My Social Security Rant

[UncleVinny]

That "break-in" analogy falls apart when you realize your "protection money" was spent on an aggressive, pre-emptive war, started by Bush, and Rumsfeld, and Condi, and Wolfowitz to help their rich oil buddies, and it has nothing to do with protecting our house.

Meanwhile, I paid into the system for 40 years and I should get my benefits from it, despite the whining of selfish 'every man for himself' right-wingers. Like education, we all benefit from taking health and welfare into consideration into our public policy.

[TNRighty]

If you've paid into the system for 40 years, then you're probably over the age of 55 which means your benefits will not be cut one bit.

For people under the age of 55, to tell them simply that their Social Security benefits will be cut is not telling the whole story. It is true that they won't receive a Social Security check equal to the amount they would have received under the status quo. However, you're leaving out the fact that the portion of their SS contributions that go into a private account will supplement (with a MUCH better rate of return) the SS check they receive. It will more than make up for the fictitous "cut" you talk about. The net effect of SS PLUS the returns on the individual account is much better than the current system.

Although comparing SS to the war is in the apples and oranges category, your argument about "protection money" makes my point exactly. The government has spent your money on a war you do not support, and you're pissed about it. That's my point. When government controls the money, they spend it the way they want to, whether its a war, health care, homeland security, etc., etc., etc. The money you pay into social security is supposed to be your money, but its not. You do not control it. It is subject to the whims of politicians. When you control your own retirement account, politicians cannot dip into it to fund wars, welfare programs, or any other policy. ITS YOURS.

Bottom line, if you're unhappy with the way government spends your money, why wouldn't you want to keep as much for yourself as you possibly can?

[Crash]

Lets look at how privatization has worked in other countries and maybe learn some lessons.

"Britain's experiment with substituting private savings accounts for a portion of state benefits has been a failure," Cohen writes. "A shorthand explanation for what has gone wrong is that the costs and risks of running private investment accounts outweigh the value of the returns they are likely to earn....

American privatizers extol the virtues of personal choice, and often accuse skeptics of being elitists who believe that the government makes better choices than individuals. Yet when one brings up Britain's experience, their story suddenly changes: They promise to hold costs down by restricting the investments individuals can make, and by carefully regulating the money managers. So much for trusting the people.

Never mind; their promises aren't credible. Even if the initial legislation tightly regulated investments by private accounts, it would immediately be followed by intense lobbying to loosen the rules.

This lobbying would come both from the usual ideologues and from financial companies eager for fees. In fact, the lobbying has already started: The financial services industry has contributed lavishly to (Bush's) inaugural celebrations.

The foreign country that, in the view of well-informed Britons, does it right is the United States. The system that delivers efficiencies to die for is Social Security."

www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/opinion/edkrug.html

Bush's sponsors stand to make huge profits, thats the bottom line with all the scare tactics, propaganda and lies about SS. You might as well take your retirement money to Vegas.

[TNRighty]

In the mid and late 90's, President Clinton and many other prominent democrats told anyone who would listen that Social Security was headed down the gutter.

In an unrelated issue, they also told us that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that his WMD programs were putting the world at risk.

My point, is it the message or the messenger with which you disagree.

[Crash]

TNRighty,
First, I'm no Clinton fan, he's just as bought and sold by multi-national corporations as Bush. So bashing Clinton doesn't bother me. Lets face it, he signed NAFTA/GATT which is helping to destroy this country today.

What I disagree with is a govt. that acts in the interest of corporations over we the people. I disagree with the outright lies, propaganda, corruption, war profiteering, selfserving legislation and traitorious behavior of the money grubbing prostitutes who control our govt. today. Anytime you have govt. acting in the best interest of corporations over we the people its called fascism, not democracy.

[TNRighty]

How does allowing people to keep more of their own money constitute fascism?

Webster defines fascim as a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government.

If anything the SS proposals are the complete opposite of fascism. Under the new SS plans Bush is advocating LESS governmental control over your money. Thus your fascism argument is ludicrous.

The fascism label would be much more appropriately attached to the liberal Democrats pushing for more governmental control over the wealth and property of private individuals.