SCREW THE CRIPPLES!!! I want private accounts!

from PolMach Forums
The administration is currently preparing another round of pushing for (at least partially) privatized Social Security accounts. That being the case, what is on the minds of Political Machine bloggers?

The last plan unveiled called for directing funds of those who wish to participate into private accounts invested in the stock market, much like a government controlled 401K plan.

A majority of the analysis performed by economists showed that the private account system will not create any savings to federal spending (it will actually put the program further in debt for many years to come), so in turn will not serve the public any better than the current system. It was noted though that the majority of those investing in private accounts were likely to get less payout than the current system.

Is this a fix?

If the program proceeds with the current system in place and younger workers create private accounts, wouldn't the system fail? Isn't the problem with the current system that there aren't enough younger workers to keep it afloat? How will it be saved by allowing young workers an opt-out?
politics
4,539 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
They can NOT op-out. They are only allowed to take a very small percentage to put into privatized accounts. No more than 4%.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is social security shouldn't be a universal, socialist retirement. Why should we necessarily be 'kept' by the government in our old age? It should be there for people who need it because of poverty, but as it stands social security is just a huge, mismanaged collective savings account.

What this seeks to do, and rightly so, is shift the focus on seeing to your own retirement, with government assistance available for those in need. Why should we turn tens of thousands of dollars over to the government who have shown themselves to be much worse at managing our money?

Keep social security, and make it pre-paid 'assistance', like unemployment, but only for those in real need. People who make enough to set aside money for old age should see to it themselves. No one is saying 'screw the cripples'. We are saying 'screw the government who just wastes our social security on meaningless crap'.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
They can NOT op-out. They are only allowed to take a very small percentage to put into privatized accounts. No more than 4%.


Even the most basic math will show that if a system is failing becasue lack of revenue to keep it afloat allowing any additional funds to be removed will ensure it fails.

The only way that a private account arrangement would work is to reduce everyone's benefits to an amount even smaller than what currently exists. Not to mention that allowing for SS cash to be moved to privately managed investments means the interest that would have been gained and added toward the the solvency of the general fund will be lost as well.

Opt-out? Maybe not. But definitely an opt-in toward the failure of social security.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top


socialist retirement


What is socialist retirement? What do you mean by socialist?

What this seeks to do, and rightly so, is shift the focus on seeing to your own retirement


But that's the problem as can be seen by taking a look at history and how the majority of Americans lived prior to the creation of SS. True, in an ideal world people would run their lives based on very rational and pragmatic plans. However, we live in the real world where that is not the case.

The government's own bureaus have released statistic after statistic showing that less Americans today have the option of paying bills AND saving for retirement than in the past 70 years. That doesn't seem to be the type of environment that lends itself to saving for retirment. I think we can probably agree that (for better/worse) most people when they have paid all of their bills and have $50 left over and that's it, aren't going to slap it in the bank for the distant future.

Also it's just common sense that people save more when they have more. The average (white anyway) American worker today has less income after inflation than the average American worker did back in the 50's. We Americans are losing economic ground, my generation is one of the first after long years of gains that as a general rule will do worse than our parents.

No one is saying 'screw the cripples'.



Actually while all the focus has been on SS alone, it is only one part of a larger program that includes disability etc. One portion of the propsal when worked out showed that if the administration's "reform" plan goes into effect that people receiving disability are guaranteed to lose anywhere up to 40% of their current benefits with no way to make up the difference.

No way to make up the difference? Yes, that's because the private account option would have no benefit to those on disability becuase their income is disability. Obviously you can't set aside the money you depend on for living now into a savings in the future, especially when you will be receiving less to live on in the first place.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know what the word socialist means; if not feel free to visit Webster's site. The fact is a portion of our income is "nationalized" before it ever gets to us, and we have no say over it's day-to-day management.

We don't need to become wards of the state after a certain age, any more than we need to be wards of the state as children. The seizing of our income and state-ownership of our retirement is patently wrong.

Your argument depends on our current system. You can pretend that people don't save, but they are trained all their lives to believe that the government is saving for them. Why SHOULD they put more money into retirement when the government is already seizing a chunk just for that purpose?

It's the same mentality that makes people blase' toward the threat of poverty or disaster. It doesn't matter if we ruin ourselves, there's always bankruptcy, or welfare, or food stamps, or disability.

You are espousing a system by pointing to problems the system itself causes. No, people don't save, people don't care, people aren't responsible. Why? Because we've been taught that we don't have to be. Big Brother will take care of us, to borrow an evil the Left likes to evoke so often.

You can't rest on that 'people can't afford' junk. Only the poorest Americans would apply, and the poorest Americans would still have social programs. People can obviously afford constant recycling their mortgage, keeping $10k in credir card bills, and instantly trading in their car for a new one once they pay the old one off.

Our priorities are permanently screwed up by a system that makes us believe we don'e NEED to save. Time for that to change. We'll still have social programs. No one is saying that there doesn't need to be some kind of 'safety net'. People shouldn't be able to bank on it as some sort of socialized retirement.