Social Security

[New York XC]

I have a favor to ask. Can somebody please explain to me why so many people are against Bush's Social Security plan? I don't understand the massive and overwhelmingly negative reaction to it. As I understand it, it makes sense. Maybe I have some of the details wrong, but as I understand it, it would work like this: ONLY if you wanted to, you would take a small part of your Social Security $$ (20% I thought i heard somewhere?) and invest it in something that is very safe and is has a proven rate of return. If one looks at the stock market the past 100 years, it has consistantly risen. In the 70's the stock market was around 3000, right? So here we are 30 years later and the market is almost 4x higher. It seems to me that if we were allowed to invest a small portion of our S.S. money into the market, over the course of the 40 or 50 years we will spend working, we should get quite a return. As it is now, S.S. is not really serving it's purpose; it's almost impossible to survive merely on a S.S. check. If we were allowed to earn extra money from the stock market, in "safe" investments, it might restore S.S. to it's original purpose. So that's the whole deal as I understand it. Am I missing something? What is it that people are so opposed to?

[Jwaksman]

Because Bush proposed it, and about 30% of this country simply will oppose anything he does reflexively.


That said, there are problems with Bush's SS plan, and I would have proposed something else. But intelligent debate on this issue is impossible as long as the two sides act so block-headedly...

[running high]

What are the problems?

[KenA55]

1.) Removing funding from the current system

2.) Removing funding from the current system

3.) Removing funding from the current system

4.) And, of course, the cutbacks that will be required now and/or later, in current benefits, because of that.

Bush's track record with regard to placing the greater economic good of all above providing opportunity for the well-off to keep more/pay less is obviously a huge factor here. Set up any privatization plan you like that doesn't bite into current SS contributions/benefits and it can fly. Set up separate and independant management of incoming contributions and the country would find it refreshing, knowing their 'gov't pension' was being managed in a sound and accountable manner. Force government into payasyougo mode by taking away their dipper into these funds, a clear picture of deficit spending could emerge. That's the sort of plan that people could get behind.

[Jwaksman]

Actually, Bush's cutbacks are not really cutbacks. See, when the system starts bringing in less than it pays out it will automatically cut payouts 25%. That's in the wording of the Social Security laws in place. Therefore, the current system will lead to a 25% cutback. Bush's plan would have a smaller cutback, and it would be entirely for the rich. The poor would not have their payments cut at all.



The problem with Bush's plan is that it's only temporary. It's another "fix" like we had in the 1980's, when the retirement age was raised to "fix" social security. Until the system is privatized it simply cannot be sustainable. A sustainable system, without investment, would require a population that's increases were actually accelerating, or a population dying at earlier ages. With population increases slowing down, and people living longer, it is simply mathematically impossible to make the system permanently sustainable without investment.

[KenA55]

I think that the widespread perception I mentioned above about the neo-conservative economic & taxation choices & statements really has them operating from a deep hole on this one. Regardless of what most Americans feel about how they've handled things on foreign affairs or domestic 'family values' issues, there is little trust or faith in the 'outsourcing is good' people when it comes to this particular issue. Seperate SS contributions from the general treasuries, build that investment revenue reserve, then let's talk about how we can best administer it. I for one, simply don't trust people who invite me to join into new investment schemes with money that doesn't exist yet.

[Jwaksman]

So you prefer the current system, where the government promises to pay you with money that doesn't exist yet?


Dismissing a plan because of who it comes from is exactly what's wrong with people these days. People will not accept plans from other parties, assuming that they must be wrong, without applying any objective thought first. This goes for both sides of the aisle.

[KenA55]

So you prefer the current system, where the government promises to pay you with money that doesn't exist yet?


Dismissing a plan because of who it comes from is exactly what's wrong with people these days. People will not accept plans from other parties, assuming that they must be wrong, without applying any objective thought first. This goes for both sides of the aisle.

Well plenty of Republicans are awfully queasy about the Bush initiatives in this area as well. That doesn't mean you're not right about alot of the kneejerk reaction from the other party though. I prefer the current system isolated into a true separate entity, with time allowed to see a reserve grow outward 5 to 10 years, so that future promises begin to have actual meaning now. Investment of those reserves a constant, as it is now with whatever surplusses exist prior to their being siphoned off for other purposes. Having built those reserves, and seeing future continued growth, we can then look at privatization of future gains if people really don't want to hold those growing future projected reserves en masse. Level of privatization to float as needed to maintain minimum reserves in good economic times and bad for maintenance of minimum benefit levels. If we want to begin some privatization now, then let's add to contribution level a bit to get it started in a small way, give people with no previous experience in such investment a taste of managing an account. But let's still make these sound choices with the existing slush fund.

[mohawkrunner]

As said before it takes money away from the current system making it more necessary for a real fix to the problem not temporary. You said "As it is now, S.S. is not really serving it's purpose; it's almost impossible to survive merely on a S.S. check" Social security was never meant to be somebodies sole sourse of retirement income. It's merely insurance.

As for what jwaks is saying, of course some people are going to oppose it just becuase its Bush, hell if it was clinton people would oppose it just because its him. The fact is social security is a touchy subject in this country and any plan that is brought up is going to meet serious opposition from both sides of the isle

[TI83]

i've posted this thought before but i honestly believe that alot of the people who oppose bush's SS plan do so becuase they don't understand it. they've been wrongfully informed that they won't get their checks or that the government is giving SS to private corporations to handle. in the highschool that i go, i've debated with many kids on this topic and all seem to be misinformed and when i correct them they say "well, i guess it isn't too bad then, but i still hate it becuase bush is an idiot."

the republicans need to get more information about it out with some specific facts so the people know what is going on and can then make a valid choice on whether they support it or not.

[Sebrle]

Anyone ever wonder what a major medical breakthrough (cure aids, cancer, heart disease, the avg life expectancy jumps to 100+) and/or Americans start living healthy responsible lifestyles, would do to social security?

[jaygray]

Ever wonder what it'd be like if marijuana were only legal for retirees? That is, the minimum age for indulgence would be equal to the retirement age. SS's underfunding could be enhanced by optional participation in a marijuana futures market, whose only legal consumers would be the elderly, but whose investors could be basically anyone. You could grow your own (so to speak) retirement fund on a completely legal commodities future market, and then reap your rewards when you retire. You don't have to smoke, or approve of smoking, to invest in it. Sweet, huh. And if you want to smoke once you retire, you'd have give up your driving license (a sane idea for the very old, anyway) and sign a legal document that you would not drive, ever. In a similar vein, underage consumption would be punishable by relinquishing some or all of your weed retirement funds, or, if you don't participate in the funds, by revocation or delay of legal consumption once you are retired. There's all kinds of possibilities with this idea. I kind of like the idea of mellow old age, and millions of us baby boomers truckin' into the 70's (not unlike the 1970's) with a healthy stash of cash, still thinking that we're going to be young and fit and hip forever.

Disclaimer to administrators: this in no way advocates anything but a good old conservative value of accumulating piles of money, and relieving the government of its responsibility to do so on your behalf.

[MoMo]

With brilliant, out-of-box ideas like that, i still don't know why the MoMo Party -- with jaygray on the ticket -- didn't do better in 2004.

But I sense a tectonic shift in MoMentum, and feel increasingly confident in predicting:

The MoMo Party will be the Giacomo of 2008.

You can bet on it.