problems with social security and medicare have not gone away
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What you have here, is an article which points out something Republicans have been saying the past 15-20 years, at least. Only, every time some Republican has suggested a solution, the Democrats begin screaming that Republicans want to eliminate Social Security and kick the old people to the curb. They do this because it is more beneficial to political power to exploit this crisis, than to actually find a solution. As long as Democrats can gain a few votes by scaring old people, they will continue to do that, instead of addressing the problem. In fact, I don't think they are really interested in solving this problem, they get too much political benefit from having the problem around.
I would like to ask you and other Democrats here; What is your solution to the insolvency problem we face with Social Security? Let's set aside they hyperbole and rhetoric about Republicans wanting to starve and kill old folks, and let's focus on what your solution to the problem is. I promise I will listen with an open mind, because I really would like to hear some proposal for what you think we need to do.
MY solution, would be to slowly ween people off the current system, and eventually replace it with a private 401k type account, which the person would own as a tangible asset. This way, instead of each person's money going into a big bucket that politicians will pilfer and steal, it goes into a private personal account the government can't touch. Think about how much more valuable this would be to the individual? If they needed a small short-term loan, they could use a portion of their retirement as collateral, and when they die, they can pass this money on to their families. Currently, we have people who have paid into the system their whole life, but die before they collect the first check, how is that fair? They pay all this money in, and never get one cent in benefits, nor their families. With a privatized account, the asset would belong to them, not the government.
Now, I know your natural Democrat reaction to this, will be to wring your hands and worry that the Republicans are going to let old people die in the streets.... because that is how your mind has been programmed to think here. But just try to fight through that inclination, and understand, we are discussing a potential solution to a problem you raised and acknowledged in this very thread.
We can find drawbacks to every plan, there is no 'perfect' solution. Some people will say that my plan doesn't account for times when the markets tank, and what are we going to do if that happens and old people are left penniless? Well, first of all, historically, the stock market increases over time. The average person will work about 45 years... there has never been a time in the history of the market, that it has declined over a 45-year period. The worst economic depression we've ever had, only caused about a 10-year decline, within a 45-year span, an investor would have never known there was a depression. The market always rebounds, it always comes back. And if it ever does completely collapse, the least of our problems is going to be how to send checks to old people. So all the doom and gloom about the possibility of this, is irrelevant anyway, because we would have so many other bigger problems if that ever happened.
But let's assume the worst, that for some reason, we experience an economic hard time that drives the markets down... The plan we use for SS could be protected by the government in these short-term situations. In other words, the government could guarantee your retirement fund wouldn't lose money, even if the market collapsed. Now that's how you could deal with the biggest possible downside to privatization. So I have presented my solution, and even anticipated the downside and what to do about that. So far, I don't see any other "plan" from you or Democrats, except to continue to exploit the crisis and scare old people into voting for Democrats, who continue to completely ignore this problem, and pretend it will somehow work out.
I would like to ask you and other Democrats here; What is your solution to the insolvency problem we face with Social Security? Let's set aside they hyperbole and rhetoric about Republicans wanting to starve and kill old folks, and let's focus on what your solution to the problem is. I promise I will listen with an open mind, because I really would like to hear some proposal for what you think we need to do.
MY solution, would be to slowly ween people off the current system, and eventually replace it with a private 401k type account, which the person would own as a tangible asset. This way, instead of each person's money going into a big bucket that politicians will pilfer and steal, it goes into a private personal account the government can't touch. Think about how much more valuable this would be to the individual? If they needed a small short-term loan, they could use a portion of their retirement as collateral, and when they die, they can pass this money on to their families. Currently, we have people who have paid into the system their whole life, but die before they collect the first check, how is that fair? They pay all this money in, and never get one cent in benefits, nor their families. With a privatized account, the asset would belong to them, not the government.
Now, I know your natural Democrat reaction to this, will be to wring your hands and worry that the Republicans are going to let old people die in the streets.... because that is how your mind has been programmed to think here. But just try to fight through that inclination, and understand, we are discussing a potential solution to a problem you raised and acknowledged in this very thread.
We can find drawbacks to every plan, there is no 'perfect' solution. Some people will say that my plan doesn't account for times when the markets tank, and what are we going to do if that happens and old people are left penniless? Well, first of all, historically, the stock market increases over time. The average person will work about 45 years... there has never been a time in the history of the market, that it has declined over a 45-year period. The worst economic depression we've ever had, only caused about a 10-year decline, within a 45-year span, an investor would have never known there was a depression. The market always rebounds, it always comes back. And if it ever does completely collapse, the least of our problems is going to be how to send checks to old people. So all the doom and gloom about the possibility of this, is irrelevant anyway, because we would have so many other bigger problems if that ever happened.
But let's assume the worst, that for some reason, we experience an economic hard time that drives the markets down... The plan we use for SS could be protected by the government in these short-term situations. In other words, the government could guarantee your retirement fund wouldn't lose money, even if the market collapsed. Now that's how you could deal with the biggest possible downside to privatization. So I have presented my solution, and even anticipated the downside and what to do about that. So far, I don't see any other "plan" from you or Democrats, except to continue to exploit the crisis and scare old people into voting for Democrats, who continue to completely ignore this problem, and pretend it will somehow work out.
The only "plan" needed is to raise the income cap, and it has been mentioned plenty of times, idiot
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, Rune... perhaps you need to read the bold part of Nemo's post above, the problem will still be the banditos in gvt. stealing the money. In 1983, that plan might have been an option, but it is no longer an option, even raising the caps, the trust fund will be depleted before the baby boomers die. Especially if people like Obama keep raiding it to pay for liberal socialist programs like Obamacare.
And as Nemo said, Greenspan proposed this, so what happened? Well, someone suggested we raise the cap, and their opponent immediately began running attack ads, claiming he wanted to kick people off their Social Security... and that was the end of that. And every time since, when a Republican has suggested ways to save Social Security from this certain doom, they are hooted down by the Democrats, who over-exaggerate and sound the alarms, exploiting the problem to get old people votes. No one can reform the system until you allow reforms to be made. That should be abundantly clear.
I, for one, am certainly open to the idea of eliminating SS for wealthy people, who can take care of themselves. But I also think people should be able to 'opt out' at any time, if they believe they have their bases covered for retirement. I would like to see the program honed down to what it originally was intended to be, a means to help the elderly poor, who have no social safety net for when they get old. I would like to do a complete rectal exam on the whole "disability" coverage under Medicare, because I believe there is widespread abuse of that provision. Certainly, there ARE some clear disabilities we should cover, and I am not totally heartless, but let's face it, we have a lot of lazy fat-asses out there, who don't want to work, and have convinced themselves there is some reason they can't work, and we have validated that by giving them a monthly check. That just needs to stop. We need to re-evaluate what we're doing and how, and this is an area we should certainly look into.
Back to Social Security, my idea transforms the current government-controlled system over to the people and individuals. The "banditos" can't steal money out of my checking and savings account, can they? My idea actually does something to SOLVE the problem highlighted in Nemo's post. At the same time, the Social Security system is preserved for those who are currently on it, and for anyone over 50 who wants to keep it... and the 'option' becomes available for younger workers, to invest in a personal account with their name on it. I'll ask again, is that not BETTER than having a fund the government can raid whenever it pleases? I think so!
That is their problem, not mine. They borrowed from the fund and until the dollar becomes worthless the full faith and credit of the US is backing S.S.
Raising the cap will solve the problem, but if you repubs want to introduce means testing as well, I am all for it.
As for being able to opt out any time, you havn't thought that through thoroughly. Get back to me when you do. While you are at it, try to figure out why you think your private accounts are immune from gov. actions. They are not.
Raising the cap will solve the problem, but if you repubs want to introduce means testing as well, I am all for it.
As for being able to opt out any time, you havn't thought that through thoroughly. Get back to me when you do. While you are at it, try to figure out why you think your private accounts are immune from gov. actions. They are not.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LMAO... YOUR elected representatives, the people YOU voted for, spent the money on what YOU told them you wanted, and now you claim that isn't YOUR problem? Is THAT how this works? So all of this enormous mountain of debt we're leaving to our children and grandchildren... that's just their problem, right? Fuck it, you got yours! Let someone else worry about it when the time comes, as long as you can bleed another dollar out of the system, you don't really give two fucks. Glad you could be honest enough to admit that, now we know what the Democrat plan is... ride this bitch til she drops!
No, shit for brains, I didn't vote for the people that blew out the budget, you did, you crazy bastard.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Oh yes, I have thought it through VERY thoroughly, and in light of the revelation you just threw on me, I am even more inclined than ever to favor taking my retirement fund completely out of your hands or anyone you might elect.
No it won't! Didn't you just read what the other pinhead posted, which I highlighted for you? Stop being iron-headed and refusing to accept what has been said. The problem of having YOUR DEMOCRATS near my social security funds, will STILL BE THERE! I don't fucking trust you! Especially after what you just said! And raising the cap MIGHT have been a solution in 1983... that was fucking 30 years ago, retard!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, you did, unless you are claiming you haven't voted for a Democrat in the past 60 years.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Have you never read the 4th Amendment, jackass? YES, they ARE!
Democrats are not the ones who overspend moron.
Tell that to everyone who has had an account siezed. How can you be so naive?
Listen Dicks, as soon as all the selfish self-centered pricks like you withdraw from S.S. the system will no longer be self sustaining. Idiot.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
The notion that seniors should stake their future on the stock market is mindless.
Had seniors fell for this idea when Bush was proposing it, they'd be dropping like flies today.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Obama has spent over $4 trillion since he became president. What do you consider "overspend" moron?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No they wouldn't, because the Bush proposal began with people who were 55 and under, so they wouldn't even have been retired yet. Seniors would still be getting the same check as always. And most of the ones who opted for the market-based plan, would just about be back to break-even... after the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Which proves that the market is a much better alternative in the long run. It never stays down for long, it never has.
Also, keep in mind, the Bush plan also included a government-backed insurance on the fund, that returns would never drop below annual cost of living percentage. So his plan would have never 'tanked' like the rest of the market did. It wouldn't have grown much over the past 6 years, but then... what investment has?
Wrong as usual Dicks. Read it and weep.
[h=2]Spending Rate Lower Under Obama and Democrats[/h]
Rex Nutting of MarketWatch, which is owned by the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, shows that growth in federal spending under President Obama has been considerably lower than under Bush. In fact, the growth in federal spending under Obama and Clinton has been far lower than it was under every Republican president since Reagan.
He writes:
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
It should be absolutely clear by now that the Democrats are far more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. It’s not even close. And as Andrew Sullivan points out, Romney has promised to cut taxes even more and increase defense spending, which will send the debt soaring even more. The Republicans talk endlessly about fiscal responsibility, but it should be obvious that it is nothing more than a meaningless catchphrase.But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/05/25/spending-rate-lower-under-obama-and-democrats/
The ONLY reason the destroyers wanted to privatise S.S. was so Wall Street vampires could get a percentage of the old, feeble and needy's already small recources.
Stop being a party stooge for ONCE in your life.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here's a little exercise for those of you who are worried about the volatility of the markets in a personal retirement plan.
Above is a graph of the S&P 500 average from 1871-2008.
Let's presume the average American will work 45 years, and contribute to his/her retirement fund.
Look at the graph, and find a 45-year period at any time in the history of the market, where the value declined. You can look at any 45-year period, and you will find that the market at the end, was higher than at the beginning. Without fail.
The worries and concerns over volatile markets, is completely and totally unfounded when talking about a long-term investment. The market ALWAYS gains over time.
Last edited: