Social Security: No downside/All upside? ( vanity)

My brain | 3 Feb 2005 | Finalapproach29er

[Finalapproach29er]

Here is how W can sell his plan, starting today.

This hasn't been said by anybody yet, as far as I know, so somebody explain to me if I'm wrong.

[Finalapproach29er]

Why are people scared of losing money in the markets-but not also the solvency of Soc.Security, which also relies on a strong American economy?

If a generation from now people are going to need to take a 30% cut under current assumptions of moderate economic growth, what do these "skeptics" think is going to happen to their Soc.Security check if the American economy collapses, as they fear? It's gone too,also, right?

Don't they understand that?

If you invest in America you are guaranteed to win with even modest growth (compound interest miracle), but if you lose money investing in America that means the American economy isn't going to have money for Social Sec. anyway, so Social Security would also collapse. Right?

So what is the downside to investing that doesn't also exist with the current system? They both depend on healthy economic growth.

The only difference is the ability to make money with one choice or make nothing with the other choice.

Why doesn't the President just explain that concept?

Am I missing something?

(Besides, America will be fine as long as people remain free.)

[DustyMoment]

Am I missing something?

Yes, two things. First, the most prominent group afraid of losing revenue is NOT among SS recipients or even potential recipients . . . it is our elected officials in both houses of Congress. SS does not have a "lockbox", nor is there a "trust fund" as most of us have been told for decades. When LBJ began his War on Poverty in the 60s, he began raiding SS funds. That's why something that is supposed to be a "trust fund" started going broke and required increased tax withholding 2 or 3 time over the past 30 - 40 years. A trust fund shouldn't go broke unless it is being mismanaged or severely overspent.

What politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle have down is comingle SS revenues with the general fund, and spent the SS money on vote buying schemes. More polite writers like to say that they have "borrowed" against the SS funds - I'm not so polite. They have robbed it blind and left us with trillions of dollars in debt to repay these funds. And the moneu simply isn't there.

Congress is currently robbing from the X- and Y-Gen'ers to pay the SS retirement pittance of Baby Boomers and pre-Baby Boomers. As more Baby Boomers retire, the burden on the X- and Y-Gen'ers will be huge, because neither generation had enough children to replace the population. So, the choice is to raise SS taxes on these generations - or cut benefits.

Congress knows that older folks - especially Baby Boomers and pre-Baby Boomers, vote. And, with socialist PACs like AARP fronting for them, the Baby Boomers are trying to set up a generation war in which the younger, working folks are going to be screwed royally so that the Congress doesn't have to admit that it has robbed the money and must either cut benefits or raise taxes - and raise the retirement age so that they don't have to pay out any of the SS money if they can avoid it.

As a Baby Boomer who is approaching retirement, I am terribly disturbed at the generation war that is being set up by our politians. It is literally going to come down to a choice between supporting retired people whose money has been stolen all the time that they were working, or younger, working people having to pay substantially higher taxes to support and maintain a ponzi scheme that needs to die as ugly a death as it can.

The problem is that it won't happen. The Dems are willing to fall on their swords to protect their sacred money grabbing scheme (which is all SS ever was). So, we have two groups who are mutually opposed over one issue. Me, personally, I've always known that I would get screwed on SS and would just as soon give up what I lnow I'm not going to get anyway in order for the X- and Y-Gen'ers to be able to own their retirement plan and keep it out of the hands of our elected thieves' hands. I'm in favor of anything Bush wants to do that starts transitioning SS from its current status to anything else. But the Dems and their RINO counteparts are going to do everything in their power to keep Bush from succeeding.

With AARP on the Dem bandwagon trying to scare granny into believeing that she won't get as much money or her drug benes will be cut, the battle lines will be drawn detween the generations . . . . . . . . all because a bunch of elected thieves and liars are going to go into a full court press to keep their money train going and prevent having to admit that they have stolen the SS revenues and have nothing to pay out.

[ken5050]

Polls show that ALREADY the idea of private accounts is wildly popular withthose under 45...the Dems are backing a dead horse..