Will Obama cave on Social Security?

[Cancel 2020.1]

That would have worked well in the last decade huh?

The only greater returns would be for wall street. Frankly, I am surprised you are on this side of this thing.

It actually would have worked great over the last decade.

Over the last 5 years? Not so much. But we're not talking about 5 years - for most workers, we're talking about 30-40 years. Higher return is guaranteed.

Lefties who knee-jerk against privatizing kind of tick me off, because the current program is unsustainable, and the net result is less security for seniors & future generations.

 

[Rune]

It actually would have worked great over the last decade.

Over the last 5 years? Not so much. But we're not talking about 5 years - for most workers, we're talking about 30-40 years. Higher return is guaranteed.

Lefties who knee-jerk against privatizing kind of tick me off, because the current program is unsustainable, and the net result is less security for seniors & future generations.

It is perfectly sustainable with some adjustments. For example, eliminating the earnings cap.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

It is perfectly sustainable with some adjustments. For example, eliminating the earnings cap.

It's a myth that it's sustainable with "tweaks." Every tweak involved more revenue - what that means is even more of the budget pie, which ends up taking money from other valuable programs. Eventually, it will eclipse everything else. CBO estimates also take into account only modest increases in population & life expectancy; we could see radical changes in both.

It's beside the point. Privatizing means more return, and greater security for seniors. There is no logical argument against it, except that it's a "rightie" idea.

 

[Rune]

It's a myth that it's sustainable with "tweaks." Every tweak involved more revenue - what that means is even more of the budget pie, which ends up taking money from other valuable programs. Eventually, it will eclipse everything else. CBO estimates also take into account only modest increases in population & life expectancy; we could see radical changes in both.

It's beside the point. Privatizing means more return, and greater security for seniors. There is no logical argument against it, except that it's a "rightie" idea.

Why are you against removing the earnings cap?
Why do you want to hand more money to wall street?
Show how secure investors in wall sreet are (lol).
You have to be kidding right now.

The larger percentage that wall sreet handles the less secure the entire world is.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Why are you against removing the earnings cap?
Why do you want to hand more money to wall street?
Show how secure investors in wall sreet are (lol).
You have to be kidding right now.

The larger percentage that wall sreet handles the less secure the entire world is.

Removing the earnings cap is fine. It's also a temporary band-aid.

When Wall Street does well, companies hire. When it doesn't, companies fire. After 2008, I shouldn't have to explain that to anyone. Wall Street doesn't exist in some sort of vacuum.

 

[Rune]

Removing the earnings cap is fine. It's also a temporary band-aid.

When Wall Street does well, companies hire. When it doesn't, companies fire. After 2008, I shouldn't have to explain that to anyone. Wall Street doesn't exist in some sort of vacuum.

When wall street fucks up companies fire. When wall street bets wrong, poor people starve.

Explain why my fortune should depend on some asshole not overextending his comapny?

 

[Rune]

I can't believe you are falling for this shit.

This is exactly what the neo-cons hoped for when they set out to destroy the economy.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I can't believe you are falling for this shit.

This is exactly what the neo-cons hoped for when they set out to destroy the economy.

And I can't believe you're falling for the "all we need to do is tweak" argument.

By 2032, they'll have to cut SS paychecks 25% - at minimum. Good luck being a senior that day. In fact, most people who are under the age of 50 don't even thing SS will be there for them.

 

[Rune]

And I can't believe you're falling for the "all we need to do is tweak" argument.

By 2032, they'll have to cut SS paychecks 25% - at minimum. Good luck being a senior that day. In fact, most people who are under the age of 50 don't even thing SS will be there for them.

So I imagine you will not be entirely dependent upon it, will you?
How many have lost their fortunes to wall street?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

So I imagine you will not be entirely dependent upon it, will you?
How many have lost their fortunes to wall street?

It bothers me that I have contributed so much to a program that has almost nothing in the way of return and which likely won't be there when I need it.

Had that contribution gone toward a real investment, I'd be looking at a comfortable retirement through that program alone.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

And I can't believe you're falling for the "all we need to do is tweak" argument.

By 2032, they'll have to cut SS paychecks 25% - at minimum. Good luck being a senior that day. In fact, most people who are under the age of 50 don't even thing SS will be there for them.

I certainly don't and none of my similarly aged friends do either. We'd rather opt out.

 

[Rune]

I don't like having 40% of my tax dollars go to interest and 50% of the remainder to the MIC. Maybe we could start there instead.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I certainly don't and none of my similarly aged friends do either. We'd rather opt out.

You can't opt out accept your fate. It has been sealed

All you can do is make plans outside the "system"

 

[Banned]

Can anyone explain to me why privatizing Social Security is not a good option?

all those millions of people cashing out their 401K's?

 

[007]

Not likely.

Private pensions will be seized to fund it!