A bullet dodged

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/a-bullet-dodged

A bullet dodged

What would have happened if George W. Bush had actually succeeded in his plan to privatize Social Security? Ask the Italians.

Italy did for retirement financing what President George W. Bush couldn’t do in the U.S.: It privatized part of its social security system. The timing couldn’t have been worse.

The global market meltdown has created losses for those who agreed to shift their contributions from a government severance payment plan to private funds meant to yield higher returns.

…

Gaetano Turchetta, a Rome office manager, made the irreversible move to a private plan after a union representative boasted of the potential for 20 percent annual returns. The 43- year-old father of three now says he would sign with “two hands and two feet” if he could switch back.
 
Privatization of SS was one of the few things that Bush offered that I supported. Even with the recent meltdown, there would be a MUCH greater rate of return over the long haul for workers.

Most people younger than me, and even those in my generation, just assume that Social Security will not be there when we retire, anyway. For anyone who opposes privatization, I would love to hear the alternative.
 
Onceler said:
Privatization of SS was one of the few things that Bush offered that I supported. Even with the recent meltdown, there would be a MUCH greater rate of return over the long haul for workers.

Most people younger than me, and even those in my generation, just assume that Social Security will not be there when we retire, anyway. For anyone who opposes privatization, I would love to hear the alternative.
Click to expand...

Wow. I agree with Onceler.
 
I supported it too.

But the simple fact is, SS isn't going to be all of your retirement plan. And it's guaranteed. The American people deserve some sense of security in retirement, no matter the economic conditions.
 
In Bush's plan the older workers closer to retirement would have been unable to move even a portion of their social security into the market.

Only you and I and all the other youngins who are far from retirement could have.

Also, only certain programs were possible to invest in and none of them were as risky as suggested by "award winning economist" Krugman.
 
Damocles said:
In Bush's plan the older workers closer to retirement would have been unable to move even a portion of their social security into the market.

Only you and I and all the other youngins who are far from retirement could have.

Also, only certain programs were possible to invest in and none of them were as risky as suggested by "award winning economist" Krugman.
Click to expand...

That's nobel prize winning, Damo.
 
Watermark said:
I supported it too.

But the simple fact is, SS isn't going to be all of your retirement plan. And it's guaranteed. The American people deserve some sense of security in retirement, no matter the economic conditions.
Click to expand...

I love the idea of social security, and the fact that we have it, but the fact is, we can't afford it. There is no viable plan for keeping SS workable in the long run.

Privatization would only be a disaster in a meltdown like this if people on the verge of retirement had suddenly had all of their SS investment "privatized," which isn't a part of any plan I would support (I'm not sure what Italy did to have it set up so that people actually incurred losses). Over time, the market's returns are basically guaranteed, and they are SO much better than the paltry returns with SS.

To me, it's kind of a no brainer. I just don't hear any other ideas.
 
Onceler said:
Privatization of SS was one of the few things that Bush offered that I supported. Even with the recent meltdown, there would be a MUCH greater rate of return over the long haul for workers.

Most people younger than me, and even those in my generation, just assume that Social Security will not be there when we retire, anyway. For anyone who opposes privatization, I would love to hear the alternative.
Click to expand...
Unless you needed you money during a downturn. But just wait till things get better...if you live that long....
 
Damocles said:
In Bush's plan the older workers closer to retirement would have been unable to move even a portion of their social security into the market.

Only you and I and all the other youngins who are far from retirement could have.

Also, only certain programs were possible to invest in and none of them were as risky as suggested by "award winning economist" Krugman.
Click to expand...

Umm correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember there being an official Bush plan.
Just a bunch of rhetoric.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember there being an official Bush plan.
Just a bunch of rhetoric.
Click to expand...
You would be wrong.

It was, in fact, what he tried to spend the political capital from his "mandate" on.

Short memories in old people.
 
Damocles said:
You would be wrong.

It was, in fact, what he tried to spend the political capital from his "mandate" on.

Short memories in old people.
Click to expand...

Link to the official plan please.

Not speech or campaign statements, but a document.

yeah a good thing my memory gets shorter , keeps me from wanting to strangle 2X bush supporters so bad.
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/

# As we fix Social Security, we must make it a better deal for our younger workers by allowing them to put part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts.

* Personal accounts would be entirely voluntary.
* The money would go into a conservative mix of bond and stock funds that would have the opportunity to earn a higher rate of return than anything the current system could provide.
* A young person who earns an average of $35,000 a year over his or her career would have nearly a quarter million dollars saved in his or her own account upon retirement.
* That savings would provide a nest egg to supplement that worker’s traditional Social Security check, or to pass on to his or her children.
* Best of all, it would replace the empty promises of the current system with real assets of ownership.

# President Bush understands that reforming Social Security will not be easy. But he believes that if we approach this debate with courage and honesty, we will succeed. Our children’s retirement security is more important than partisan politics.
 
Yeah right that is a plan? that is just a political statement I acan do that good.

How would the investments be set up? who would administer them?
Insurance guarantees? What age to cut off entry into the program.
A schedule of benefits for those who are are partially in the plan and those fully in the old plan?
Paying back the spent SS surplus.?

the devil is in the details.
 
Watermark said:
I supported it too.

But the simple fact is, SS isn't going to be all of your retirement plan. And it's guaranteed. The American people deserve some sense of security in retirement, no matter the economic conditions.
Click to expand...

when congress can make a simple majority vote on increasing or decreasing SS payments, there is no security.
 
Thank god Bush didnt do it.

Even if it sounded reasonable the Bush team would have found some way to fuck it up.
 
Onceler said:
Privatization of SS was one of the few things that Bush offered that I supported. Even with the recent meltdown, there would be a MUCH greater rate of return over the long haul for workers.

Most people younger than me, and even those in my generation, just assume that Social Security will not be there when we retire, anyway. For anyone who opposes privatization, I would love to hear the alternative.
Click to expand...

People managing their own money separately would be better than the massive stupidity of putting in it in massive chunks into the hands of wall street charlatans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top