Social Secrity should become privatized
MorgMcA said 03/24, 06:44 PM
As our society ages and more and more people retire at the same time as families get smaller, soon more people will be collecting social security than paying it. the US government will go bankrupt faster than any iraq/katrina/war-on-terror/current-deficit-spending ever could, the economy as a whole will go belly up, and the people who should be recieving payments will be forced to go back to work anyways. the only remaining solution, get government out of the retirement business and put people back in charge of their own well-being.
base89 said 03/24, 07:13 PM
It is a simple case of don't fix what isn't broken. The system we use for Social Security works, and works quite well, so why changes the system when the only problem is the funding, not the system itself? As for the funding, this is another simple solution, we need to stop raiding the fund for Social Security. Every time we level off the funding problem, it is then used for some other program. It was raided in 2001 for rebuilding in New York, now while that is something that needed to be done, the Social Security fund is not where the money should have come from, same goes for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that took what remained of the funding. Now, you say privatization, who will manage the system, profit driven corporations or banks? We have seen over and over, what entrusting valuable public needs to private enterprise has done to us, our healthcare system is a prime example being strangled by the profit driven insurance industry. When you entrust a social program meant to help all Americans to a free enterprise system, it's not cost effective to serve the people it was meant to due to lack of profitability. The public wellbeing should always be a non-profit organization.
MorgMcA said 03/26, 11:33 PM
so let's fix what IS broken. the system is broken, SS was designed for two parts.
1. that the retired can have a decent living, they can't do that now, (how many "retired" people do you see working at walmart or walgreens). to live off SS my father will have to live in mexico. he's paid SS all his life, is 59 hoping to retire at 70 (not 60).
2. you're right we do siphon off money from SS to pay for other government projects, because everyone expected that we would always have a young, eneregetic, productive economy and society. not a society bulked up in the baby boomers and their retiring masses. it was designed so that the gov can create an automatic and continual tax surplus to balance other needs. this surplus will become a defecit within 10 years.
second the gov is broken, burdened not with a governing role (keeping the peace, admin justice, etc.) but an economic role, (maintaining a persons buying power and lifestyle). yes gov can stimulate the economy, but it should not run the economy (communism, socialism)
private business' have prove able to make things efficient and effective.
HC isn't fully privatized, it's part so. i didn't buy my HC my employer did
base89 said 03/27, 02:01 PM
The fact that more and more retirees having to work is by no means the fault of Social Security. That is the crumbling economic situation due to higher costs of living, and corporate power and greed. Companies are trying to save money so they cut pensions and retirement benefits, but to address another point you made, if healthcare was a government single payer system, then major companies could save billions by not having to supply employees with their healthcare and their costs. What the main problem with this argument is you have put the blame of many socio-economic problems on the shoulders of Social Security where that blame is not due. As I stated somewhere below, the debate is whether or not we should privatize, not whether or not the system itself works, we must not change to a privatized system just because a working system has hit a wall due to conditions not of it's own fault, as long as we control the funding, make it more transparent to the public, and keep frivolously spending hands out of it, the system will continue to work. The point of a system such as this is not just for the gain of the individual, but it is for the gain of the nation as a whole in the end.
MorgMcA said 03/27, 11:11 PM
whether it is the fault of SS or not is moot. point the point is, SS is supposed to prevent it and it doesnt.
i hope you realize that our current HC problem comes from another part of Gov's meddling in the economy (where the blame is due). In WWII the US was in the midst of a major economic upswing, wages were rising as each company fought to gain a competive edge by having the best employees. the gov put a cap on wages but allowed companies to compete by offering benefits, the prices of which were peaked (by gov) so that companies were effectively the only ones able to offer them.
the SS program needs to be privatized, albeit slowly, because the more government regulates and determines the economy the more it chokes it. government is the only organization that is so beauraucratic it has to hire people, to form a commitee, to see if it can legally and fairly lay people off. private companies are not burdened by nearly as much red tape, are regulated enough to be more transparent than any gov agency ever was, and can adapt to a changing economy and society and still produce the results the consumer expects. thats the name of the game, to adapt, and govs are terrible at it
base89 said 03/28, 04:17 PM
How is the point of fault moot when you've been arguing it this whole time as relevant, and the rest of your arguments you have made are within the same context. You're arguing ten different subjects that in the end, are not relevant to why we should privatize Social Security, I have argued simply that we shouldn't due to the fact that the system itself does work, and works quite well, we shouldn't scrap a working system because outside situations are dragging it down, not the system itself. I have debated this countless times here, with you and below. Frankly I'm tired of doing so, you have argued in circles, and then came to the conclusion the points you've argued are now moot, you never stayed totally true to your main argument, I argued why we should not privatize due to the working system we have, nothing else, you have brought in ten other different debates entirely, given the allotted space, it takes quite a bit to make the arguments against everything you've brought up (see below). Yet the tactic seems to have worked, I would have gladly held a total debate on government spending had you made that the subject, but you made the subject focused, just not the arguments.
Comments
Add Your Comment
You know, I wonder how much money you have. Since i see it all the time, people who speak with the same mindset as you, but when they loose their money 'investing' or through bad stocks, a failed economy, most people who have your mentality, but are middle to lower class then start asking where is the government, and saying that the government should help, so why not create systems that help people before an emergency hits and they need it now? Also, technically, you have your terminology wrong, liberals are on the left side of the political spectrum while socialists are on the far right, if you feel the need to insult people who lean to the left with meaningless labels, at least use the right one and call me a communist.
base89 | 03/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Actually base89 socialist is middle left leading up to communism. Since I believe you were thinking of Fascism, a great read for you would be Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." You'd probably find if very enlightening. FDR is probably feeling let down right about now since you have his picture up and don't even know what he stood for with the "New Deal". Conservatives thought he was moving the government towards....yes Socialism!!! And no Base89, I would never ask where is the government. I want way less government. We were meant to support the government for military protection, the government was never supposed to support us. So before "you" go and make corrections, make sure you know what the terminology I am using means. Also you should probably read my previous post. I said we should be able to invest "some", key words are important, of the money we are now required to invest. I know we couldn't do away with SS all the way, since there are already people banking on the money. I'll quit making you look stupid now, goodnight.
ShawnF | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
my problem with the social security system is that the government is essentially lying to us. I don't oppose the actual program, but they need to conduct themselves with a little more honesty and transparency and stick to the principles (don't take the money for one clear purpose then waste it on a million other ones)
Skipper04 | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
A government is set up to protect the citizens of the state. A private company is set up to make as much money as possible. While private companies are naturally less wasteful than the government, that doesn't automatically translate into benefits for the end user. While I don't really agree with his principles on investment, Shawn is correct in his assesment of socialism, which is a left wing ideology.
Tickers | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
So base89, at the current rate of growth compared to the "baby boomers", there is a roughly 30-40% difference. So this means that if I am lucky enough to get some of the money back when I turn 65, I will get $.70 on the dollar. Wow, what I great investment. I'm sure I'd never be able to come up with those numbers in the private sectors! A 30% loss! Phenomenal! C'mon, I can get a savings account with a 4% return. That alone is a difference of 7%. The last time I checked savings accounts had 0% risk up to $100,000. Let's say we do decide to give more funding to Social Security. That means I pay more money to maybe break even and not lose some of my money. What a deal! Sorry Social Security is not good. You might try and use the arguement that other programs can be cut to give more money to SS. But if Hillary or Obama are elected more (large scale) programs are going to be created (i.e. socialized medicine). So maybe we should just give all of our paycheck to the government, and they can decide what to do with it since they know best!! What a joke.
ShawnF | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
I have to agree with Shawn on this one. My money is my money, not anyone elses. And Base, I am from the middle-class. Right now I'm the lower half, being in college and trying to work my way through. However, the system does not work. The system does not work because the government takes money out of it for alternate reasons then it is designed for. As long as the government keeps doing this, which it will no matter who is in office. Than I say I'm not paying a dime, i'll provide my own nest-egg.
shrek | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Skipper, that is the exact argument I made about not opposing the program, and not spending it on other programs. Shawn, I read that book, and it was the worst book I've ever read, by your own admission you stated that fascism is on the far right, so how can there be 'liberal' fascism, the title shows you already that the writer has no idea what he's talking about. First of all, Facsim and original socialism are on the right, Democratic Socialism is more left leaning, and Fascism, which is giving corporations more control over the government, is what is happening now to our government, Reagan started this trend. You said about your .70 cents to a dollar remark that you could get a better rate in the private sector, yes, you could if you invested enough, since it is the banks and investment firms trend to give better rates to the richer investors to bring in more high dollar clients, which does work, but then the lower dollar clients (i.e. middle class persons such as myself and shrek)we are stuck with the higher rates to make up for the rate gap left over for offering the higher dollar clients the lower rates, so you may get a better return in private investment, but only if you invest enough to start with. Now, all of you that are opposing me down here are doing so by saying that the system is defunct due to the fact that the government raids the fund, I know that since that is what I argued, it really seems that all you did was read the first couple of lines and stopped there, I agree the system does not work if the fund is raided every few years, that was part of my argument, but if you read the subject, it is, 'Social Security should be privatized' not 'The Social Security system does not work'. The system itself does work, it has worked since the 30's, so why do we need to scrap a working system for one we don't know for sure if it will work (I feel it won't given the private sectors record lately), when all we need to do is put more transparency in and keep the fund from being plundered whenever a President wants to invade another country for spurious reasons.
base89 | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Democratic socialism? Socialism is socialism. Are you that dense. Just please admit you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about. And the problem with SS is it's pay-as-you-go. That can never work. When there is 30% more people drawing the money than paying in, this might not add up! Of course you think it was the worst book ever written, you're a liberal. The books point was liberals have more in common with facists than conservatives do since extreme left and extreme right share 70% of their characteristics.
ShawnF | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
You throw a statement at me like that and you call me dense?! There is a difference in the two types of socialism, but that really isn't an issue, you're calling me a fascist since I want to keep programs that help the average citizen? America is severely crippled due to eight years of a conservative president, twelve years of a conservative congress as of 2006, and you are here telling me that it is the liberals that are causing America all of it's problems? You're side has increasingly given the corporate world less regulations, more power over congress to dictate policy, which has led to more unemployment, lower taxes for companies that go overseas, unsafe products for consumers, skyrocketing health care costs, the death of the pension and labor union in this country, which is fascism! Pay as you go is bad? Everything you do is pay as you go, you buy insurance, that's pay as you go, you mortgage a house, that's pay as you go, you lease a car, that's pay as you go. All that book did was the classic conservative tactic which is what you're trying to do with Bush right now, he was a champion of all conservatives, until his policies finally caught up with you, and they actually affected you, so, of course he wasn't a real conservative. Conservatives have been on the opposite side of progress during every major period of American history.
base89 | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Conservatism in America has been a tradition of trying to preserves the status quo of the times and to not 'rock the boat' so to speak. Conservatives were the torries that did want to rebel from the crown, they were the ones who did not want to ratify the constitution in the 1780's, they supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, they opposed the Louisiana purchase, they opposed the abolition of slavery, they supported the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War 1, they supported isolationism, they opposed rights for African-Americans all the way through the 1960's (Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964), they have supported the Iraq war, corporate deregulation, the patriot act, and you sir made the argument on another debate in favor of torture, all of those have been utterly disastrous for America.
base89 | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry base89, President Bush isn't a conservative!! Corporations should have less regulations. Any economist will tell you that. I also have to tell you unemployment went up due to the minimum wage, which is a liberal policy. Before minimum wage African Americans had the lowest unemployment rate, after the highest. Also if the minimum wage is raised to $9.00 an hour, which Hillary wants to do, there will be over 2,000,000 lost jobs. Basic economics! Labor unions do nothing but drive up wages above production so companies such as GM have to pay workers more than their output. Another basic economic function is do what you do best, and trade for the rest. If a company is no longer competitive they should be driven out or go elsewhere where they can be more viable. Do we complain the Toyota and Honda build there vehicles here now and give Americans jobs? I didn't think so. It's ok if other countries do this, but not us? Companies naturally want to stay in business, drive costs, maximize profits, and pay workers as much as they can (based on production) and still stay in operation. Happy workers make more productive workers.
ShawnF | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
The reason so many are left behind is due to lack of proper educations, since we do not have nearly enough money going into our educational system, which is a conservative policy, we have to raise minimum wage for the fact that cost of living keeps going up without any sort of regulation on prices for fuel food and land (conservative policies) that we have to raise minimum wage, but it is not to purposely leave people behind, we have to save those that have the educations to work the jobs available, and then educate those who cannot so they can too, which will lead in all workers being eligible for a decent living (a liberal policy).
base89 | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Any economist will tell you that, because economists study on how to make the economy soar without any hang ups, but a government has more responsibilities than just a good economy, it is possible to have a good economy and help those in need of help so they can have a decent living within this country. China is a good example, their economy is doing great, but the majority of their population is well below the poverty line, since their government is only wanting to bring in the money, and their are no worker regulations, safety standards or cost of living increases, so yes China has a great economy, but nothing else, I suppose that's what we need here? Or should we have a government that wants a good economy, but an economy all citizens can benefit from, giving every American a fighting chance at the so called 'American dream'? I'm not sure about you, but I prefer the latter.
base89 | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Haha you think you have it nailed on the head! The regulation is the market!!! It's called an equilibrium!! If something costs to much people won't buy it! Please pleae please study economics. When people didn't have work experience they could bargain their wage and gain free education!! After you have work experience and something to offer the company, your wage would go up. But after minimum wage was put into place, this was not possible anymore!
ShawnF | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
That's exaclty why America is heading down the tubes. People think just because they are American they are entitled to a golden lifestyle with no problems. You reap what you sew! I should work my butt off for somebody that wants to sit on theirs?
ShawnF | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
If something cost to much people won't buy it? Oil costs to much, but we buy it because we need it, food costs are rising to high for many more people a day, but we still buy because we need it, medical insurance costs to much, but (those who can actually afford it) people buy it because we need it. The market is not the regulation on things we need, which we are being charged exponentially more for every year. Stop telling me to study economics, and why don't you live and work in the real world, which I have been doing along with school, I've seen what the rising costs of living has done to the average worker first hand. You blame the minimum wage, well what about the fact that while cost of living was still going up since 2000, there was no minimum wage increase from 1998 to 2007, why did the costs keep rising if minimum wage was the cause? Also, by the way, Bush supports or has supported every position that conservatives do, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck.
base89 | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
People do not think their entitled to a golden lifestyle, just one where they can feed their children, give them a good education and not have to worry about loosing their houses or jobs on a daily basis. We feel we should have an average to decent living since America is supposedly the richest country in the world, so why cannot the richest nation in the world make sure that all of its citizens have enough food on their plates, and a roof over their head, that does not seem like an air of entitlement to me, just basic human rights. We work for our living, but it gets near impossible when the amount of jobs available is half of the amount of capable workers since the other jobs went overseas. The majority of Americans want to work and work hard, but we can't when no one wants workers.
base89 | 03/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Play me a sad sad song. I'm also in school living off student loans and a serving job. So you won't get a pitty party from me!
ShawnF | 03/25/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Yeah well we should have the option of taking some of the money that "we" earn and invest it where we know we will see the money. But this is where liberal socialistic views keep people from investing and saving as so many other countries do. Why invest when the nanny-state is going take care of you.
ShawnF | 03/24/08
Report Offensive Comment