The absurdity of all this

[kosar]

First of all, as i've mentioned, I think the idea of privatizing Social Security is great, and one of the very few things that should make anybody actually vote for this vile admin. That, of course, is based on Bush's statements that this will be high on his agenda if he wins a second term.

Now, here is the headline in an article in my paper today:

Kerry claims Bush will try to privatize SS.

Right underneath the headline is this:

GOP chairman denies charge

WTF??

Ed Gillespie (the GOP chairman) says: 'this charge is just flat inaccurate'.

GOP spokesman Steve Schmidt says: ' John Kerry's misleading senior scare tactics are just another example of a candidate who will say anything to get elected.

So two spokesmen for Bush rebut these 'charges'? Are you fu*king kidding me? One of the only good ideas that that idiot has and just because Kerry is pandering to the elderly here in Florida, they are NOW going to deny that this is on the agenda?

And the idiot Kerry calls this a 'January surprise'. WTF kind of surprise is it when Bush has already said that this is what his intentions are? Except who the f*ck knows since the GOP chairman calls these 'false charges'.

 

[dr. freeze]

they are all lying now to get elected...its dispicable....

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Kerry is desperate and WILL say AND DO anything to get elected.....even if it means less body armor and ammo for our brave troops!
Kerry totally supported the Iraq war until Howard Dean started pulling ahead on an anti-war ticket. Kerry saw this and immediately flip-flopped his position on Iraq and voted against the $87 Billion to give our troops supplies, ammo and armor.
This guy is a sicko. Thank god we only have 2 more weeks of this loser.

 

[davidjg47]

I feel this was misstated. Kerry said if Bush was elected the SS would be privatized STARTING in January. President Bush will fight for the privatization of SS. He wants it done. It must be passed before that can happen. The only reason Kerry said it would START in January is scare the F uck out of the people who are against it..Bush will be best shot for those of us, who want it

 

[Eddie Haskell]

I disagree that social security should be privatized. The only one who would benefit from such legislation to benefit would be jmizeus as his clientele will increase tenfold. Seriously, the majority of Americans would poorly invest. End up losing most of there retirement. Bad idea.

Eddie

 

[pirate fan]

Disagree with ya Ed but I understand your point. I think somehow there needs to be a limit of services to otherwise invest into. The current returns are not adequate and there needs to be something offering higher returns, especially if you have time on your side and you can let your investment weather the ups and downs of the market.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

PF:

I just forsee a bunch of dummies (me included) dumping a ton of my SS account into future Enrons, Tyco's and Studebaker. Remember, higher return = greater risk.

Ed

 

[pirate fan]

I used to be an investment broker for 10 years so I know all about risk. Your right that there are a lot of people who would be clueless but there is so much more potential out there to make better gains. I think you have to leave an option to keep it as it is for those who don't want the responsibility and limit the choices to a very select few, probably a mutual fund format, 1 for stocks, 1 for bonds, etc. You know you need to protect people from themselves and eventually when the stock market crashes again, people will cry foul or plead ignorance. There is a hugh potential for problems and lawsuits if money is lost, which will happen with higher risk as you said. Wishful thinking; may cause corporate america to be more honest or upfront knowing the government may come at them if they try to screw investors.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

So you think the gov can do better job than the people with their money? I'd gladly take all monies I've paid in to the system with no interest. You got to get away from gov running peoples lives Edward. I think most of investment options would be semi safe and would work in part like many retirement plans--I doubt if stock options.commodities ect would be an option.
Would you rather your SS payments go into a fixed account in your name that could not be squandered by feds. You would "know" what you had coming.

now lets look at Kerry's option. While he admitted SS is in serious trouble in debates he proposes in his health reform to put more people on medicare as an option of theirs,cover all children(medicade),guarantee he will not raise age on on ss recipients---AND lower taxes on the middle class.
Of course to the 70 million voters that pay no taxes and since most are Kerry backers I must admit it sounds good--but the tax payers surely can see who's going paying the piper.

 

[Turfgrass]

Eddie, It's not like you get to pick anything you want...it's more like a choice of approved mutual funds, money markets, or CDs.



Check out how Galveston County, Texas did it in 1981. And Actually, three counties in Texas opted out of Social Security, and their example is instructive. Since then, their 5,000 public employees have received a 6.5% annual return on retirement savings with zero market risk. They've enjoyed market rates of return by purchasing Guaranteed Investment Contracts put out to bid among insurance firms. The plan's increased savings rate means they can afford other improvements, too. Recently, a 38-year old county employee died in a tragic accident. Under Social Security, his widow would have received a death benefit of $255. Instead, she received $126,000. Nothing wrong with dat...is it?

 

[djv]

Last 4 years you could with all the super approved funds made zero. There was another time in the 70's and 80's where you would have made zero. Were talking runs of 4 years. The S/S system not borrowed from can do the job. But you must keep the gov out of it. They borrow all the time. Just like this tax cut.
And it's fun to here forks say approved funds. I can see the 50 year fight to find out witch ones those are. The fund industry will go nuts. Every company will want at least one of there funds available. What a disaster waiting to happen. And anyone think the feds will be out of it completely. Never. So we might as well stay where we are. If nothing else the gov can pay 4% on bonds. It's so much easier to invest when you know no matter if you screw up. The S/S is there for you. Everyone seems to thing oh boy I can put 500/600 grand away to retire on. Well when you have the S/S there to give you the extra you need it works nice. Because anyone who thinks they can retire just on 500/600 grand do the math. Forget yeilds of over 4% because you cant take the chance after 65 of going broke. So if you think you can retire just on 20 grand a year. Good Luck. But now if you get that sweet S/S check for 1400 amonth or more. And then have another 20 grand on the side per year. Well you have a real nice retirement. Forget company plans because more and more are droping them. In fact last numbers out less then 30% of companies offer retirement plans. And lets see how much money folks can put a side on there own when makeing less then 10 bucks a hour. All I can say is good luck. Now if your in the top 6% of earnings in this country you might pull it off. Most forget the rule of inflation. What sounds like a lot of money today. Might be worth half as much in 30 years.

 

[kosar]

If run properly with restrictions (only index funds, bond funds etc)as has been proposed, this idea would easily work and be much better for everybody. DJV- who cares about what has happened every now and then in 4 year runs? Like Wayne said, I would love to have every penny back that i've contributed, interest free. I don't trust this system at all as it stands, let alone 30 years from now when I would start getting my money back.

What would be wrong with giving people a choice? Duffers like DJV could continue with the current system, and other people could use the privatized system.

 

[pirate fan]

Kosar, absolutly agree! There is so much more to be made through funds it is a crime not to take advantage of it. As long as people look long term, they will be ahead!

 

[djv]

Kosar to late for me I'm now 63 and out retired and happy about it. But no way would I have taken some of the chance I did with out knowing the S/S was waiting. And I was lucky enough to be in the top 8% of wager earners most my life. So yes I count my lucky stars. But I still say it will be interesting to see what funds are approved. Lets be fair what to you think the fund companies are going to do just let all that money go by there noses. Some will do ok others will go broke. Do you know there are over 50 funds since 1970 that have not made a dime. And or have been hidden in other funds and names changed. A practice still going on today. So I say the Feds will have to half own it anyway. Im just saying the two are better then just one or the other.

 

[Turfgrass]

And another thing, as Americans we have always been led to believe Social Security was like a retirement account and money placed in it was our property. The fact of the matter is you have no property right whatsoever to your Social Security "contributions."

In a U.S. Supreme Court case, Helvering vs. Davis (1937), the Court held that Social Security was not an insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in anyway."

In another Supreme Court case, Fleming vs. Nestor (1960), the Court said, "To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands." Again, the Court rejected any comparison of Social Security with insurance or an annuity.