New Budget Estimates Show Unsustainable Spending and Debt

Privatlzation would be like shooting craps, if one happens to reach the magic age in a crash or prolonged downturn, wouldn't the recipient, through no fault of his own, be penalized when campared to those fortunate enough to reach that age during a market boom, whether reasoned or speculative? SS was never meant for each to pay his own way, but for each to pay into a pool, if not, there could never have been a day one. What would the injection of that money do to the Market or influence the introduction of new, barely legal, investment instruments? I suspect there are a whole lot of itchy Wall Street palms out there.
 
Southern Man said:
Require them to invest the same amount that they now put into social security, with matching funds by their employer just as is done now. The default investment vehicle will be government bonds. Enrollment in a private insurance policy to ensure social security level benefits upon retirement should be required.
Click to expand...

That's similar to what I suggested in msg 12. Treat SS as an insurance policy except have it run by the government.

Private insurance or anything private does not have the same guarantee as government. There would be plenty of money in SS if the government had not "borrowed" the funds. Pass legislation forbidding it in the future.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Mott the Hoople said:
The government doesn't need to get lean. The government needs to decide what programs were going to support and which ones we are not and then get rid of the ones we won't support and more fully fund the ones we do support. Going lean will just starve the government services we do need and would be a recipe for ineffectual government.[/QUOTE

What are you talking about? We already have an ineffectual government and it's getting worse.
Click to expand...
Well that's another "STUPID" button comment.

I mean what would a Bush supporter know about affective government. Being a Bush supporters makes you uniquely unqualified to even have an opinion on the subject. The least credible people in this country on the subject of governing affectively are conservative Republicans who have proven to be hopelessly inept. So really, what the hell would a person as lacking in credibility on this subject as you are know about governing affectively? Please explain that to me.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
That's similar to what I suggested in msg 12. Treat SS as an insurance policy except have it run by the government.

Private insurance or anything private does not have the same guarantee as government. There would be plenty of money in SS if the government had not "borrowed" the funds. Pass legislation forbidding it in the future.
Click to expand...

SS is an Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and is run by the government.

You mean if the government hadn't stolen from the funds, right? We have been trying to get the government to stop stealing, and there have been promises, but no one has had the balls to do it. Personally, I don't think they want to do it.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
SS is an Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and is run by the government.

You mean if the government hadn't stolen from the funds, right? We have been trying to get the government to stop stealing, and there have been promises, but no one has had the balls to do it. Personally, I don't think they want to do it.
Click to expand...
Interest free money, could be the reason, no borrowing from China,

I wonder where Low is, I miss his Chimerica!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that's another "STUPID" button comment.

I mean what would a Bush supporter know about affective government. Being a Bush supporters makes you uniquely unqualified to even have an opinion on the subject. The least credible people in this country on the subject of governing affectively are conservative Republicans who have proven to be hopelessly inept. So really, what the hell would a person as lacking in credibility on this subject as you are know about governing affectively? Please explain that to me.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we need to view the Conservative's ineptness from a different angle. They are against government being involved in anything so it is counter to their interests to implement a government program that works. It is counter productive for them to ensure current programs function properly and efficiently.

What better way than to cut taxes while spending? When they leave office with a deficit it ensures the following government will not have the money to implement future programs.

The Conservatives want people to say, "We owe enough money. We better not spend any more", resulting in initiatives being shelved. Fortunately, Obama realizes that and he's pushing ahead with a medical plan anyway.
 
I expect a renewed effort to privatize SS. The reason is to pump more money into the stock market and artificially inflate it with our SS "contributions".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top