I finally have an ounce of respect for Gee Dubya

J

Jack 99

New member
He's proposing to privatize part of Social Security, allowing individuals to invest their own money as they see fit (what a concept!!!). It's really not much, and I suspect he knows that the AARP and myriad other Socialist groups in this country will stop it dead in its tracks before it ever reaches a house committee, but at least he came out with the idea publicly.

I'd have a lot more respect for him though if he'd come out and propose that we completely scrap that Pinko-Ponzi scheme once and for all. That's probably a little too much to expect from a major party candidate in an election year, though.
 
The idea might be a good one, but I still have to wonder about motives. Could some of Dubya's campaign contributors be interested in freeing up more funds to be invested in the stock market by people who don't really know what they're doing, thus continuing to fuel an "economic boom" by transfusions of capital?

If the SSA gave everyone back their cash balance now, to be invested as they like, you'd find that:

10% of people would actually establish a sound retirement plan.

30% would invest in monster sport-utilities that they'd never drive off pavement, and in huge, window-rattling 8000 watt stereos for the SUVs.

30% would pay off credit card balances so they could run them up again.

30% would go to Disney Land.
 
David: at the risk of sounding cavalier, SFW? If people want to buy a 2001 Ford Explosion Mondo-Super People Mover or spend 3 hours in line for one ride at Dizzyland, instead of saving for retirement, that's their own lookout.

Personally, I don't expect to live to see retirement age anyway, so if I got my investment (sic) back, I'd spend it on stuff that makes me happy. I get neat stuff, local merchants get my money, everyone wins. Except for the bureaucrats who have no right to my money in the first place.
 
You will never see SS go fully to private investment. David Scott is right, most folks would just go have a spending bonanza and thirty years later we'd have MILLIONS of these deadbeats roaming the streets without a dime or a roof over their heads.

Now, you and I would say "tough crap, it's their own fault", and we'd be right. But the liberal it's-not-my-fault society we live in would have a huge pity-party and just elect themselves a Congresscritter that would "give" them some food and shelter.

Personal responsibility is no longer ppossible for the masses because they simply do not knowwhat it means or how to achieve it - a perfect victory for the liberals wouldn't you say?

No, at best you **may** see Congress "allow" us to invest 2 or 3% of our deductions in a private fund.

It's just too late for a full turnaround.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
I don't give a brown rat's hinney what 90% of the people do with their money if SS is privatized.

GIVE ME MY DAMN MONEY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a young pup, and totally convinced that i will never see 1 penny of the money i put into SS. I don't want to play in that game anymore.

~USP
 
Interestingly, I was born in January so I got my "statement" earlier this year. Boy was I pissed. The SSA has taken a lot of money from me and frankly, I'm ticked about it. If I got that money back, I might just go buy a some toys, but so what, IT'S MY &*^$%*#@ MONEY!!!!!

As far as "turning it around," I have to agree it will never happen, but for different reasons. The Pinko-lib groups like the AARP won't let it happen. I'll make a bold prediction here: nothing approximating a SS privatization bill is going to make it out of a House sub-committee, let alone to full committee or to the floor of the House itself. Then the Senate is a whole other ball of wax.

For Gee Dubya to make a statement like this is really pretty safe, it will NEVER land on his desk as President and he knows it. Die hard Conservatives/Libertarians like myself may see it as a glimmer of hope, though, and maybe vote for him. That's what this is really all about.
 
I like the idea. It strikes me as a supremely arrogant policy to deem people too stupid and irresponsable to make their own decisions.

I too, expect to never see a dime back. (I'm 29.)
 
Most of the people in this country, myself included, were never taught how to manage money. Saying that privatization is a bad idea because somebody might blow it is a liberal notion: you know _you'd_ never shoot somebody, but what about your neighbor? Therefore, we need to ban guns.

Social Security is a nightmare, but by guaranteeing current benefits to current recipients while steadily increasing the percentage of "contributions" younger workers can put into private accounts, everybody would win. Eventually, the kids now getting into the workforce could have nearly all their SS taxes in a retirement vehicle that would give far greater returns than the paltry 1.2% we get now (less than half the rate of inflation). An 18 year-old whose SS taxes went into an annuity earning 5-7% annually would receive $60,000 to $70,000 a year upon retirement, versus $15,000 now.

Those opting for privatized accounts could receive a book outlining the risk/reward scenarios, along with a warning: this is your retirement money. If you try to blow it on lottery tickets, you'll be living in a cardboard box.

I've put in about $125,000 including co-FICA
since I started working many years ago. If that were in even a passbook savings account, I'd be looking toward a comfortable retirement. Instead, I'll be living on less than half what I do now.

Dick
 
So what if they spent all the money?

Even if they blew all the money on booze we wouldn't be in any worse of a situation than we are now.

Social Security is a transfer program, social security is a transfer program, repeat that 10 times.

It doesn't save any money it simply taxes money from some and gives it to others. It doesn't save anything it doesn't invest anything, Congress spends it now and writes an IOU to itself! I try to do this myself but I don't have a goon squad that will shake down people in the future to pay myself back.

The worst possible scenario with allowing a private program is that we might get stuck with what we have today - a TRANSFER PROGRAM.

How in the $%*&! world can that be worse than what we have now?!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack 99:
He's proposing to privatize part of Social Security, allowing individuals to invest their own money as they see fit (what a concept!!!). It's really not much, and I suspect he knows that the AARP and myriad other Socialist groups in this country will stop it dead in its tracks before it ever reaches a house committee, but at least he came out with the idea publicly.

I'd have a lot more respect for him though if he'd come out and propose that we completely scrap that Pinko-Ponzi scheme once and for all. That's probably a little too much to expect from a major party candidate in an election year, though.[/quote]

I would love to see it scrapped. Pay off the existing people by selling gov't 'assets', and kill the program. We would get our privacy and our money back. How many have tried to do anything without giving out your social security number? It was not supposed to be an id #, yet that's what it is. They can keep the money I've thrown away in this ponzi scheme as long as I could get out!

[This message has been edited by EricM (edited May 16, 2000).]
 
One more thing . . .
I got a letter from the SS administration writing that private businesses may ask for my SSN, but I am not required to give it out. I was shopping for car insurance last week in Boise, and I was asked for my SSN to get insurance from Farmer's. I declined, and was told that it would allow me to get 'other discounts'. I declined again. I was then told that they would not insure me. Every other insurance company told me the same thing. Given that it's required that I have insurance to legally drive my car, I am compelled to give it out. I suppose I could walk everywhere :(. May FDR and LBJ rot in hell.
 
Actually, there is some very good precedent for the proposition of privatizing social security. Take a look at www.cato.org and www.socialsecurity.org . Rather like firearms and the RKBA, the smart approach to this is to do your homework. Emotion and first impressions are not good foundations for this discussion.

Chile has done this. As I recall, down there they allow workers to choose. You can either put you money into the Ponzi scheme, or you can put it into something like an IRA. This forces folks to prepare for their future. [Whether we should 'force' folks at all is another issue ...]

What I find humorous about this issue is Gore's attitude that the stock market is 'risky'. Yes, technically it is. And, I am one of those who is concerned about today's valuations. However, over time, equities are a no-brainer, preferred investment for long term growth. That is logical is a 'free market' economy.

IMHO, it is just possible Mr. Gore could hang himself on his own ignorance regarding this concept. Gee, wouldn't that be appropriate? ;)

Regards from AZ
 
Erik,

"It strikes me as a supremely arrogant policy to deem people too stupid and irresponsable to make their own decisions."

You're forgetting, MOST of them are too stupid to make their own decisions. That's what 90% of the threads here on TFL are about.

I'd love to have all of my SS money. But you know darn well that thee would be millions of broke, homeless deadbeats out on the streets in a decade or two.

And guess who that would provide an exceptional political opportunity for...? Yep, the Libos.

This whole Private SS thing hinges on people being responsible for themsleves. Based on that requirement, iut just wouldn't work.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
I think Jeff Thomas is right on this.....it will happen. Partof the problem is the hughe number of old folks that are around and living longer. WW2 veterans are dying off at a rate of appx 1500 a day, as that pool of older folks shrink, I believe there will be better opportunity to release people from the forced social security system. We have to think beyond tomorrow here---just like the communist that have infiltrated our institutions----they first propose ideas and everyone shoots em down and incrementially they continue to force the issue until they win......we need to be as least as smart as our enemies...
Didnt Galveston, tx., opt out of the sss for their employees? Im not quite sure of the method they used, but I believe a restructering of the laws allowed a loop hole they were able to take advantage of and it has since been closed by the irs. Does anyone have any information on that?
ONe other point, it seems to me that one big step in removing the socialist mentality from our population is to make our citizens responsible for there own lives again,and of course with the sss they dont have to prepare for their retirement, they fool themselves into believeing the govt will care for them and when they finally receive that much touted care they are surprised for the most part. Ask some of these old timers if knowing what they know now would they rather have invested that money that went to the sss or just received the sss supplement check? Then ask em if they think there grandchildren ought to have that right?...fubsy.
 
Well said Fusby.

Yes, Galveston,TX did opt out of the SS program - just before the Feds closed that "loophole".

I read that over the first 10 year period the contributors earned slightly over a 20% return rate. It's a complete success and that's why the feds want to keep it quiet.

I do like your angle on this Fusby - incrementalism. If it works for them, it will work for us too.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
cmos,
You know we didnt get this point in our social system overnight. They have been trying to get guns for decades. It might be in our best interest to be as cunning and as devious as these anti's. So we try and get shot down, and wetry and eventually win with a small percentage---we gain even at the first loss because the idea has been presented and has been brought to the fore...just like the anti's have finally managed to do with guns....eventually we get a small percentage, then a larger percentage as those participating are able to show gains above that of the sss, and so it goes, till finally there will be no new ss recipents and maybe the people alive then can celebrate the death of the final ss recipent and the end of the fdr socialism.
....but it starts with that first step....fubsy. btw, who is fusby???...fubsy...lol...
 
I don't pay SS, haven't at a couple of public employer jobs that I've held. I don't know the specifics, I just know that money goes into retirement programs that I have more control over.

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
 
The original purpose of SS was to be a S-U-P-L-E-M-E-N-T-A-L help to those already planning wisely for their later years. It was never intended to be borrowed against to pay off debt. It was never meant to be used as a method whereby a deceased participant's youthful beneficiaries could draw out far more than was ever pay in by the benefactor. It certainly was not designed to be the primary means for retirees.

It is a dismal and criminal failure to the American Public. Let's continue to pay for those who are receiving it now and inplement a cut-off date for future generations.

I AM NOT REPSONSIBLE FOR THE WELFARE OF OTHERS! I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN! I AM SICK OF THIS "GIVE SOMETHING BACK" MANTRA FOSTERED BY CLINTON. I "GIVE BACK" ENOUGH BY PAYING TAXES AND CREATING JOBS. LET ME TAKE CARE OF MY OWN AND LEAVE ME ALONE UNCLE SAM!

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top