Suggestion for SS privatization

[cawacko]

Coddled? Spare me this knee jerk BS.....defense against cogenital racism and it's after effects is essential. You don't like social programs and anti-defamation/racism rules? Then go kick your like minded buddies in the ass to stop red lining, stop job discrimination, "legacy" preferences in higher education....and when folks who benefit from these practices are no longer "coddled", you won't have to worry about blacks and latinos.

I support social security. I agree with the arguments that it is an overall benefit to society by keeping people older poor people off the streets and giving help to those who need it. I also support people having the option of personal accounts which are able to be passed on and that benefits the most those who have been discriminated against in the past.

I don't participate in job discrimination and I can't help if someone is so ignorant as to not hire the best available candidate because they have something against their race. That's their loss.

To me if we want to make up for past discrimination then give all people more access to markets and a chance to participate in the economic dream. More big government in the name of "protecting" people does not help folks advance.

 

[cawacko]

Coddled? Spare me this knee jerk BS.....defense against cogenital racism and it's after effects is essential. You don't like social programs and anti-defamation/racism rules? Then go kick your like minded buddies in the ass to stop red lining, stop job discrimination, "legacy" preferences in higher education....and when folks who benefit from these practices are no longer "coddled", you won't have to worry about blacks and latinos.

As to your comment about Wall St. if we (Americans) were allowed the option to invest up to 8% or whatever the amount was of S.S. dollars into bonds or mutual funds how are minorities going to be hurt more than anyone else if in the senario you describe something goes wrong?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

really...

on what do you base this? that no one will invade us? tell me you do realize something about money.....

If someone who was holding our debt invaded us it would be they, not we, who lost out.

 

[Cancel10]

How many feet of roads have you built? Schoolhouses? Water and sewer systems? How much money do you give your fire and police departments?
Feed many poor people?
Paid any of their hospital bills?

You have done a bit of all of this and much more thru taxes, but how much would you have done if you did not have to pay taxes?

It is reasonable for the government to provide services which the market cannot adequately/efficiently provide, such as roads, police, sewer systems, etc. Medical care and welfare don't fall under that umbrella, as these are services which private organizations can (and do) provide. Also, it is very unreasonable to have 1/3rd of my income confiscated to guarantee basic services such as police protection, safe roads, and adequate water pressure. All levels of government should not consume more than 20% of GDP. Nobody should have to give up more than 15% of their personal income.

Without taxes there would be less incentive to give to charities.

Uh, wrong. With lower taxes, people would have MORE expendable income, which would be a boon to charitable organizations. What planet are you living on?

 

[cawacko]

Uh, wrong. With lower taxes, people would have MORE expendable income, which would be a boon to charitable organizations. What planet are you living on?

Yeah, that does seem like some ass backward logic.

 

[Cypress]

It is reasonable for the government to provide services which the market cannot adequately/efficiently provide, such as roads, police, sewer systems, etc. Medical care and welfare don't fall under that umbrella, as these are services which private organizations can (and do) provide. Also, it is very unreasonable to have 1/3rd of my income confiscated to guarantee basic services such as police protection, safe roads, and adequate water pressure. All levels of government should not consume more than 20% of GDP. Nobody should have to give up more than 15% of their personal income.



Uh, wrong. With lower taxes, people would have MORE expendable income, which would be a boon to charitable organizations. What planet are you living on?

You just pulled that 15% number out of your ass. It’s just a number that Glenn Beck ordered you to parrot. You have no idea what it costs to provide services that you and the nation rely on, whether you are aware of the benefit or not.

Unless you are a retired person on SS/Medicare, or unless you are in the military, your interaction with the Federal government is extremely limited. It has almost no direct effect on your daily life, in spite of Cons whining about how huge, oppressive, and pervasive the federal government is. Any interaction you have with a government entity in your day to day life is almost always the local and state government – whether it’s the roads you use, the water you use, the schools you use, or the garbage pick up you depend on. You pussy’s are always whining about a Federal government that has virtually no direct relationship with your daily life.

Look, we know what the deal is. The federal government budget is overwhelmingly spent on the Pentagon, Social Security, Medicare, and paying off Reagan’s debt. Outside of those four things, the federal budget is miniscule compared to the nation’s GDP. Republican message board posters, by and large, are outraged that the government pays for retirement and medical insurance for old people and provides a modest medical insurance for people under the poverty line. We all know that fringe rightwingers want to eliminate medicare and social security, but rarely do they have the courage to admit it outside of the anonymity of cyberspace. So, until you convince your GOP politicians to have the balls to admit in public what their base really wants, I’m going to assume your problem with the federal budget is outside the sphere of military spending, and SS/medicare.

The other things the Feds pay for are a tiny fraction of your tax bill, but are necessary services and provide a big bang for the tiny buck you pay for it. Are republican message board posters going to volunteer to inspect foods for pathogens? Are Con message board posters going to volunteer to run a national weather service? Are con message board posters going to volunteer to monitor water and air quality for human health and safety? Are you going to volunteer to maintain and manage our national parks and public lands? You all have neither the expertise to do these things, and these services do not lend themselves to the profit-motive, and these services simply wouldn’t function effectively if left to the devices of libertarian “rational self interest.

So, have the balls to admit you want to eliminate National Parks, Medicare, food inspection, the national weather service, water and air quality monitoring, and federally funded core scientific research.

Or shut the fuck up you pussy.



PS: why do Cons always need pictures of half-naked young ladies in their sigs? Can’t you keep your porn fantasies to yourself, or at least try to get laid?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Imagine if we let Bush and the republicans privatize our social security back in 2005, we would be wiped out now, and no bail either!"

Wrong. Because as usual you pretend that privatization = putting all your money in the stock market. Privatization means the people have control over their own accounts rather than the government. Also, the stock market has not been wiped out since 2005.

Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea
Greg Anrig, Bernard Wasow, The Century Foundation

"Reason #1: Today's insurance to protect workers and their families against death and disability would be threatened."

How? You can allow individuals to invest in annuities if they want the insurance. It also would not affect disability.

"Reason #2: Creating private accounts would make Social Security's financing problem worse, not better."

Wrong. It would force us to pay for it TODAY rather than pawning it off on future generations.

"Reason #3: Creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken Social Security's future finances. "

This is simply absurd. Unless you care to explain how that would happen.

"Reason #4: Privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere."

Again, this makes no sense and is absurd.

"Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully."

As opposed to the government bankrupting the system entirely? I'll put my money on the individuals. It is not like you have to give them access to every type of investment. Hell, you could allow them to only invest in 30 year bonds and they would be better off than the current system.

"Reason #6: What you get will depend on whether you retire when the market is up or down."

If someone were to put their entire account into the market, this is correct.

"Reason #7: Wall Street would reap windfalls from your taxes."

More fearmongering. These accounts could be set up to be run by a non-profit.

"Reason #8: Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy."

Completely false. What bureaucracy would be created?

"Reason #9: Young people would be worse off."

Complete bullshit. Young people would benefit the most. Right now, SS will be gone long before they retire. Yet they will still be putting money into SS for the next 20 years.

"Reason # 10: Women stand to lose the most."

Absurdity.

"Reason #11: African Americans and Latin Americans also would become more vulnerable under privatization."

More absurdity. the above two simply are idiotic attempts to divide people by race and gender on the issue. Unless you care to share WHY it is you think this... or link us to your authors rationalization.

Reason #12: Retirees will not be protected against inflation.

#12 could be true... again, depends on how we structure the accounts. But it is probably the most valid of the 12.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You just pulled that 15% number out of your ass. It’s just a number that Glenn Beck ordered you to parrot. You have no idea what it costs to provide services that you and the nation rely on, whether you are aware of the benefit or not.

Unless you are a retired person on SS/Medicare, or unless you are in the military, your interaction with the Federal government is extremely limited. It has almost no direct effect on your daily life, in spite of Cons whining about how huge, oppressive, and pervasive the federal government is. Any interaction you have with a government entity in your day to day life is almost always the local and state government – whether it’s the roads you use, the water you use, the schools you use, or the garbage pick up you depend on. You pussy’s are always whining about a Federal government that has virtually no direct relationship with your daily life.

Look, we know what the deal is. The federal government budget is overwhelmingly spent on the Pentagon, Social Security, Medicare, and paying off Reagan’s debt. Outside of those four things, the federal budget is miniscule compared to the nation’s GDP. Republican message board posters, by and large, are outraged that the government pays for retirement and medical insurance for old people and provides a modest medical insurance for people under the poverty line. We all know that fringe rightwingers want to eliminate medicare and social security, but rarely do they have the courage to admit it outside of the anonymity of cyberspace. So, until you convince your GOP politicians to have the balls to admit in public what their base really wants, I’m going to assume your problem with the federal budget is outside the sphere of military spending, and SS/medicare.

The other things the Feds pay for are a tiny fraction of your tax bill, but are necessary services and provide a big bang for the tiny buck you pay for it. Are republican message board posters going to volunteer to inspect foods for pathogens? Are Con message board posters going to volunteer to run a national weather service? Are con message board posters going to volunteer to monitor water and air quality for human health and safety? Are you going to volunteer to maintain and manage our national parks and public lands? You all have neither the expertise to do these things, and these services do not lend themselves to the profit-motive, and these services simply wouldn’t function effectively if left to the devices of libertarian “rational self interest.

So, have the balls to admit you want to eliminate National Parks, Medicare, food inspection, the national weather service, water and air quality monitoring, and federally funded core scientific research.

Or shut the fuck up you pussy.



PS: why do Cons always need pictures of half-naked young ladies in their sigs? Can’t you keep your porn fantasies to yourself, or at least try to get laid?

ROFLMAO.... paying off Reagans debt????

Clinton had the same amount as Reagan.

Both Bush's were worse....

and Saint Obama has already EQUALED the amount Reagan added to the debt. (not adjusted for inflation)

As for the rest of your nonsense.... every time someone states a problem with a government program you trot out your ignorant 'you must want to eliminate all government services' line of bullshit.

Social security and Medicare are huge sources of unfunded liabilities. Admit that or 'shut the fuck up u pussy'.

 

[Damocles]

It would be like a government enforced Roth IRA. I like it. If the government is going to force you to do something you should anyway, the least they should do is let you benefit from it and pass it on to the next generation.

 

[Cancel4]

It would be like a government enforced Roth IRA. I like it. If the government is going to force you to do something you should anyway, the least they should do is let you benefit from it and pass it on to the next generation.

You like the idea of government enforcement?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It would be like a government enforced Roth IRA. I like it. If the government is going to force you to do something you should anyway, the least they should do is let you benefit from it and pass it on to the next generation.

Right. More funds for the banks to squander and use to their ends. And if they fuck up, "Hey we need another bailout, it's the OLD PEOPLES LIFE SAAVINGS".

There should be no confidence in these markets, that's why unconditional market positivists are the biggest fasctholes around.

yep. FASCTHOLE. dig on it.

 

[Damocles]

You like the idea of government enforcement?

Not really, but sarcasm doesn't relate well through the interwebs. Although I'd prefer that form to the current one.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Coddled? Spare me this knee jerk BS.....defense against cogenital racism and it's after effects is essential. You don't like social programs and anti-defamation/racism rules? Then go kick your like minded buddies in the ass to stop red lining, stop job discrimination, "legacy" preferences in higher education....and when folks who benefit from these practices are no longer "coddled", you won't have to worry about blacks and latinos.

I support social security. I agree with the arguments that it is an overall benefit to society by keeping people older poor people off the streets and giving help to those who need it. I also support people having the option of personal accounts which are able to be passed on and that benefits the most those who have been discriminated against in the past.

I concur....which is why we need to enforce the regulations that have been stripped away over the years to keep banks in line so that another S&L scandal or Enron does not take place.

I don't participate in job discrimination and I can't help if someone is so ignorant as to not hire the best available candidate because they have something against their race. That's their loss.

Never accused you....go back and read what I was referring to in each instance.

To me if we want to make up for past discrimination then give all people more access to markets and a chance to participate in the economic dream. More big government in the name of "protecting" people does not help folks advance.

Sorry, but recent history just doesn't jibe with your belief. Racism and bigotry is congenital in American society.....so expecting the status quo to suddenly straighten up and fly right because of economic competition ain't happening. Red lining is still a reality....job discrimition is still a reality, predatory lending is still a reality. I can give you examples that are less than 30 years old if you like. Repeating your erroneous take on what the federal gov't does with regards to civil rights in society (i.e., job market) won't make the realities I site here go away.

 

[Taichiliberal]

As to your comment about Wall St. if we (Americans) were allowed the option to invest up to 8% or whatever the amount was of S.S. dollars into bonds or mutual funds how are minorities going to be hurt more than anyone else if in the senario you describe something goes wrong?

Go back and read the respnnse that addresses this.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/reputation.php?p=526231

 

[Good Luck]

The biggest problem with the current system is the way the funds are handled. By law, surplus SS funds are used to purchase U.S. treasury notes, which is, at best, gives a mediocre return. But a mediocre return is better than no return. However, where the REAL problem lies is sale of treasury notes goes into the general fund, which can then be spent on anything the government wants to spend it on. Then when the notes come due, the government has to borrow the money to pay them back. The end result is "investing" (and I use the term loosely) SS surplus in treasury notes ends up adding to the national debt. The idea that the funds can be used as part of the budget is how they pulled off the "balanced budget" under Clinton - when in reality the budget was anything but balanced.

SS surplus should be treated the same way corporations are required to treat their pension funds. A reasonably diversified REAL investment plan; investing in private companies, money markets, even CDs, would realize significantly more return on the funds invested, reduce burden on the federal budget because we would not be using our income taxes to pay the interest on "invested" SS funds, and take the money out of the government's hands so they can not blow it elsewhere on bright ideas like comparing the flow rates of different brands of ketchup.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

The biggest problem with the current system is the way the funds are handled. By law, surplus SS funds are used to purchase U.S. treasury notes, which is, at best, gives a mediocre return. But a mediocre return is better than no return. However, where the REAL problem lies is sale of treasury notes goes into the general fund, which can then be spent on anything the government wants to spend it on. Then when the notes come due, the government has to borrow the money to pay them back. The end result is "investing" (and I use the term loosely) SS surplus in treasury notes ends up adding to the national debt. The idea that the funds can be used as part of the budget is how they pulled off the "balanced budget" under Clinton - when in reality the budget was anything but balanced.

SS surplus should be treated the same way corporations are required to treat their pension funds. A reasonably diversified REAL investment plan; investing in private companies, money markets, even CDs, would realize significantly more return on the funds invested, reduce burden on the federal budget because we would not be using our income taxes to pay the interest on "invested" SS funds, and take the money out of the government's hands so they can not blow it elsewhere on bright ideas like comparing the flow rates of different brands of ketchup.

What really makes me sick is that Social Security and Medicare have an unfunded liability of almost $107 trillion. Congress wants to deflect attention from the fact that they don't want to deal with the problems they already face. This is criminal.

 

[Cancel10]

You just pulled that 15% number out of your ass.

Wrong. I simply have a different notion of what is an acceptable level of taxation. In the early days of our nation, revenue was collected via tariffs and excise taxes. I propose leaving these in place, and instituting a 15% flat rate tax on income exceeding $40k. Russia, Latvia, and several other countries have replaced their "graduated" tax systems with a flat rate. Russia's highest rate used to be around 50%. And yet, their 13% flat rate yields much more revenue than the "progressive" system.

It’s just a number that Glenn Beck ordered you to parrot.

No. Unlike you, I am capable of thinking for myself.

You have no idea what it costs to provide services that you and the nation rely on, whether you are aware of the benefit or not.

Unless you are a retired person on SS/Medicare, or unless you are in the military, your interaction with the Federal government is extremely limited. It has almost no direct effect on your daily life, in spite of Cons whining about how huge, oppressive, and pervasive the federal government is. Any interaction you have with a government entity in your day to day life is almost always the local and state government – whether it’s the roads you use, the water you use, the schools you use, or the garbage pick up you depend on. You pussy’s are always whining about a Federal government that has virtually no direct relationship with your daily life.

Look, we know what the deal is. The federal government budget is overwhelmingly spent on the Pentagon, Social Security, Medicare, and paying off Reagan’s debt. Outside of those four things, the federal budget is miniscule compared to the nation’s GDP. Republican message board posters, by and large, are outraged that the government pays for retirement and medical insurance for old people and provides a modest medical insurance for people under the poverty line. We all know that fringe rightwingers want to eliminate medicare and social security, but rarely do they have the courage to admit it outside of the anonymity of cyberspace. So, until you convince your GOP politicians to have the balls to admit in public what their base really wants, I’m going to assume your problem with the federal budget is outside the sphere of military spending, and SS/medicare.

The other things the Feds pay for are a tiny fraction of your tax bill, but are necessary services and provide a big bang for the tiny buck you pay for it. Are republican message board posters going to volunteer to inspect foods for pathogens? Are Con message board posters going to volunteer to run a national weather service? Are con message board posters going to volunteer to monitor water and air quality for human health and safety? Are you going to volunteer to maintain and manage our national parks and public lands? You all have neither the expertise to do these things, and these services do not lend themselves to the profit-motive, and these services simply wouldn’t function effectively if left to the devices of libertarian “rational self interest.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that all taxes should be eliminated. I'm not an anarchist. What I desire is a simpler, more streamlined approach to government - one which permits Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. If the government simply did its job and stopped wasting our tax dollars on bullshit pork projects, 15% of our income would be more than sufficient.

Or shut the fuck up you pussy.

Evidently, you are incapable of discussing the issues like a mature adult.

PS: why do Cons...

I'm a libertarian, which means I believe in individual liberty. Unlike you, I believe people should be free to decide what is best for their life. People should be free to hire/fire who they want, fuck who they want, smoke what they want, own as many guns as they want, and believe in whatever god they want. I don't give a fuck what people decide to do with their life. Unlike you, I believe people are capable of choosing their own path.

 

[Cancel10]

What really makes me sick is that Social Security and Medicare have an unfunded liability of almost $107 trillion. Congress wants to deflect attention from the fact that they don't want to deal with the problems they already face. This is criminal.

That is why, frankly, the only solution is to scrap the entire system. Anyone who didn't save for retirement is a retard anyway.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The biggest problem with the current system is the way the funds are handled. By law, surplus SS funds are used to purchase U.S. treasury notes, which is, at best, gives a mediocre return. But a mediocre return is better than no return.

It's mediocore but certain. We can't morally just let seniors starve; taxing them and giving them the money back later is really just a fancy form of mandatory insurance. Seniors were by far the poorest part of society until FDR passed SS.

However, where the REAL problem lies is sale of treasury notes goes into the general fund, which can then be spent on anything the government wants to spend it on. Then when the notes come due, the government has to borrow the money to pay them back. The end result is "investing" (and I use the term loosely) SS surplus in treasury notes ends up adding to the national debt. The idea that the funds can be used as part of the budget is how they pulled off the "balanced budget" under Clinton - when in reality the budget was anything but balanced.

Not counting the money taken from SS taxes the deficit was about 100 billion. Which was low enough that it reduced our debt as a % of GDP, at least.

SS surplus should be treated the same way corporations are required to treat their pension funds. A reasonably diversified REAL investment plan; investing in private companies, money markets, even CDs, would realize significantly more return on the funds invested,

Except when you're in that bust cycle...

Nowhere in the world can you have your cake and eat it too.

reduce burden on the federal budget because we would not be using our income taxes to pay the interest on "invested" SS funds,

This is silly. If the government can't borrow it from ultra-regressive SS taxes it'll just borrow it elsewhere.

and take the money out of the government's hands so they can not blow it elsewhere on bright ideas like comparing the flow rates of different brands of ketchup.

I realize our conversations end in this way a little often, but you're a moron.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I'm a libertarian, which means I believe in individual liberty. Unlike you, I believe people should be free to decide what is best for their life. People should be free to hire/fire who they want, fuck who they want, smoke what they want, own as many guns as they want, and believe in whatever god they want. I don't give a fuck what people decide to do with their life. Unlike you, I believe people are capable of choosing their own path.

1. Ban hiring white people.
2. Ban fucking southerners. Mandatory abortions for those who do.
3. Pot-smoking should be mandatory.
4. Ban all guns.
5. Illegalize Christianity under penalty of death.