Privatize Social Security?: Slate Lets Eliot Spitzer Hold Forth On Social Security

Slate ^ | February 4, 2009 | Eliot Spitzer

[an amused spectator]

http://www.slate.com/id/2210414/

[an amused spectator]

An expert boob on something other than his favorite subject, boobs.

[Badeye]

I might bother with this punk if it was related to legalizing prostitution, but thats it.

Go away Prince Eliot...your steamroller turned out to be a Prius....

[muawiyah]

No doubt Eliot is more experienced with medically necessary short arm inspections than with Social Security.

[an amused spectator]

It’s like living in Wonderland.

[Badeye]

I’d say its more a comment about Slate, and its lack of audience, than anything else.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Spitzer is actually making a valid point, that if you want to have at least a semi-privatized system, you need to have some method of smoothing returns based on the economy’s performance over at least a decade, otherwise you have the situation he cites where the timing of workforce entry in retirement can create huge differences in returns as a result of only a year or two’s differences in entry in exit dates.

The only reasonable Contra claim is that “Well, that’s just the luck of the draw”, however one condition of a stable society is that participants expect reasonably similar results in return for reasonably similar behavior, if that’s not the case arrangements will inevitably be perceived as “unfair”, and participants will use the political system to readjust the results.

[an amused spectator]

Spitzer is actually making a valid point, that if you want to have at least a semi-privatized system, you need to have some method of smoothing returns based on the economy’s performance over at least a decade, otherwise you have the situation he cites where the timing of workforce entry in retirement can create huge differences in returns as a result of only a year or two’s differences in entry in exit dates.

You also have to have some method of making sure that one of the political parties doesn't deliberately implode the stock market for political gain.

This is why the whoring Tax-Cheat schlub is full of baloney.

There's a saying: "There are no coincidences in politics". After 12 years at Free Republic, I believe it.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“You also have to have some method of making sure that one of the political parties doesn’t deliberately implode the stock market for political gain.”

Counting the minutes until the majority party orders an investigation, into its role in imploding the economy.

[NativeNewYorker]

[2harddrive]

Spitzer always had a way with figures! Like most politicians, he prefers them rounded!

[Brad from Tennessee]

What effect would billions of dollars of new retirement account money, beginning in 2006, have had on the markets? Since this money would be invested long-run would it have had an stabilizing effect or not?

[an amused spectator]

"...he prefers them rounded."

LOL!

[an amused spectator]

Since this money would be invested long-run would it have had an stabilizing effect or not?

My opinion would be "yes", in an honest market.

[an amused spectator]

Counting the minutes until the majority party orders an investigation, into its role in imploding the economy.

Barney and Chris are ALL over the one...

[Brad from Tennessee]

Thanks.

[sportutegrl]

If the Porkulus passes, does anyone believe that the government will have any money left to pay for the current workers future social security?

[2harddrive]

You GOT it! I was wondering if anyone would. Wasn’t that last babe Spitzer had HOT? LOL.