None of the GOP candidates have the backbone to privatize social security

What happen to this movement about total self responsibility among conservatives? What happen to all this talk about "socialism" and leaving government out of issues concerning social security?



I have watching the GOP debates and one thing continues to pop up from each and every presidential candidate, this assurance that social security will not be touched for those presently on it and those reaching the age of benefitting out of it. What's happening here? Perry reassured folks of age that they need not worry one bit about their social security benefits for the forseeable future:

How long will it take for those current seniors and those entering into their retirement fully benefit from these programmes? The answer is: Well beyond the next 8 years and their proposed administrations, I can tell you that much.



No folks, for all the talk about the free market and it's ability to sort out issues like this, none of the GOP candidates appear to have the confidence at all in going through the process of privatizing thesee programmes, not during their administratons atleast.

The ability of the freemarket? What happened to that? I guess it's election time again. It's ever a wonder why Reagan, the staunchest opponent of medicare in the 60's, dared not touch it during his administration. They know better.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Even Republicans know there are things in this World worse than Politicians and Government in charge of your pension .......

Well actually, only one thing..

Bankers.

America doesn't trust either, SS Privatization in the midst of economic calamity would be the height of stupid.

PS: Real self-reliant Conservatives won't retire on Social Security.. SS will be the monthly check for a nice night out..

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Don't you mean corporatize it?
Like the corporations need more control in this corporatocracy.
Ruled by the wealthy for the wealthy.

So you mean the absurd conjecture of a political party turned out to be absurd?

The only privatization of social security that should ever occur would be actual people saving up for their own future and forgoing a third party all together.

The idea of social security is honestly one of the few "big government" ideas that can actually work...it was only ruined by an ever growing government looking for blood to fuel its continued growth, with the promise that "it will be back in the future due to these investments we are making and blah blah blah".

There are a million things that can go from our government, but social security is one of the few things that should stay. It was never a problem to begin with.

Privatize Social Security.

Like all the private systems have been working so well!

Yep, GWB offered this as a solution in 2000 or so. Then things went south. And things keep going south. Unless you're George Soros or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

Sure, most Americans are informed enough to invest money and actually get a healthy return on their investments, sarcasm alert.

If everyone was a Nathan Rothchild, then we'd all be rich, right?

I don't get what's meant by "privatizing" social security. Do they mean require everyone to set aside an allotment for their retirement fund? If that's it then it isn't Social Security, it's a savings account. And if it's a requirement, how will they enforce it? Monitor your paychecks and arrest people that aren't contributing?

How about this.. make people have a savings account that they're required to contribute to on a regular basis. If someone isn't contributing, let the government take a set amount directly from their paycheck to add to the fund so that person will have money to live on when they retire. Wait... isn't what they're doing now?

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
I don't get what's meant by "privatizing" social security. Do they mean require everyone to set aside an allotment for their retirement fund? If that's it then it isn't Social Security, it's a savings account. And if it's a requirement, how will they enforce it? Monitor your paychecks and arrest people that aren't contributing?

How about this.. make people have a savings account that they're required to contribute to on a regular basis. If someone isn't contributing, let the government take a set amount directly from their paycheck to add to the fund so that person will have money to live on when they retire. Wait... isn't what they're doing now?

That's what SS was originally, an amount set aside from your paycheck(forcibly) into an account the govt controlled, which would dole it out to you in your retirement. It was always the Nanny State and it still is. The fund has been in trouble for a long time. You would think that people would not want to put healthcare into the same Nanny State govt control with bureaucratic corruption and stealing from the fund.
"When will they ever learn"

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
I don't get what's meant by "privatizing" social security. Do they mean require everyone to set aside an allotment for their retirement fund? If that's it then it isn't Social Security, it's a savings account.

By social security I am including programmes like medicare, medicaid, unemployement benefits and so forth. Social security is often not merely meant as merely a government savings scheme. It encompasess other government social programmes.

Ron Paul never wanted to privatize social security, a privatization of SS would still be as big of a ponzi scheme as SS itself. Privatizing SS is a corporatist solution disguised as a free market solution, but in reality the only free market solution is to get rid of it outright or at least allow people to opt out.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Sheep rely heavily on talking points which are often easily identified by the sudden popular use of words just recently relegated to the if needed pile.

Pon·zi   /ˈpɒnzi/ Show Spelled[pon-zee] Show IPA
noun
a swindle in which a quick return, made up of money from new investors, on an initial investment lures the victim into much bigger risks.

It is bad enough to hear Rush and his ilk start calling it that but to then see a forum full of "individual free thinkers" repeat it ad-nauseum with little thought to why it is incorrect to call it that is really bad. It is not a "swindle." No one is lured into bigger risks - kind of the crux of the scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, the one running the scheme makes a fortune. Who runs SS?

Originally posted by FallenWun
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

Sheep rely heavily on talking points which are often easily identified by the sudden popular use of words just recently relegated to the if needed pile.

Pon·zi   /ˈpɒnzi/ Show Spelled[pon-zee] Show IPA
noun
a swindle in which a quick return, made up of money from new investors, on an initial investment lures the victim into much bigger risks.

It is bad enough to hear Rush and his ilk start calling it that but to then see a forum full of "individual free thinkers" repeat it ad-nauseum with little thought to why it is incorrect to call it that is really bad. It is not a "swindle." No one is lured into bigger risks - kind of the crux of the scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, the one running the scheme makes a fortune. Who runs SS?

The Fed Govt runs and profits from it.

There is already a privatized social security system, it's called gold and silver.

I like Ron Paul's answer the best: we should be able to opt out. If people are forced to pay into the social security, it doesn't make any difference if it is privatized or not it's still a ponzi scheme.

I think it should be done away with, I could use the ten extra dollars every pay so that I can pay a little more towards food or bills, I won't live very long after retiring anyway, that's the sole reason I smoke...if I can find something faster at killing, I will do that too. (if I even retire at all at this rate I would never be able to retire if I lived a million years)

id privatize it yeah i would be the most hated man in america

i would definately privatize it and do what they do with the lottery winners when they take the annuity payment

invest whats already there or whats lefts into bonds that generate an income every month

instead of just money sitting in a account earning no interest it would and then in turn that interest would cover more people and finally give them more cash in the long run thus lifting those people lives

to something a hell of alot better than an 800 month a check for the rest of their lives being paid for by other people

this is where government fails and always fails they never put money to work.

or gold.

and then that person would have to go beg the government for money and would have to go beg for welfare and wouldnt have to go beg for insurance.

people needs to think

reply to post by neo96


I want my money now, not 50 years from now...I am sick to paying to crap that I can never get anyway, including FICA and Medicaid I am sick of paying for illegals to get the crap I PAID IN I would rather have every single dime I earn and invest it or save the way I SEE FIT! Why should I save it for retirement when 1)I can't ever retire cost of living is way too high for me to, and 2) I am going to die young anyway!!!
ETA: Who's bright idea was it to force A FREE NATION to put away money for retirement?
I have the right to never retire or die younger or make my own means some other way, I thought that's what the hell AMERICA was all about!

reply to post by neo96


It is our money, taken without my consent, placed into an IOU filled account, then paid out to someone else for doing nothing except get old.

Fun times.

reply to post by ldyserenity


exactly the point i was making you have access to your money at any given time

lose a job about to lose your home.

your money is your money so why do we have to go beg someone else for the right to get it.

reply to post by macman


which covers the same point your money goes to you and stops that stupidty

paying for other people when that money is suppose to go to you?

people should be upset with that

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

exactly the point i was making you have access to your money at any given time

lose a job about to lose your home.

your money is your money so why do we have to go beg someone else for the right to get it.

edit on 24-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

As long as theres an opt out, I am all for that whatever, as long as they don't FORCE me to do it privatize it and give the option of backing out, I'd much rather save for my kid's education at a credit union.
So yeah I agree if there's an option to say "NO" I don't want your stinking Social Security.

reply to post by ldyserenity


i am all about choice so yeah there would be that option

something noone is given right now