are getting SS, and then when you receive SS you will be supported by the youngsters who one day will be supported by their youngsters.

When the youngsters pull their money out of the system, where will be the dough to support the old-timers who don't want to opt out of SS?

This is about as logical as it gets.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Prince did you say something?

No, didnt think so.[/QUOTE]

Sweet, made your ignore list! Awesome. Now don't go ruining it like Evan by feeling the need to point out whenever you don't see a post. One less person responding who responds to logical and respectful arguments with ad hominems, boo hoo.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I saw your post, you just didnt say much of anything.

Try harder.[/QUOTE]

Well if THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is. Why don't you crawl under a bridge or something, or did the trolls kick you out for being more offensive than they are ?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Still waiting for you to post an actual response.[/QUOTE]

Maybe he's hoping you'll just go away like the rest of us are hoping...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top