Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Social Security Privatization

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    So lefties?

    Tell me why I can't have a say of how some of my OWN hard earned money is invested?

    Tell me why I can't put my OWN hard earned money into a private investment account which even with some bad spans along the way will BLOW AWAY the pathetic 'return' of the traditional social security system?

    Tell me how throwing my money into a pathetically government ran welfare fund is going to not only make more money towards my retirement, but also reinvest cash into the economy??

    Tell me how my OWN money, privately invested on an even 'moderate to low risk' scale over the next 35 years (I'm currently 30) is going to be detrimental to my payout at 65?

    I have no problem grandfathering people into/out of the new system.

    Hell for that matter, I have no problem making this an 'optional' system if and when it is instituted.


    But come on, you can't have it both ways. In every election for the past 20 years, the "evil" Republicans have been accused of "ignoring", and/or "placing" Social Security in danger left and right. It has been the libs' favorite scare tactic towards seniors since I knew what politics was. For years all I heard was "Social Security" is going to go bankrupt. SS is doomed. SS won't be able to make payments because of the baby boomers. Now a Republican wants to do something about it and holy smokes, Dems are coming out of the wood works to protest.

    Why? I'll tell you why. You just got chumped by the President. He just took your favorite agenda and attack item and turned it against you. He has the balls to attack something that has been labeled 'political suicide' by political pundit. He recognizes a problem exists and is willing to fix it, something that the libs haven't been willing to touch.......ironic since they condsider it 'their' field.

    Libs hate the fact someone might have an option in managing their own money. They're still holding on the notion that moeny is safer in the hands of the government then the hands of the people who make it.

    I see the Leftie Obstructionist Machine is already firing up their engines and digging in for the fight. Please, by all means, keep it up and don't hold back. That continued course of action can only add more House and Senate seats for the Repuiblicans in 2006.


    You don't want to take part in it. Fine. But don't get in my way of making an extra $400-500/month when I hit 65 and investing my money back into the economy along the way.

    If you think the traditional SS system will make you more money in the long run you're an absolute fool.

    One more damn thing. I have a degree of compassion for people who depend on it, but on the other hand, I'm 30 and have a ample personal investment program in place that will more than take care of me when I retire. I knew when I was young that placing your retirement in the hands of the government was a mistake and could lead to doom.

    When SS wa created, FDR said it best. It was a program to provide "SOME" degree of assistance in retirement. It was NEVER designed to be a sole means of retirement assistance.

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    JUST GET RID OF IT!! ITS A FRIGGIN PONZI SCHEME! I WOULD GLADLY PAY IT FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS (I'd be 48) JUST TO SEE THIS TERRIBLE POLICY END!

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Gun Of Bavaria[/i]@Feb 2 2005, 11:24 PM
    [b] I have no problem grandfathering people into/out of the new system. [/b][/quote]
    wouldn't there be a gap? i mean, you're not paying for [i]your[/i] social security, you're paying for the generation (or half-generation) ahead of you. that's always been the problem, as far as i can see.

    and since those affected have already paid for the generation before them, you can't really just say "sorry, tough luck", can you?

  4. #4
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    "wouldn't there be a gap? i mean, you're not paying for your social security, you're paying for the generation (or half-generation) ahead of you. that's always been the problem, as far as i can see"

    Yeah. One of the big problems I have w/ Bush is he never answers the question of how to fill that gap. Last night he basically said if you're over 55 you won't be affected and left it at that. IMO private accts are a great idea, we just gotta figure out how to pay for the transition over the next 20 years or so. I guess the solution is cutting spending in other wastefull areas, but I'll believe that when I see it.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Privitization? Okay by me, but only if it is FULL and immediate privitization. If I am to be responsible for my own retirement planning and investment, I don't want ANY of my money going into Social Security to pay for others.

    Personally, I would be happy to see the end of taxes for schools too (i.e. Privitization of education).

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    U have to keep in mind that he said private accounts would begin at just 4% of current income.. The % can be increased over time and the gap would be filled. Keep in mind that it would be political suicide for any politician to take away SS. It wont happen. The tricky part is the whole keeping the private accounts to pass on to ones heirs.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]The tricky part is the whole keeping the private accounts to pass on to ones heirs. [/b][/quote]

    Why should that be tricky?? It MY money isn't it. Personal repsonsibillity (required for this lan to work correctly) should not include losing out on you OWN money when you die. It should be a requirement of ANY privitization system that the asset involved (the value of the account) be passed on like any other asset.

    And it should NOT be taxed.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 09:35 AM
    [b] Privitization? Okay by me, but only if it is FULL and immediate privitization. If I am to be responsible for my own retirement planning and investment, I don't want ANY of my money going into Social Security to pay for others.

    Personally, I would be happy to see the end of taxes for schools too (i.e. Privitization of education). [/b][/quote]
    We cant just screw prior generations, who put a lot of money into this and are relianent on it, it's their money too ;)

    I completely agree about education. We need to put the power back in the hands of the parent/student. A vocher system would be fine by me, for private school or any public schoolin a different district. Unfortunately, the Teacher's Union will NEVER let this happen.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 09:40 AM
    [b] [quote][b]The tricky part is the whole keeping the private accounts to pass on to ones heirs. [/b][/quote]

    Why should that be tricky?? It MY money isn't it. Personal repsonsibillity (required for this lan to work correctly) should not include losing out on you OWN money when you die. It should be a requirement of ANY privitization system that the asset involved (the value of the account) be passed on like any other asset.

    And it should NOT be taxed. [/b][/quote]
    Personal responsibility? That surely isn't being taught in our society.

    C'mon. People don't even want to pay for their own higher education.

    I applaud your dream. But most people just want someone to blame.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pipe Dream, I know, but.....

    I would END Social Security and issue checks to every taxpayer who paid into it an amount equal to what they have paid in to-date, minus however much you have already been paid out from SS. Nothing more, nothing less.

    As for Schools, I don't belive in vouchers either. Vouchers still tax me (a person with no children no any intention to have them) for educating YOUR child. Unfair and communistic. Capitalism doesn't work that way.

    If you want a voucher system, fine by me, I don't care what schhol, religious or not, you send your kids to. But the tax revenue that pays for all that choice should come from taxpayers who HAVE CHILDREN only. Folks without kids shoudn't be footing that bill. Schools are not like roads. Everyone uses roads.

    And welfare? Would end today if I had a choice.

    Personal Repsonsibillity, something this nation once stood for and no longer seems to feel is needed. Sadly, the Cons are just as guilty as the Libs when it comes to this, they are all Socialists these days.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 11:19 AM
    [b] Pipe Dream, I know, but.....

    I would END Social Security and issue checks to every taxpayer who paid into it an amount equal to what they have paid in to-date, minus however much you have already been paid out from SS. Nothing more, nothing less.

    As for Schools, I don't belive in vouchers either. Vouchers still tax me (a person with no children no any intention to have them) for educating YOUR child. Unfair and communistic. Capitalism doesn't work that way.

    If you want a voucher system, fine by me, I don't care what schhol, religious or not, you send your kids to. But the tax revenue that pays for all that choice should come from taxpayers who HAVE CHILDREN only. Folks without kids shoudn't be footing that bill. Schools are not like roads. Everyone uses roads.

    And welfare? Would end today if I had a choice.

    Personal Repsonsibillity, something this nation once stood for and no longer seems to feel is needed. Sadly, the Cons are just as guilty as the Libs when it comes to this, they are all Socialists these days. [/b][/quote]
    I agree warfish, you wont find a bigger proponenet of capatalism than myself. But do you really think we will end public funding of education? Isn't a voucher system a good realistic compromise? It will at least hold teachers/ school systems accountable and help driven down the ridiculos cost of education in this country.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Lawyers, Guns and Money+Feb 3 2005, 11:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Lawyers, Guns and Money @ Feb 3 2005, 11:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Warfish[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 11:19 AM
    [b] Pipe Dream, I know, but.....

    I would END Social Security and issue checks to every taxpayer who paid into it an amount equal to what they have paid in to-date, minus however much you have already been paid out from SS. Nothing more, nothing less.

    As for Schools, I don&#39;t belive in vouchers either. Vouchers still tax me (a person with no children no any intention to have them) for educating YOUR child. Unfair and communistic. Capitalism doesn&#39;t work that way.

    If you want a voucher system, fine by me, I don&#39;t care what schhol, religious or not, you send your kids to. But the tax revenue that pays for all that choice should come from taxpayers who HAVE CHILDREN only. Folks without kids shoudn&#39;t be footing that bill. Schools are not like roads. Everyone uses roads.

    And welfare? Would end today if I had a choice.

    Personal Repsonsibillity, something this nation once stood for and no longer seems to feel is needed. Sadly, the Cons are just as guilty as the Libs when it comes to this, they are all Socialists these days. [/b][/quote]
    I agree warfish, you wont find a bigger proponenet of capatalism than myself. But do you really think we will end public funding of education? Isn&#39;t a voucher system a good realistic compromise? It will at least hold teachers/ school systems accountable and help driven down the ridiculos cost of education in this country. [/b][/quote]
    No, I don&#39;t think anyone would actually try to end public taxation for welfare education.

    But maybe they should.

    Federal Taxation should, IMO, be for a very limited number of things:

    National Protection, i.e the Army
    National Regulation, i.e. keeping the Public Safe, looking out for the Public Interest (with a MINIMUM of actual regulation. Regulation should only be used when absolutely needed)
    Transportation Infrastructure, i.e. Roads, Trains, Planes
    Administration, i.e Courts, Congress and the Pres.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Gun Of Bavaria[/i]@Feb 2 2005, 11:24 PM
    [b] Why? I&#39;ll tell you why. You just got chumped by the President. He just took your favorite agenda and attack item and turned it against you. He has the balls to attack something that has been labeled &#39;political suicide&#39; by political pundit. He recognizes a problem exists and is willing to fix it, something that the libs haven&#39;t been willing to touch.......ironic since they condsider it &#39;their&#39; field.
    [/b][/quote]
    talking about it and doing something about it are two very different things. maybe the right should save the chest thumping rage posts for when Bush actually accomplishes something... like this for example ...

    [img]http://daily.greencine.com/archives/mission-accomplished.jpg[/img]

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+Feb 3 2005, 12:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ Feb 3 2005, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by Lawyers@ Guns and Money,Feb 3 2005, 11:44 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-Warfish[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 11:19 AM
    [b] Pipe Dream, I know, but.....

    I would END Social Security and issue checks to every taxpayer who paid into it an amount equal to what they have paid in to-date, minus however much you have already been paid out from SS. Nothing more, nothing less.

    As for Schools, I don&#39;t belive in vouchers either. Vouchers still tax me (a person with no children no any intention to have them) for educating YOUR child. Unfair and communistic. Capitalism doesn&#39;t work that way.

    If you want a voucher system, fine by me, I don&#39;t care what schhol, religious or not, you send your kids to. But the tax revenue that pays for all that choice should come from taxpayers who HAVE CHILDREN only. Folks without kids shoudn&#39;t be footing that bill. Schools are not like roads. Everyone uses roads.

    And welfare? Would end today if I had a choice.

    Personal Repsonsibillity, something this nation once stood for and no longer seems to feel is needed. Sadly, the Cons are just as guilty as the Libs when it comes to this, they are all Socialists these days. [/b][/quote]
    I agree warfish, you wont find a bigger proponenet of capatalism than myself. But do you really think we will end public funding of education? Isn&#39;t a voucher system a good realistic compromise? It will at least hold teachers/ school systems accountable and help driven down the ridiculos cost of education in this country. [/b][/quote]
    No, I don&#39;t think anyone would actually try to end public taxation for welfare education.

    But maybe they should.

    Federal Taxation should, IMO, be for a very limited number of things:

    National Protection, i.e the Army
    National Regulation, i.e. keeping the Public Safe, looking out for the Public Interest (with a MINIMUM of actual regulation. Regulation should only be used when absolutely needed)
    Transportation Infrastructure, i.e. Roads, Trains, Planes
    Administration, i.e Courts, Congress and the Pres. [/b][/quote]
    The majority of education tax payments in from the local level, correct?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Gun Of Bavaria[/i]@Feb 2 2005, 10:24 PM
    [b] So lefties?

    Tell me why I can&#39;t have a say of how some of my OWN hard earned money is invested?

    Tell me why I can&#39;t put my OWN hard earned money into a private investment account which even with some bad spans along the way will BLOW AWAY the pathetic &#39;return&#39; of the traditional social security system?

    Tell me how throwing my money into a pathetically government ran welfare fund is going to not only make more money towards my retirement, but also reinvest cash into the economy??

    Tell me how my OWN money, privately invested on an even &#39;moderate to low risk&#39; scale over the next 35 years (I&#39;m currently 30) is going to be detrimental to my payout at 65?

    I have no problem grandfathering people into/out of the new system.

    Hell for that matter, I have no problem making this an &#39;optional&#39; system if and when it is instituted.


    But come on, you can&#39;t have it both ways. In every election for the past 20 years, the "evil" Republicans have been accused of "ignoring", and/or "placing" Social Security in danger left and right. It has been the libs&#39; favorite scare tactic towards seniors since I knew what politics was. For years all I heard was "Social Security" is going to go bankrupt. SS is doomed. SS won&#39;t be able to make payments because of the baby boomers. Now a Republican wants to do something about it and holy smokes, Dems are coming out of the wood works to protest.

    Why? I&#39;ll tell you why. You just got chumped by the President. He just took your favorite agenda and attack item and turned it against you. He has the balls to attack something that has been labeled &#39;political suicide&#39; by political pundit. He recognizes a problem exists and is willing to fix it, something that the libs haven&#39;t been willing to touch.......ironic since they condsider it &#39;their&#39; field.

    Libs hate the fact someone might have an option in managing their own money. They&#39;re still holding on the notion that moeny is safer in the hands of the government then the hands of the people who make it.

    I see the Leftie Obstructionist Machine is already firing up their engines and digging in for the fight. Please, by all means, keep it up and don&#39;t hold back. That continued course of action can only add more House and Senate seats for the Repuiblicans in 2006.


    You don&#39;t want to take part in it. Fine. But don&#39;t get in my way of making an extra &#036;400-500/month when I hit 65 and investing my money back into the economy along the way.

    If you think the traditional SS system will make you more money in the long run you&#39;re an absolute fool.

    One more damn thing. I have a degree of compassion for people who depend on it, but on the other hand, I&#39;m 30 and have a ample personal investment program in place that will more than take care of me when I retire. I knew when I was young that placing your retirement in the hands of the government was a mistake and could lead to doom.

    When SS wa created, FDR said it best. It was a program to provide "SOME" degree of assistance in retirement. It was NEVER designed to be a sole means of retirement assistance. [/b][/quote]
    because you just don&#39;t know how to invest it. You will lose it all if we (big Government) allowed you to invest it. We know you will go and invest it in that new investment, Albanian Midget Circus, Inc.

    Also, you may invest it in a brand new gun, and we already have enough of those.

    -VilManiac

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    In Kicking Pats-a$$ country
    Posts
    874
    Post Thanks / Like
    As far as I can tell, privatization will not help you at all, in fact it would be worse for the individual as well as the country. I don&#39;t know how these "fiscally conservative" Republicans expect to pay for this idea. Once you put money into your private account, you can&#39;t take it out for any reason until you retire. And technically you can pass it on as an inheritance if you die, but there&#39;s hardly a guarantee that there would really be much money to pass it on anyway. And you&#39;re saying "lefties" when talking about people opposing private accounts, it shows a certain amount of ignorance about the situation. You&#39;d be surprised at the number of Republicans in Congress who may or are definitely opposed to Bush&#39;s plan. There are 17 Reps and 5 senators who are at least open to opposing this bogus plan to destroy Social Security.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by curtisthegreat[/i]@Feb 6 2005, 07:00 PM
    [b] As far as I can tell, privatization will not help you at all, in fact it would be worse for the individual as well as the country. I don&#39;t know how these "fiscally conservative" Republicans expect to pay for this idea. Once you put money into your private account, you can&#39;t take it out for any reason until you retire. And technically you can pass it on as an inheritance if you die, but there&#39;s hardly a guarantee that there would really be much money to pass it on anyway. And you&#39;re saying "lefties" when talking about people opposing private accounts, it shows a certain amount of ignorance about the situation.

    Social Security. [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b]I don&#39;t know how these "fiscally conservative" Republicans expect to pay for this idea. Once you put money into your private account, you can&#39;t take it out for any reason until you retire[/b][/quote]

    Do you even try to research your responses?

    1. You think that my money, sitting inside a worthless governmet coffer, is going to make MORE money then a private mutual fund investment over a 35 year period?? Not a f-ing chance.

    2. Have you ever even heard of an Individual Retirement Account? You can&#39;t take that money out until you reach 59 1/2, except to use a portion of it towards the purchase of a first home. Try taking anything else out before 59 1/2 and prepare to pay utterly ridiculous penalties.

    3. You&#39;re the epitome of a true liberal, sitting here and telling me that the government knows how to invest MY money better than me.

    4. Could you imagine if countless number of Americans invested money back into the economy rather then it sitting in some worthless government account?

    5. It&#39;s none of your&#39;s or the government&#39;s buisness how much I have to give bequeath to my family if/when that day comes.

    6. You better volunteer to &#39;up your FICA&#39; payment if you think that Social Security will do jack for your retirement. As for me, I could care less. I have so many ongoing investments, you&#39;ll be cleaning my pool at my winter home in 25 years.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by curtisthegreat[/i]@Feb 6 2005, 09:00 PM
    [b] As far as I can tell, privatization will not help you at all, in fact it would be worse for the individual as well as the country. I don&#39;t know how these "fiscally conservative" Republicans expect to pay for this idea. Once you put money into your private account, you can&#39;t take it out for any reason until you retire. And technically you can pass it on as an inheritance if you die, but there&#39;s hardly a guarantee that there would really be much money to pass it on anyway. And you&#39;re saying "lefties" when talking about people opposing private accounts, it shows a certain amount of ignorance about the situation. You&#39;d be surprised at the number of Republicans in Congress who may or are definitely opposed to Bush&#39;s plan. There are 17 Reps and 5 senators who are at least open to opposing this bogus plan to destroy Social Security. [/b][/quote]
    Ignorance? That&#39;s calling the kettle black. You&#39;re as misinformed as they come...
    This can only help the individuals and the country in the long run. It won&#39;t save the Social Security debacle as we know it, but it&#39;s a start. Investing in mutual fund type accounts has garnered a 10% increase on average since their inception. That&#39;s FAR better than the government has been doing with our Social Security money in the past. It would be a major conflict of interest to have the government invest in private companies. This gives US, the people, the opportunity to break down that conflict of interest and take care of ourselves. It helps the country as a whole because we&#39;re putting money back into the economy (that&#39;s something that the Democrats of the last few decades haven&#39;t been able to grasp onto). Although, it&#39;s funny, JFK had that very theory of cutting taxes to put money back into the hands of the people to turn around and put it back into the economy. It&#39;s just odd how the Democrats don&#39;t think it&#39;s a good idea now that a Republican has come up with it.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    the last time Bush talked about an idea with as little chance as coming into reality as this one was the last state of the union address when he talked about establishing a colony on the moon and regular missions to Mars

    let&#39;s wait for him to actually try to do something before we give him an award - giving a speech is alot easier then the part that comes afterwards...

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 7 2005, 04:18 PM
    [b] the last time Bush talked about an idea with as little chance as coming into reality as this one was the last state of the union address when he talked about establishing a colony on the moon and regular missions to Mars

    let&#39;s wait for him to actually try to do something before we give him an award - giving a speech is alot easier then the part that comes afterwards... [/b][/quote]
    exactly... there&#39;s tons of Democrats who will shoot this down no matter whether they know in their hearts it&#39;s the right thing to do or not.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us