Posted on 11/17/2003 3:01:17 PM PST by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:55 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
With the stock market climbing and a re-election campaign approaching, the Bush administration is renewing its push to overhaul Social Security with personal investment accounts.
The Social Security Administration, with AARP and the National Association of Manufacturers, is organizing town hall meetings across the country to help build public support for changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
If the current SS System = Enron, then Dubya's "privatization" plan = Arthur Anderson.
Both major political parties perpetuate The Big Lie regarding Social Security. The Big Lie has existed since Social Security's inception. The debate over "privatization" is only the latest version of The Big Lie.
The Big Lie is that Social Security is some kind of retirement savings plan.
It is NOT.
Social Security is a socialist income redistribution scheme, nothing else.
Those who are working are taxed to provide a "safety net" for those who are less fortunate.
Originally, this meant retirees and surviving dependents.
Congress has, of course, complicated it far beyond this over the last 65 years.
But one fact remains: it is NOT a "savings plan", it is an income redistribution scheme.
A major facet of The Big Lie is that "we have to do something so that Social Security remains solvent in the future.
Poppycock!
In today's age of modern computerization, the computation for operating an income redistribution scheme that remains perpetually solvent is quite simple:
The only change necessary to the current system is that monthly payments to eligible recipients would be a variable amount, not fixed.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR "TRUST" FUND!!!
Congress should NEVER have been permitted to confiscate so much money from the American People in the name of The Big Lie. This fund is nothing but a slush fund that Congress raids to pay for other government expenditures. If private sector employers did the same thing with their companies' pension funds, they'd be placed in prison. The "privatization" plan proposed by Bush is merely an attempt by Wall Street brokerage firms and financial institutions to get in on the scam: grab a portion of a constant revenue stream (guaranteed by taxation) from which they can skim their commissions.
Daschle's "concern" over the Social Security system is a lie.
Bush's plan to Enronize the system is worse.
The American People need to wake up and put these liars and thieves in prison.
This is ridiculous. Retirees keep their existing benefits; it should make no difference to them whatsoever. Yes, Democrats are lying through their teeth trying to convince them that Republicans want to starve them. But if the GOP can't win on this issue with the facts so clearly on their side, they don't deserve to exist as a party.
1) Leave SS as it is, requiring an increase in taxes and age of eligibility
2) Privatize it so people have 401(k)/IRA type plans that they own
3) Totally eliminate SS all together. Halt payments and halt the collection of the SS portion of FICA
4) Eliminate SS for all those not currently on it and those under a certain age, and pay those currently on it and above a certain age upon their reaching eligibility age
So, which option do you favor and why?
Personally, I would like to see it privatized, providing every American with a 401(k)/IRA type account that they own and control.
I already explained my preference and reject your exclusion of such alternatives.
I expect what I put in and under the terms in effect during the time they took it from me.
Your "alternative" is either a cut in benefits or a tax increase. The ratio of workers to retirees is constantly decreasing, so either taxes must increase or benefits must fall.
On this thread? Please point me to them. If not on this thread, please tell me what your alternatives are. Thanks!
While that may be the current trend of the ratio, I don't accept that it is a "constant" trend,
Furthermore, benefit payouts are intentionally made variable. They will both increase and decrease in relation to the business cycle.
That is in keeping with longstanding government policy that it is merely a "safety net", not intended to be the sole source of retirement income.
It's staring right at you in reply #3.
It's based on the solid premise that all proposals eminating from Washington D.C. originate with corrupt liars and thieves, no matter their party affiliation.
Prove me wrong.
There's always the possibility that you (and those who opt for privitization) will be in dire straits (for whatever reason: you neglect to save or invest; the stock market crashes; your children somehow screw up your retirement plan, etc.) in your older years and there ain't no way Americans are going to just say, "Well, FF made his own bed, let him lie in it. He opted out way back when. Too bad he's now a frail old man starving to death out in the cold...." You get the picture. The possibility exists that, even if you opt out of current SS, American workers will still have to provide for you later on.
That said, I'm really interested in what this admin will offer as an alternative and generally agree with some sort of privitization -- stop stealing from my paycheck and let me manage it.
I'm hoping there will be some sort of grandfather clause because like another poster whose name I forget I made a deal with the gov't and have been paying into this bottomless hole and I expect to get my $$ back, dadgummit!
<><
Ditto. And not one red cent less!
<><
The thieves won't permit it. Unless they can dip into your cash flow, they can't skim off a percentage for themselves and their cronies.
As for social security it's simple.......40 million people who are not born to pay into the system are the problem. Instead, we are going to open the borders to Mexico and allow about 75 million in, in order to keep SSI solvent. It's really very simple. The only cuts they need to make are all the disability and other groups which got tagged on to buy more votes in the 50's and 60's. Half those collecting are not collecting retirement benefits they are collecting disability. Drug addicts, mental cases, alchoholics, and such........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.