Does the current financial situation spell doom for the insane idea of privatizing Social Security?
This entry was posted on Friday, April 17th, 2009 at 3:48 am and is filed under Security Systems. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.21 Responses to “Does the current financial situation spell doom for the insane idea of privatizing Social Security?”
- What is social security systems in Vietnam and China?
- Home Security Systems-Part-4
- How Safe Are Wireless Home Security Systems?
- Brink’s Home Security – Commercial: “New Home” – Home Alarm & Monitoring Services
- What are some potential weaknesses/vulnerabilities to electronic security systems?
- Where can I find TSA screening security systems that are life size?
- What is a good way for me to “get ahead” for my upcoming college IT systems security classes?
April 20th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Charles Fordham
You’ve got that wrong.
Government involvement is what caused the problem. Regulation of the market is what forces lenders to give out loans as required by law, rather than as risks and collateral allow.
Bush wants to get the government out of social security to.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 am
Sonia Carrigan
yes, but that’s a shame because social security is the Ponzi scheme
April 26th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Walter Antoine
I never thought that was a good idea I lived thru the S&L mess.
April 26th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Guy Casados
No, because the lunatics who want to privatize Social Security live in the State of Denial. Ask them. They’ll tell you that the ‘fundamentals of the economy are strong’.
April 26th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Marie Braithwaite
Not at all. Historically speaking Privatizing SSI has always given a better output. soon as teh government took it over, its a question as to wether or not there would be any left when we get there.
The market will bounce back. Government has NEVER done well with anything that they have touched. Public schools, the housing market, Gas just to name the most recent government accomplishments…
April 27th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Brandy Metcalf
Yep, McCain dropped the subject like a hot potato.
I guarantee you won’t hear a peep from him about SS privatization from now until the election.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Heidi Flanigan
If my social security deductions had been in private investment funds, I would already be retired.
Why would you want to hand a portion of you pay check over to the gang who can’t shoot straight.
On the one hand you say the government and it’s politicians are inept and corrupt but on the other hand you want that same group to be the guardian of you money. I don’t get it?
May 1st, 2009 at 5:44 am
Deitz
Let’s hope so. This was another Bush fat cat giveaway. No normal person would cut holes in the security net.
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:20 am
Arthur East
Let’s hope they leave Soc Sec alone. Privatize it and it’s all over.
The problem is that Bush thinks Soc Sec is an account he can touch.
I like Gore’s idea…..it should be in a lock box!
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Judith Wilkey
Yes…and it also “doomed” my 401K
May 4th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Billy Reeder
Well it sure would have given the big whigs a good pay out before they pulled back their wealth and stuffed it into Euros while everythign collapsed and they could blame everytone’s losses on bad economical conditions.
Neocons wanted to **** the wealth out of verything they could like a thief in the night.
But McCain will give them another round or two to finish off the job.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Vivian Windle
YES! Privatizing social security would be put more people on welfare than you could shake a stick at….stupid, stupid, idea.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Darryl Kronenberg
I certainly hope so. Roosevelt got Social Security going because the market does exactly what we’ve seen today – regularly – and he wanted something solid for people to depend on.
Thousands and thousands of people have lost everything from even before Enron and now this.
But this is what comes from deregulation and more inportantly, putting corrupt people in positions of responsibility just because they wave a flag or claim to be “patriotic” or have shot a moose, or seem folksy.
We need to look beyond the rhetoric and demand integrity of those who we elect. Integrity means poeple who walk their talk and have developed a plan that fits their walk. these people must be open to scrutiny by us, no more secret government. That’s un-Democratic and dangerous. Remember, we elect people to government to serve US – NOT the other way around.
If we choose wrong this time, it’s going to be the Titanic going down.
May 11th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Ada Grady
Wrong!!!!! The Social Security system is going bust. I was looking at my statement the other day. Since 1983 I have contributed over $200,000 to this program and I don’t think I am going to see a dime of it when I retire.
My 401K program has 1/2 that amount in it. That is my money, why can’t I invest it where I want? I want to invest it in the same program that congress has or the state public retirement service. The Ohio PERS. See their investments at
Social Security is bankrupt. So why can’t I contribute to this program? This is what I want to be in!!!!
May 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Claire Quan
As you see people see the bubble but never the burst… They will continue doing it because if I would had put all my deductions in private investment the market would have had crashed a long time ago with my retirement.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Lydia Amick
The government’s program is pretty much guaranteed to fail before I am old enough to see any of it.
So I would rather have the risky stock market than the guaranteed failure of the government program.
May 17th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Ryan Grubb
The market goes up, the market goes down and then up again. The way you state it, it seems as though you believe all investing has become worthless. Although I am still paying social security, I have privatized my retirement fund and I will have far more money than SS has ever promised me. In fact my funding of SS will probably go to unprepared people like you.
May 18th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Amanda Mcknight
The Declaration of Independence declares “all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men …”
The Preamble of the US Constitution shows how these rights are to be secured including “provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare”.
Two clear distinctions should be made here:
Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach.
For example, I’ll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it!
General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.
Social Security is a form of individual welfare not authorized in the Constitution.
The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system. Until the current Social Security system can be responsibly phased out, we propose that:
The Social Security tax not be a “rainy day” fund which politicians can pirate, or from which they can borrow to cover their errors and pay for their excesses.
Individuals who have contributed to Social Security be allowed to withdraw those funds and transfer them into an IRA or similar investments under the control of the individual contributor.
Any sort of merger between the U.S. Social Security System and that of any foreign country be banned, so the distribution of benefits will not go to persons who have not qualified for payments under American law as legal residents.
Earning limitations on persons aged 62 and over be removed, so that they may earn any amount of additional income without placing their benefits at risk.
Those provisions of the Social Security system which penalize those born during the “notch years” between 1917 and 1926 be repealed, and that such persons be placed on the same benefit schedules as all other beneficiaries.
May 18th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Carrie Armenta
My name is George W. Bush and I approve that plan.
May 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Kristin Balch
I bet they will keep trying to privatize it,they will try to sink Social Security to ” justify” its privatization in the name of a more efficient management.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Cooper
The main issue I see with privatising any social infrastructure (I made the same arguments when here in the UK they privatised pensions) is a company will make a profit from it. This profit will be taken from the social fund and it is money that could be used to enhance the fund.