RE: SS privatization back next term??

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: SS privatization back next term??

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: SS privatization back next term??

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/25/2006 7:15:19 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Wyrd,

Agreed in the sense that people can look to private charities. But, these charities can't provide the universal healthcare required - they can knock soup out of a kitchen and provide cheap clothes, and this is admirable, but it doesn't even make a dent into what British and US citizens require. It needs tax payers money directed by Government i.e. well organised, established forces with sufficient funding to tackle the problem. The US has had a massive homeless problem for years - the answer is not to put the solution in the hands of a few people who mean well - the answer is to elect a Government that acts to do it's duty rather than spend it's time worrying about bombing people.

Regards

(in reply to WyrdRich)

Post #: 21

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/25/2006 8:52:21 PM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

They also don't tend to have to compete with anyone else to provide the services so they have no motivation to be efficient in fact the motivation is to pad the budget and be sure you speend it all because unless you do you will be cut next time.

Lets see SS makes you about what 4% interest based on average lifespan for middle class healthy.

Have you looked at the return for minorities on Social Security?

From memory reeading awhile back so number not reliable the average time a African American male collects SS is something like 4 years or less assuming they make it to retirement at all.

That is the idea someone mentioned earlier tht the white middle class is collecting more than it's contributions, while the minorities tend to pay in more than they recieve in return.

The system we have is shot full of holes, think privtization cn't work in the US Take a look at Galviston Island Tx Municiple workers who opted out of SS when they still could the workers who were there when they did it are making plenty for retirement.

And Chile was looking at a privatized plan as well that was based on the same plan. Not sure current state of the Chilean plan but I know they looked at a copy of the US SS plan and saw that it was doomed.

BTW taking notes of those who sling PROFIT around as a dirty word, LOL

Personally I hope that they would replace the SS plan entirely, and if not the first reform needs to be that the SSA cannot buy any government bonds to hold the surplus in. That was a death knell for the program because it ties in the fund with the ability of the government to balance their budget. Basicly it mandated that all excess collections must be invested in US treasury bonds, leading to the mess we have today where the surplus when it needs to be draw off will require government services to be cut or more other taxes to be raised just to maintain current levels of no service.

Plenty of really basic safe investments that make far better returns and can be passed on to your survivors if you die before you collect.
Without the ability to pass on wealth economic mobility is much tougher, private ownership of retirement funds is another way the poor could pass along a starting nestegg for their survivors.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 22

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/25/2006 8:57:49 PM

Estring

Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

An amazingly considered and well-thought out response. I would say spoken like a true American but then it would be insulting the US posters who have far more insight than you. I'll leave it at if I were you I'd do some reading and educate myself about the world and life in general.

I worked with a female singer who was from Holland. She was always talking about how Americans work so hard compared to where she came from. She talked about professional students who got paid by the government for life and never had to work. She used to be able to collect her money and sleep all day. She lamented the fact that it wasn't like that here. What she was talking about is called socialism, the government taking care of you cradle to grave. There is a fundamental difference in what you think government's role should be and what most Americans believe. Unfortunately, that could be changing though. And we will be the worse for it.

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 23

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/25/2006 9:04:26 PM

Estring

Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Wyrd,

Agreed in the sense that people can look to private charities. But, these charities can't provide the universal healthcare required - they can knock soup out of a kitchen and provide cheap clothes, and this is admirable, but it doesn't even make a dent into what British and US citizens require. It needs tax payers money directed by Government i.e. well organised, established forces with sufficient funding to tackle the problem. The US has had a massive homeless problem for years - the answer is not to put the solution in the hands of a few people who mean well - the answer is to elect a Government that acts to do it's duty rather than spend it's time worrying about bombing people.

Regards

Tell me what well organized government organization exists? There sure isn't any here in The US. It has been shown that private charitable organizations consistently do more for the money with less waste.
The government's main job is to protect it's citizens. That means killing people who threaten it's citizens when necessary. To get back to the thread, the government should not be stealing people's hard earned money. Let me keep my money and decide what I will do with it.

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 24

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/25/2006 9:10:19 PM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

More focused this time, I'm all for privatization of the majority of SS not only the little 2-3% proposed.
Mandatory saving plans that go into privately owned accounts that cannot be accessed except in serious cases of need.
Make the ammount the same and even require employer match if you want to but get the control of the money between the contribution and pay out out of the hands of the government. Same levels of contributions tothe accounts government and in what is the safest most diverse type of mutual fund even after fees (profits) the mutual fund beats the hell out of the SS payoff in all but the most extream cases.

You could fund the charity cases, those who really need the help and cannot do for themselves and those few who outlive their assets from the general funds better easier and more efficient than with Social Insecurity.

We also have to get back to the truth about what the Social Security System was designed to do. It was not designed to provide for anything past the basics of survival, if you want more than the basics you have to provide for that yourself.

I'll bust on my own country here too, WE SUCK at saving money for future use. Our savings rates are so far bellow because basicly we tend to have a short view.
I NEED the big screen TV. A small one and the rest invested in stocks requires sacrificing current luxury for future security. So I'll buy the Big screen and just vote in someone who will take care of thinking about and acting on my needs for retirement.

It's a huge flaw in the American attitude about savings.

We need Social Security because we lack the discipline to save for our own retirement.
The standard of living we have and the toys and luxuries we buy tell the truth, we'll think about retirement next decade.

(in reply to Estring)

Post #: 25

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/25/2006 10:01:45 PM

UtopianRanger

Posts: 3251
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/socialsecurity_c/explanation chilling thought that bushes nighmaresh plan to privatize SS seems headed for his agenda again....

If you want to blame someone for the downfall of social security, you need look no further than Alan Greenspan. Greenspan, as chairman of a select committee advising the Johnson administration, strongly recommend that social security as a totally voluntary { That's right , it used to be voluntary} program, cease and dismiss. He then in turn persuaded the government to make it a mandatory program, calling it a ‘’tax’, hence deducting the money through withholding. It didn’t stop there though…..instead taking this ‘’tax’’ and setting it aside as dedicated funds for a retirement program, Greenspan recommended that it be collectively lumped into the ‘’General’’ Federal budget. And that was all she wrote…because the government spent that money on other things – And they are still spending the money on other things.

A similar analogy would be your local city/county government taking the revenue from a dedicated fund – for infrastructure improvements -- collected from increased rates on water and sewer bills and using that money to fund increased wage and compensation packages for city employees and purchase new police cars.

It’s a classic case of the government refusing to be accountable to the people / electorate. I wouldn’t worry too much though…. Because the ''dollar'' and our monetary system as we know it, is going to collaspe long before most everyone here will be eligible to collect social security.

JMHO.

- R

< Message edited by UtopianRanger -- 8/25/2006 10:07:32 PM >

_____________________________

"If you are going to win any battle, you have to do one thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the body tell the mind what to do... the body is never tired if the mind is not tired."

-General George S. Patton

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Post #: 26

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/25/2006 10:13:17 PM

FangsNfeet

Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline

Social Security has been a scam from the get go. When FDR first started SS, the average life span was 62. In theory, you were not suppose to make it to 65.

Anyhow, we seem to be stuck with SS. I think it's BULL SHIT. It's my money and I can use it to add to a much better retirement plan than what the government can. Stocks, Bonds, CD's, IRAs, and trips to the Casino are all better investments than SS. Uncle Sam is the one in debt and not me. Obviously, I can handle my money better than he can. As much as I would rather see SS become obsolete, atleast privatizing SS gives us all a little more controll on how to handle our own money.

I for one do not need the governments help in having a savings plan for when I retire only to have small amounts of that cash sent to me monthly as they see fit. It's my money that I worked for. I should have and always decide what I want to do with it. If I didn't save, then I'm just SOL and only have myself to blame.

Don't punish me with forced SS just because we've had a few idiots who didn't save. I along with many others are not that dumb. How dare the government to automaticly assume that we are to incompentent to handle and save our own money.

For once pahunkboy, wouldn't you like to recieve a full pay check? Think of the extra investments you could make for yourself.

_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Post #: 27

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 2:02:52 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Estring,

I have an understanding that your Government does not provide anywhere near what it should do in terms of social welfare but this is the point. The Government represents you (meaning the US people in general) - adequate social welfare doesn't exist because as a society the US doesn't want to provide for those less fortunate. It's passing the blame to say it is a Government failure - their policies are your policies as a society and they have a mandate to bomb people and do nothing about homelessness and social equality because the US people are giving them this mandate.

What I really can't get my head around is why people would look to private charities when your Government has your money to spend how you (as a people) see fit. Why don't you channel your energy into pressuring your Government into spending your money on providing social welfare rather than increasing the military capability?

Regards

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Post #: 28

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 2:13:03 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Archer,

I'm not using profit as a dirty word - merely pointing out the realities of business and their collective lack of social conscience.

By writing off a section of society you reduce their ability to contribute to the economy and continue their reliance on social welfare. Surely, the most beneficial long-term solution is to provide the foundations to motivate people to work through equal opportunities - if you can get somewhere near full employment then you have a society that is continually creating economic growth from which everyone benefits i.e. more cash is available for investment in industry and services rather than continually paying out large social welfare sums that see no return on these payments.

Why do we have to have fat cat salaries and hereditary wealth? It is a drain on the economy because the wealth created here is pissed up against the wall and does not go back into the economy to create growth. It would be far better to use this money on getting the poorest socio-economic groups in society into work - thus creating growth and reduce the tax burden of social welfare.

Regards

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 29

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 2:15:34 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

I worked with a female singer who was from Holland. She was always talking about how Americans work so hard compared to where she came from. She talked about professional students who got paid by the government for life and never had to work. She used to be able to collect her money and sleep all day. She lamented the fact that it wasn't like that here. What she was talking about is called socialism, the government taking care of you cradle to grave. There is a fundamental difference in what you think government's role should be and what most Americans believe. Unfortunately, that could be changing though. And we will be the worse for it.

I think I am right in saying the average Dutch person is just as wealthy as the average American. Many services and what were functions of the state have been privatised here, however it hasn't made the average Dutch person wealthier and the services are much the poorer for costing more. So where has all this extra money gone? Profits for private companies which mean to wealthy people. However, the quality of most public services are still years ahead of America's. People call privatisation, Americanisation and most ordinary people are getting pissed off with it because they don't see any increase in quality for the higher price they pay.

(in reply to Estring)

Post #: 30

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 6:52:30 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

OK Northern you have one thing that is flat out wrong, The wealth held by the wealthy is not taken out of the economy at all.
They invest it either directly or indirectly. They buy stocks with it, that goes into either someone elses pocket or into the company, or it gets used to buy something We had a entire town almost die back when they increased the tax on luxury yatchs up in the NE of the US, the rich stopped buying the yatchets and the jobs at the town's biggest employer dried up, trickle down caused the entire city to go into decline. Or the money gets put into the bank where it gets used for loans which sends it right back out into the economy. The only way money ever really gets taken out of the economy is if someone puts it in a matress in cash form and hoards it. Otherwise it is simply reinjected someplace else.

And I'm not writting anyone off, We have almost full employment here in the US at this time the high rates we had for a little while never reached the levels that much of Europe has dealt with for so long, although my more recent reading showed me that not all of Europe has the levels I saw 3 years ago. anything under 5% is decent and 4% is phenominal. We've hovered back and forth for this year in the 4.3 to 4.5 range. But more to the point a little bit of Darwinism makes for a stronger overall group, Darwinism can serve as the impetus to work, get educated, all sorts of things. I'm not advocating a total feed the poor to the wolves idea here either, just that if the consequences of not working are not severe there will be a certain percentage of folks willing to accept the dole and finding ways to max out their benifits without having to turn to actual work. At full employment there should in my mind be nobody who isn't physicly or mentaly unable to work who is on the dole.
Minimum wage arguements bounce off me because few jobs pay minimum wage here anymore that are not jobs held by students, or those starting out or by those who are working them as a second job. If you're still at minimum wage after 6 months to me it's your own fault, you're either not working and showing the boss you're worth more or you're not moving on to another job. The basic skills to get a job with pay at twice minimum wage are easily learned on the job or at a tech school in less than 2 years.

You are correct that the only way to lessen the social welfare costs is to reduce demand the question though remains how do you reduce the demand. Is the demand a result of lack of opportunity or lack of motivation is the question we seem to be on opposite sides of that question is all.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 31

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 8:23:59 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I'll certainly agree that France and Germany have too much protectionism and parts of their public economy really should be in the private sector and that is one of the reasons they have such problems with unemployment.

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 32

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 9:10:24 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

i dont trust bush to do the tweaking. [or neocons whatever the name...]

it likely needs some updating. but not by anyone political.

somehow i dont think it will go down this way.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 33

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 9:27:18 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

i was speaking to a very right wing person in the UK once when he made an interesting comment. He said he'd rather give money to a man on the street knowing it'd be spent on drugs than pay tax to a government knowing it'd be spent on social security or the health service. The reason behind this, according to him, was that it allowed him to control his own money, whereas giving money to a government (however virtuous is was) meant he was giving up control.
Estring and others who espouse control over your own money.......do you care about poor people at all? And remember that if you don't want government to support them then it isn't the adults who suffer most, but their innocent children. It is not unfair to ask what guarantee there is in a laissez-faire system for the most vulnerable.
As for the idea that charities will take up the slack, this is clearly wrong. Trickledown doesn't work, never has. The end result of cutting social security is children suffering.

(in reply to WyrdRich)

Post #: 34

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 9:30:38 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

i was speaking to a very right wing person in the UK once when he made an interesting comment. He said he'd rather give money to a man on the street knowing it'd be spent on drugs than pay tax to a government knowing it'd be spent on social security or the health service. The reason behind this, according to him, was that it allowed him to control his own money, whereas giving money to a government (however virtuous is was) meant he was giving up control.
Estring and others who espouse control over your own money.......do you care about poor people at all? And remember that if you don't want government to support them then it isn't the adults who suffer most, but their innocent children. It is not unfair to ask what guarantee there is in a laissez-faire system for the most vulnerable.
As for the idea that charities will take up the slack, this is clearly wrong. Trickledown doesn't work, never has. The end result of cutting social security is children suffering.

hmm- im guilty. there is a certain satifaction giving a wino change for a "cup of coffee", "bus", lol.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 35

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 9:35:45 AM

WyrdRich

Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosopy
Trickledown doesn't work, never has.

I've never liked the term "trickledown." It implies, to me at least, that the money will form puddles at the very bottom for people to lie in. It doesn't. What you get is a lot more low-hanging fruit but you must be willing to reach up and take it.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 36

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 11:08:44 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Trickle down does work and has worked for a long time it just isn't as fast as people would like. The money will flow down but only so far and only in response to markets the problem is nobody is teaching the poor how to possition themselves to get their p[art of the trickle down, and they miss it while someone in the middle may possition themselves to suck up what might have been theirs.

It certainly works on the negative side as well, punish the rich for achievement and they will seek to avoid achievement and live off their wealth already aquired and taxed. The investments will dry up and the jobs with them. There is a break point where starting up a business or investing in one makes sense and where it does not, nobody goes into business with their prime motivation being I'm going to go out and create jobs. They go out saying I'm going to make myself some money, and I'll provide some jobs as a side benifit of my achievement.

Certainly I care about the poor those who cannot get aong without some help, but I also beleive by and large in the US at least for the most part you end up where you are as a result of decissions you make more so than any other factor. The poor are poor in many cases because they made poor decissions, They sluffed off instead of studying, they chose to stay in a city where the dole is good rather than move to a city where the jobs are, they chose to have sex and children before they were financially ready to care for them. All choices that predictably will put you at a competative disadvantage economicly.

BTW I've been pretty poor at times in my life based on decissions I made, I worked my way back out of it, and I prety much expect anyone with an able mind and body to pretty much do the same. I'm not adverse to TEMPORARY assistance, certainly things come up and a fresh start is what they need. I'm also not adverse to providing for those with legitimate physical and mental problems that prevent them from being successfull, but those are really the exceptions rather than the rule.

(in reply to WyrdRich)

Post #: 37

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 12:30:26 PM

RiotGirl

Posts: 3149
Status: offline

fast reply -

thought they were doing away with SS?

(in reply to WyrdRich)

Post #: 38

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/26/2006 12:54:59 PM

WyrdRich

Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

hmm- im guilty. there is a certain satifaction giving a wino change for a "cup of coffee", "bus", lol.

I quit giving away money a while back. I will frequently pass along whatever is left in my lunchbox at the end of the day, but I'm picky about who gets it. The bum standing in the sun on the corner is a lot more likely to get a free sandwich than the one sitting in the shade.

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Post #: 39

RE: SS privatization back next term?? - 8/27/2006 3:41:25 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

"I also beleive by and large in the US at least for the most part you end up where you are as a result of decissions you make more so than any other factor. The poor are poor in many cases because they made poor decissions, They sluffed off instead of studying, they chose to stay in a city where the dole is good rather than move to a city where the jobs are, they chose to have sex and children before they were financially ready to care for them. All choices that predictably will put you at a competative disadvantage economicly."

...with respect Archer, i was specifically asking about the children of these people, not the parents making decisions.

(in reply to WyrdRich)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: SS privatization back next term??

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109