Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ahead of November, Democrats are pulling out the old Social Security demagoguery card. From the POLITICO:

With many Democrats running scared from their party's handling of the economy and health care reform, they've returned to an old reliable campaign theme in the home stretch: attacking their opponents for threatening Social Security and Medicare.

"I will not allow these programs to be jeopardized or destroyed," said Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.) when he was endorsed by the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans.

Most Republicans are running away from the Social Security issue. They've probably been told by establishment handlers to never defend "privatization" or personal accounts.

Baloney.

Fiscal conservative candidates should embrace it. While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bailout politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts. These accounts would also be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. If you die, you can pass it along to your heirs. With the current system, you can't do that. You have no claim on that money even though you may have spent a lifetime paying payroll taxes.

Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that is raidable by politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.

Not surprisingly, this is an attractive idea. A recent poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36.

Voters are tired of big government. They are tired of bailouts and government taking over various private sector industries. With personal accounts, voters now have a chance to reduce the power in Washington, and reclaim some of the economic liberty that was taken away from them. Candidates for Congress should adopt that message and support it loudly.

http://www.clubforgr...m/?postID=14110

Edited September 23, 2010 by El Buscador

[mawilson 2,133]

While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bailout politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it.

And that's the problem with Social Security. The multi-trillion-dollar surplus was stolen by Congress and we will never get it back.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I am not sure why you posted this but I totaly agree with it. I only wish I could have put my money in a private account 35 years ago when it would have done some good. Congress has been criminal in the way they have raided SS. No side has clean hands. This just further proves that the government cannot be trusted with our money.

[Danno 1,228]

ONe of the Reason the LEFT will never vote for personal accounts is because the people entitled to draw SS is ever widening.

The days of it being for Orphans and widows are over my friend. MOre and more young people are on the dole. I personally knew a 20 sumthin yr old guy who had a bad acid trip and has been collecting for decades.

Unless things have changed he still lives with mom and spends his monthly check on a bar tab and drugs.

I know of another guy collecting because he has a weak heart and instead of heading his doctors health warning.. he plowed on with partying until he had a stroke and now he has a lifetime check.

How would these people ever have had enough in a private SS account to draw anything?

How would Politicians control and manipulate millions of citizens who collect..... if the control were back in the hands of people?

[Heracles 417]

This seems to be a no-brainer to most, apart from Democrats.

[mawilson 2,133]

This seems to be a no-brainer to most, apart from Democrats.

How does social security work in Australia? Is it public or private?

[^_^ 5,021]

How does social security work in Australia? Is it public or private?

The programs are administered by intelligent kangaroos. It drives administrative cost down as they don't demand monetary compensation, just grass.

[Danno 1,228]

The programs are administered by intelligent kangaroos. It drives administrative cost down as they don't demand monetary compensation, just grass.

I suspect they are lining their pocket... errr pouches doing it.

[^_^ 5,021]

I suspect they are lining their pocket... errr pouches doing it.

You're just reflexively anti-government-employee, regardless of race or sexual orientation or specie. We could have Mother Terea and Jesus Freakin' Christ manage Australia's social security program and you'd want them fired on day 1.

[Danno 1,228]

There is a bit of truth to that.. and it's because I believe Govt should be the last entity to do these things... not the first.

So often they not only fail to accomplish the task they set out to do, they create more problems.

But at times, Govm't despite all it's shortfalls is the only means to do a limited number of things.

[^_^ 5,021]

... at times, Govm't despite all it's shortfalls is the only means to do a limited number of things.

Name a few, besides national defense and immigration control (I'm excluding those two because I'd like to be surprised).

[Danno 1,228]

Name a few, besides national defense and immigration control (I'm excluding those two because I'd like to be surprised).

The Court and law enforcement system of course.

I would suggest a real social "safety net" system, not the hammock we have. (which tries to make life fair... rather than bearable).

Govt has a role to play in a number of areas such as Licensing, tax collection, Environmental protection and a number of other things.

THe biggest problem is how these neccessary things or agencies grow and keep growing assuming more and more authority and ever widening their scope.

Example: Yesterday I priced some rims and tires and found out the "tire sensors" which my new car has were mandated by the govt.

Every time you change tires they will hit you will a charge to "rebuild" them or replace them.... which can get costly x 4 tires.

[^_^ 5,021]

I would suggest a real social "safety net" system, not the hammock we have. (which tries to make life fair... rather than bearable).

Govt has a role to play in a number of areas such as Licensing, tax collection, Environmental protection and a number of other things.

You've really piqued my curiosity. Could you describe your ideal safety net? Maybe using the fictional example of Mr. Danno who lost his job, has 2 kids in a state college, a sick wife and hasn't so much as been called for an interview in a year. What would the Danno safety net do for Mr. Danno?

Licensing, taxation, environmental protection - damn, you're a regular librul!

[Heracles 417]

How does social security work in Australia? Is it public or private?

Private all the way!

An employer must contribute 9% on top of your pay to a private retirement account of your choice. You then have a range of investment options to choose from, from almost no risk to extremely risky. How is it working? Australians have $1.1 trillion USD in these accounts versus the $2.6 trillion the US has in SS, and that figure does not include the money borrowed from the fund. Australia now have the largest retirement accounts, double that of country in position 2. Ironically it was the left wing government that implemented this in the 80s. For anyone low income [under $30K] the government will match any extra payments they make into their account. It's an investment for the government to do so now, than have to pay for a pension in the future. You also cannot withdraw the money until you are 55, or 65 to be tax free.

There is also a reasonable means tested age pension of for those over 65 whose retirement has run out or no longer have any left.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Heracles

[^_^ 5,021]

Private all the way!

An employer must contribute 9% on top of your pay to a private retirement account of your choice. You then have a range of investment options to choose from, from almost no risk to extremely risky.

Sounds like a mandated 401K plan on steroids.

I mention the steroids because a 9% employer match is pretty freakin awesome as is the tax-free status of withdrawals after 65.

There is also a reasonable means tested age pension of for those over 65 whose retirement has run out or no longer have any left.

Tell us more about this "reasonable means tested age pension". Public or private? How much? What are the eligibility criteria? Just curious.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Legacy member