a question for the democrats/socialists/brtd

[WalterMitty]

since the one of the main arguments against SS privatization is that people will be reckless with their investments and end up blowing their nest egg (a condescending and elitist argument, by the way)....i have an idea that maybe you all will like....

why dont we all forfeit our paychecks to the government every week and have them manage our money for us.  they could pay our bills with it, and if there is any left over they could give us a little allowance.

ive heard that some people blow their pay checks every week.  we just cant have this.  the idea of people doing what they want with their money (including making bad decisions) is just disturbing.  we really need people like barbara boxer and teddy kennedy helping us commoners out.  we are lost in the wilderness without their wisdom....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

since the one of the main arguments against SS privatization is that people will be reckless with their investments and end up blowing their nest egg (a condescending and elitist argument, by the way)....i have an idea that maybe you all will like....

why dont we all forfeit our paychecks to the government every week and have them manage our money for us.  they could pay our bills with it, and if there is any left over they could give us a little allowance.

ive heard that some people blow their pay checks every week.  we just cant have this.  the idea of people doing what they want with their money (including making bad decisions) is just disturbing.  we really need people like barbara boxer and teddy kennedy helping us commoners out.  we are lost in the wilderness without their wisdom....

Does your company force you to spend money a certain way?

Because that's what will happen with SS privatization.

[WalterMitty]

since the one of the main arguments against SS privatization is that people will be reckless with their investments and end up blowing their nest egg (a condescending and elitist argument, by the way)....i have an idea that maybe you all will like....

why dont we all forfeit our paychecks to the government every week and have them manage our money for us.  they could pay our bills with it, and if there is any left over they could give us a little allowance.

ive heard that some people blow their pay checks every week.  we just cant have this.  the idea of people doing what they want with their money (including making bad decisions) is just disturbing.  we really need people like barbara boxer and teddy kennedy helping us commoners out.  we are lost in the wilderness without their wisdom....

Does your company force you to spend money a certain way?

Because that's what will happen with SS privatization.

of course im opposed to the government forcing anything on us.

i support full privatization.  however, i know that is unlikely to happen.  so we must support bush's (modest) plan.

[John Dibble]

since the one of the main arguments against SS privatization is that people will be reckless with their investments and end up blowing their nest egg (a condescending and elitist argument, by the way)....i have an idea that maybe you all will like....

why dont we all forfeit our paychecks to the government every week and have them manage our money for us.  they could pay our bills with it, and if there is any left over they could give us a little allowance.

ive heard that some people blow their pay checks every week.  we just cant have this.  the idea of people doing what they want with their money (including making bad decisions) is just disturbing.  we really need people like barbara boxer and teddy kennedy helping us commoners out.  we are lost in the wilderness without their wisdom....

Does your company force you to spend money a certain way?

Because that's what will happen with SS privatization.

As opposed to now, when the government forces you to hand over your money and... oh, wait.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

since the one of the main arguments against SS privatization is that people will be reckless with their investments and end up blowing their nest egg (a condescending and elitist argument, by the way)....i have an idea that maybe you all will like....

why dont we all forfeit our paychecks to the government every week and have them manage our money for us.  they could pay our bills with it, and if there is any left over they could give us a little allowance.

ive heard that some people blow their pay checks every week.  we just cant have this.  the idea of people doing what they want with their money (including making bad decisions) is just disturbing.  we really need people like barbara boxer and teddy kennedy helping us commoners out.  we are lost in the wilderness without their wisdom....

Does your company force you to spend money a certain way?

Because that's what will happen with SS privatization.

As opposed to now, when the government forces you to hand over your money and... oh, wait.

SS money doesn't disappear the way Enron money does.

[John Dibble]

since the one of the main arguments against SS privatization is that people will be reckless with their investments and end up blowing their nest egg (a condescending and elitist argument, by the way)....i have an idea that maybe you all will like....

why dont we all forfeit our paychecks to the government every week and have them manage our money for us.  they could pay our bills with it, and if there is any left over they could give us a little allowance.

ive heard that some people blow their pay checks every week.  we just cant have this.  the idea of people doing what they want with their money (including making bad decisions) is just disturbing.  we really need people like barbara boxer and teddy kennedy helping us commoners out.  we are lost in the wilderness without their wisdom....

Does your company force you to spend money a certain way?

Because that's what will happen with SS privatization.

As opposed to now, when the government forces you to hand over your money and... oh, wait.

SS money doesn't disappear the way Enron money does.

Was that my point? NO YOU GIT! I'm still forced to spend/invest that money the way the government says, whether I like it or not!

[Nym90]

What happens if your chosen investment strategy encounters p­roblems of some kind? What happens if you choose to invest poorly? Ther­e are so many ways an entire retirement or a good portion of it can b­e wiped out by factors in your control and factors completely out of you­r control that it isn't even funny.

Who supports those who have no retirement funds because the ­funds are all gone due to unwise or unfortunate investing? I will. And­ every other taxpayer, regardless of which mechanism -- remain in SS or i­nvest yourself -- is chosen. The government and, by extension, all of ­us taxpayers, will have to support these people.

So, as I see it, you siphon off a little from everyone now t­o support everyone later, or you siphon off a little from everyone now­ (either for SS or investment) and siphon off a lot more later to fix­ the inevitable problems. Since when has the market been foolproo­f? Since when has the market ALWAYS gone up for all stocks, bonds, fu­nds and other investment opportunities? It isn't and hasn't been. Un­fortunately most folks don't understand that while you could have double­d what you could get out of SS in the markets, you could also lose ­it all.

If the market goes south, will there be any guarantee that y­ou'll get your money? Until the politicians started screwing around wi­th SS, your odds were much better with SS than the market. I'd rath­er the politicians stop messing around than gamble my entire retire­ment on Wall Street. I don't count my retirement funds as "risk capi­tal."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The government doesn't know how much hair gel, vinyl and strippers I want to pay for. No thank you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And why am I in a different category? I'm both a democrat and a socialist.

[John Dibble]

The government and, by extension, all of ­us taxpayers, will have to support these people.

I've yet to be convinced as to why the government HAS to support these people.

[Nym90]

The government and, by extension, all of ­us taxpayers, will have to support these people.

I've yet to be convinced as to why the government HAS to support these people.

Well, if people lose their entire retirement savings, whether that be through their own fault or through forces they can't control, they'll be poor. So either the government supports them through welfare, or else they turn to crime, and then the government pays for them to be in jail, as well as court costs, police costs, etc. With the latter option, the victim, of course, pays as well, perhaps with their life.

So if someone has no one to turn to, either the government has to pay for them to remain alive one way or another (or to die, if they commit a crime that gets them the death penalty). People who make bad decisions or who are extremely unlucky aren't just going to go off in a corner and die somewhere. They'll do whatever they have to do in order to get by. That's the sad reality of the situation. So overall, I think Social Security is a lot less expensive for our country than the wider gap between rich and poor that would result would be, when all things are factored in.

Even if the market can theoretically bring a higher rate of return, it's also less stable, and you'll increase the gap between wealthy and poor, which has consequences. Now don't get me wrong, having a gap is not a bad thing in and of itself (I'm no communist) but I do feel strongly that too wide of a gap is a bad thing, and not just for those who are poor.

Social Security isn't supposed to be someone's entire retirement plan; it's a safety net so that no matter what happens, you'll at least have enough money to get by when you are old and decrepit. It has greatly reduced poverty among the elderly, and that has been greatly beneficial for our country.

[John Dibble]

The government and, by extension, all of ­us taxpayers, will have to support these people.

I've yet to be convinced as to why the government HAS to support these people.

Well, if people lose their entire retirement savings, whether that be through their own fault or through forces they can't control, they'll be poor. So either the government supports them through welfare, or else they turn to crime, and then the government pays for them to be in jail, as well as court costs, police costs, etc. With the latter option, the victim, of course, pays as well, perhaps with their life.

1. It'll be rather hard for old people to go on a life of crime. Also, not everyone who is jobless or poor will turn to crime - most won't.

2. You don't factor in charity. Is it perfect? No. But welfare isn't either, and it isn't quite as discriminant as charity(welfare doesn't discriminate as well in who actually will try to turn their lives around). If we pay less in taxes, we have more available to give to charity - I personally give more when I can afford to do so, and I know many people are the same.

3. What if I'm willing to deal with these consequences? I'll be armed, and I'll advise everyone else to be as well. Society will only have to pay for the police to pick up a body when those that do go criminal decide to attack me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4. People who make bad decisions or are 'unlucky' don't deserve a handout, - if you think they do, please proove it.

5. You might want to research the Social Security system in Chile. It's wildy successful(far more than the government run one was) and completely privatized.

[Platypus]

So, is SS Privatisation a bit like Superannuation? If so, wouldn't Libertarians be AGAINST it?

[John Dibble]

So, is SS Privatisation a bit like Superannuation? If so, wouldn't Libertarians be AGAINST it?

superannuation

n 1: a monthly payment made to someone who is retired from work [syn: old-age pension, retirement pension, retirement check, retirement benefit, retirement fund] 2: the property of being out of date and not current [syn: obsoleteness] 3: the act of discharging someone because of age (especially to cause someone to retire from service on a pension)

If this is what you mean, then no, I don't think it is like that. It's more like investing your SS money in a 401k or something else of that nature, rather than in a government system. You can still work if you like, I'd assume.

I'm for more choices in the system - choice is good. I would prefer a completely optional system, with lots of choices if you decide to go into it, but partial privatization in a mandatory system is still better than no choice at all.

[A18]

We shouldn't get rid of the (unconstitutional) system unless we're also going to get rid of welfare.