Privatizing Social Security

[rj.phila]

I'm still stuck on what happens if you don't contribute for 45 years 12.4%? What if you are disabled or orphaned or widowed? I am more of a socialist, but I don't pretend to be otherwise. I take offense at being called a communist.

Also if you actually discuss politics and economics in socialist countries you'd be surprised at what they think. They have a very different opinion about people and caring for another person. Just because you believe that doesn't make your beliefs in economics wrong, just different.

i HAVE to assume those touting "small" govt/elimination of any welfare programs surely must apply the same thinking("survival of the fittest i.e. wealthiest") to their own grandmothers, grandchildren, uncles, cousins, etc when they have medical issues they can't afford. surely, noone would be so hypocritical as to not, right?

re: socialism-but what would we do without the incessant boogeyman of the "centrally planned economy" constantly dangled over us by the myriad of fearmongers in our media? we arent going to actually have to inform ourselves, are we? (am i laying on the facetiousness heavy enough? the spigots really only at about 4 or 5 right now).

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

In someways I wish people who felt like you did have the option of opting out of the system and shooting yourselves in the foot - but it would not be fair to the system. Not to mention that I don't believe any of us have the foresight to predict which of us will be disabled, widowed, orphaned etc.

It has been done successfully.

Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

It seems you have a lot to say about Friedman economics, and that is fine - but to pretend that there isn't a whole other school who believes in a whole different theory - Keynesians like myself - and to believe that economic theory isn't anything but that, THEORY, is a real sign of ignorance.

It would be nice if you would practice your economic theory with your own money. This used to be a free country. What is to keep you and like minded others from voluntarily establishing your own safety nets?

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

if you dont mind, i'd love to hear about the last conversation you had regarding politics and economics in a socialist country with someone that would qualify as "dumb". if you havent travelled to one, maybe a conversation with anyone domestically who considers themselves a socialist, that you felt was a "dumb" conversation? in my experience, people in socialist countries are some of the most informed and astute people i've ever spoken to. so i'd really love to hear the other side.

Socialist mediocrity did not change the world. Property rights and free markets did. Being a socialist does not make anyone an idiot, it makes them content with government provision and American protection. Before long, we will be no different than the rest of the world, I hope those socialist nations have room in their budgets for self defense.

[JimInOK]

I don't care how they accomplish it so long as the safety net remains intact for those who need it and I believe that FDR would have felt the same way. He was always about the practical side of the issue more than the ideological side. I have my doubts about the practical effectiveness of privatization, but if the current plan is unsustainable I'm not opposed to trying it. With the sole caveat that if it too proves insufficient that we try something else and not just abandon those who will need it, both today and in the future. Among my favorite FDR quotes:

"Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something."

[LivingAlmostLarge]

As long as people who don't want SS are ready to care for their elderly. I say this because culturally where I am from people do, but in the US they don't. I can't imagine what will happen when people are forced to watch their parents and grandparents not have medicare, SS, etc

by the way it's medicare not SS Bankrupting the government. and it's only getting worse.

[maat55]

As long as people who don't want SS are ready to care for their elderly. I say this because culturally where I am from people do, but in the US they don't. I can't imagine what will happen when people are forced to watch their parents and grandparents not have medicare, SS, etc

by the way it's medicare not SS Bankrupting the government. and it's only getting worse.

It is improper government intrusion that is bankrupting the country. Mandating private retirement and HSA accounts is a good compromise.

[walker.kenny]

Whats wrong with “to each his own”? I’d rather invest my SS myself

[Mjenn]

[QUOTE=maat55;289229]

It would be nice if you would practice your economic theory with your own money. This used to be a free country. What is to keep you and like minded others from voluntarily establishing your own safety nets?

It has never been a free country in that you can pick and choose what your tax money goes to. See I would love to send a note with my tax check (Here you go, but please don't use my money towards any of the following things: privitized military forces in 2 almost decade long wars, the salary of the congressman that I didn't vote for rep. my district, etc. etc. etc. - however please feel free to use this towards extra gear for our US soldiers and towards improving our transport system here at home)

However, the US is a democracy and was founded on the following structure: You vote for a guy/gal - that person may or may not win, but they still represent the voting majority - and they go and pass laws which are vetoed or not by the president that won the voting majority. Those laws are upheld by a Supreme Court which has been appointed by a variety of presidents over time. If you don't like something, you can vote for another guy/gal - but you don't just get to do it your way because you feel like it - that ain't democracy as described in our constitution.

It isn't just a free for all where you decide what you like and don't like and behave accordingly. I've been amazed by the recent shift of the right wing towards advocating anarchy - it used to be the death metal kids in high school that were all about that.... but I guess they grew up.

[maat55]

It isn't just a free for all where you decide what you like and don't like and behave accordingly. I've been amazed by the recent shift of the right wing towards advocating anarchy - it used to be the death metal kids in high school that were all about that.... but I guess they grew up.

Anarchy? Defending my property rights is anarchy? It is amazing how anarchy is defined by the left.

James Madison: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislationdown to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

[rj.phila]

"Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something."

Jim-nice post, great quote, great president. well put, i totally agree.

[QUOTE=maat55;289152]

The only thing that can distablize the markets enough to collapse them is the government(federal reserve,GSE's) itself.

[QUOTE=maat55;289152]

It is improper government intrusion that is bankrupting the country.

kind of like the horribly destabilized financial markets between the period of glass-steagal and gramm-leach-bliley?

i'll agree that there are problems with SS and Medicare. OF COURSE there are, we have the most dysfunctional and ineffective health care system in THE DEVELOPED WORLD. literally. (also the most expensive). we also have one of the most thoroughly privatized systems. i am baffled that anyone could possibly think that the solution to the health care issue in the US is privatizing it even further.

this knee-jerk "govt is bad" response to nearly any of the problems related to debt and deficit issues reminds me of someone who eats a bad meal on vacation in hawaii, gets ill, and says "see, i knew i should never have gone on vacation".

oh, and to say "X is bankrupting the country" kinda just displays either willful or blissful ignorance of the pie chart that is the budget.

one more thing: socialism and defense. lets just look at examples. norway? belgium? sweden? australia? NZ? who the eff is invading these countries? lets be real here. we could reduce our military budget by 85% and still be the MOST MILITARIZED COUNTRY ON THE DAMN PLANET. we could probably go further, and not get invaded. please, tell me, whats norways standing army look like, and when is the next time they'll get invaded? nobody gives a s**t about invading norway.

[JimInOK]

SS and Medicaid are big Gov't programs, where big brother feels I'm stupid and I cannot handle my own retirement.

Actually, that wasn't the impetus behind the creation of SS at all. It was created to be a national insurance program not for those who, like yourself, can handle their own retirement, but for those who, for a wide variety of reasons, cannot. Tens of millions of such people existed in 1934, and I can't imagine that millions of such people do not still exist today. Actually, more than 50% of senior citizens at the time were living in poverty at the time of its creation. Yes, some of this was due to the extraordinary depression gripping the nation at the time, but its important to remember that contemporary studies had found that up to 1/3 of the nation had been enduring a chronic condition of poverty for decades before the Depression began, and that millions of elderly Americans had had absolutely no recourse against it for generations (See Lorena Hickok's "One Third of a Nation" or David Kennedy's "Freedom from Fear" as just two possible references, one primary and one secondary).

Incidentally, one of the primary expected benefits for those who devised it was that it would allow aged people to leave the job market in order to allow the younger people who were filling the unemployment rolls to find work and feed their starving families. So, you see, it really wasn't dreamed up because the government thinks we're stupid. It was dreamed up to provide for those who inevitably will not be able to provide for themselves.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

kind of like the horribly destabilized financial markets between the period of glass-steagal and gramm-leach-bliley?

Glass/Steagall was good government, repealing it was corrupt and not re-instating it is beyond corrupt.

i'll agree that there are problems with SS and Medicare. OF COURSE there are, we have the most dysfunctional and ineffective health care system in THE DEVELOPED WORLD.
literally. (also the most expensive). we also have one of the most thoroughly privatized systems.

Since when is 40% of the makrtet paid by government and improper employer incentives that promote copay health plans a free market healthcare system? Not to mention people can get services without paying, I wonder how much tv's would cost if people could just walk in and walk out without paying.

i am baffled that anyone could possibly think that the solution to the health care issue in the US is privatizing it even further.

If it works for tv's and multitudes of other comodities and services, why would it not work for healthcare? You have to get past this " it is a right" thing in order to have real free market healthcare and affordability. Mandated HSA's and employer healthcare allowances (as apposed to group copay plans)would re-establish market forces.

this knee-jerk "govt is bad" response to nearly any of the problems related to debt and deficit issues reminds me of someone who eats a bad meal on vacation in hawaii, gets ill, and says "see, i knew i should never have gone on vacation".

Did you run up 14 trillion in debt? Did you make a budget that is 1.6 trillion in deficit? Did you create a pay as you go retirement plan that is severly under funded due to poor planning and pillaging? Did you establish the GSE's that have distorted the housing market? Did you allow a cartel of bankers to control the money supply and set interest rates? No, the government did it.

oh, and to say "X is bankrupting the country" kinda just displays either willful or blissful ignorance of the pie chart that is the budget.

Define X.

one more thing: socialism and defense. lets just look at examples. norway? belgium? sweden? australia? NZ? who the eff is invading these countries? lets be real here. we could reduce our military budget by 85% and still be the MOST MILITARIZED COUNTRY ON THE DAMN PLANET. we could probably go further, and not get invaded. please, tell me, whats norways standing army look like, and when is the next time they'll get invaded? nobody gives a s**t about invading norway.

I would love to reduce our military. It would force the socialist countries to fund their own. If we were to pull all of our troops out of Europe, do you think for a second that would not be a major adjustment to the ballance of power? The Europeans would be scrambling to build defense, and they would likely have to make major cuts in social programs.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Here is a difference of opinion on health care, you believe you pay for it, I believe it's a basic human right and should be covered. That's the bottom line difference in paying for it.

[maat55]

Here is a difference of opinion on health care, you believe you pay for it, I believe it's a basic human right and should be covered. That's the bottom line difference in paying for it.

If it were a right, it would have existed since the existence of man. Do you really believe we would have an economy at all if everything were a right?

How much would a tv cost? How much would a car cost? Once you define something as a right, it becomes less affordable. Moreover, the only way to provide healthcare for everyone means you have to enslave those who can provide it or pay for it with future generations prosperity. It is impossible to provide everyone healthcare. Even socialist countries have to ration through waiting lines for minor emergencies and office calls.

You should give thorough thought as to what you claim as a right.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Nope it's a right. Basic healthcare is a right. People have a right to treatment and I hate to point out but do you know anything about socialized healthcare? How about the fact recently the best man from our wedding, his dad underwent triple bypass in Canada. He had it done faster than if he were waiting in the US for zero OOP. So whose the losers now? The fact is that yes you do have to wait for small things, but then for bigger things they can get through faster?

Yes I believe that with or without insurance people should get care. And in the US they don't because it'll bankrupt them. They don't buy insurance because they can't get it from pre-exisiting condition. They don't get it because they need to eat or pay rent. Or perhaps they can afford it but who would actually cover them (that's my DH). So yes you can have the opinion that healthcare is a right.

Just because it's different doesn't it wrong or not understandable. If it were so dumb, then why are so many countries doing it? Why do so many people believe it? Why are so many people for it?

Something I find interesting is that many of the most philanthropic people are the wealthiest, but the people who cry about taxes and whine about every man for himself? I would consider upper middle class. The truly wealthy don't worry, the poor don't worry, and the middle class? Whine about taxes until suddenly THEY need help. Then suddenly it's gimme, gimme, gimme. Suddenly a job loss, loss of insurance and they want government intervention. They want unemployment, they want insurance.