What will solve the looming debt crisis?

[joe bloe]

No, I do not believe Social Security should exist. Social Security is a rippoff and it's unconstitutional. We are all forced to contribute to Social Security. We have no choice. The benefits, compared to the contributions, are terrible. If everyone was allowed to pay into a private pension fund, with an average rate of return, instead of Social Security, they would be much better off. If a private sector pension fund was run like Social Security, the owners would all be put in prison.

Government workers in Matagorda, Galveston, and Brazoria county Texas were allowed to opt of Social Security in 1981 and 1982, and instead, contribute to private pension funds. Many of them are retired today and getting substantially more income than they would have received, had they stayed in the Social Security system.



http://spectator.org/archives/2012/0...-by-choice-the

[Whirlaway]

Spoken like a true re-distributionist.

Originally Posted by CJ7

by raising the SS tax 1% the program becomes totally solvent ... but the republicans are against that, its not politically possible Grover wont allow it.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Spoken like a true re-distributionist.

I rest my case.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

No. Social Security is a rippoff and it's unconstitutional. We are all forced to contribute to Social Security. We have no choice. The benefits, compared to the contributions, are terrible. If everyone paid into a private pension fund with an average rate of return, instead of Social Security, they would be much better off. If a private sector pension fund was run like Social Security, the owners would all be put in prison.

Government workers in Matagorda, Galveston, and Brazoria county Texas were allowed to opt of Social Security in 1981 and 1982, and instead, contribute to private pension funds. Many of them are retired today and getting substantially more income than they would have received, had they stayed in the Social Security system.



http://spectator.org/archives/2012/0...-by-choice-the

Are these private funds guaranteed/insured by the government? Are they in the stock market?

My concern is that not every elderly person or working person is always good at managing private accounts, especially if they involve stocks. I would just be concerned about a ton of elderly people retired and broke which would not be good for the country.

I am not a opposed to a combination approach of secured government/tax funds and partial private funds, more of a hybrid really, one that we can transition to.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What kind of a poll allows people to vote for multiple choices ?

Timmyboy voted 3 times for 3 different answers ??????

Democrats usually vote more than once for the same choice. That's why they always "get out the vote" better than Republicans. We Republicans also stop voting after we're dead; that gives the Democrats another advantage.

[Whirlaway]

It isn't the government's role to protect people from making bad decisions. And SSI has become a mechanism of re-distributing the benefits of work from those who earn to those who do not.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Are these private funds guaranteed/insured by the government? Are they in the stock market?

My concern is that not every elderly person or working person is always good at managing private accounts, especially if they involve stocks. I would just be concerned about a ton of elderly people retired and broke which would not be good for the country.

I am not a opposed to a combination approach of secured government/tax funds and partial private funds, more of a hybrid really, one that we can transition to.

just imagine seniors that had such a difficult time choosing Part D plan/s keeping up with a diversified stock portifolio .. brilliant

then after years of being at the mercy of the market it carshes, and shortly after retirement theyre without a dime to their names and on the street ... now theres a golden year plan !!

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Are these private funds guaranteed/insured by the government? Are they in the stock market?

My concern is that not every elderly person or working person is always good at managing private accounts, especially if they involve stocks. I would just be concerned about a ton of elderly people retired and broke which would not be good for the country.

I am not a opposed to a combination approach of secured government/tax funds and partial private funds, more of a hybrid really, one that we can transition to.

That's precisely what George W Bush tried to do. The Democrats fought it tooth and nail. No system will ever be perfect. Some people will inevitably fall through the cracks.

By setting up a system in which the government guarantees no one will be left destitute, it creates a self fullfilling prophesy.

The government has set up a retirement system with the rational that people are irresponsible and won't save for retirement, and by so doing, it is telling people they don't need to save because the government will take of them.

[CJ7]

Bush tried to avoid people noticing all of their SS trust $$ was spent chasing saddam

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

That's precisely what George W Bush tried to do. The Democrats fought it tooth and nail. No system will ever be perfect. Some people will inevitably fall through the cracks.

By setting up a system in which the government guarantees no one will be left destitute, it creates a self fullfilling prophesy.

The government has set up a retirement system with the rational that people are irresponsible and won't save for retirement, and by so doing, it is telling people they don't need to save because the government will take of them.

I supported what Bush was trying to do, we just didn't trust the implementation.

I understand your argument as a conservative principal but the reality is there are times when the government does have to help save people from themselves, that's why we have laws for example. Before SS we had tons of broke elderly people and now we don't. I just think the implementation was flawed in that it was structured like a Pyramid, and eventually the people at the bottom get the shaft in a pyramid money structure.

I would prefer to see a hybrid model and the option to opt out. I think doing away with SS altogether would be disastrous.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It isn't the government's role to protect people from making bad decisions. And SSI has become a mechanism of re-distributing the benefits of work from those who earn to those who do not.

It's becoming clear that Social Security and Medicare are going to be means tested in the next few years, as the debt crisis worsens. That's a complete violation of the contract between the government and the tax payer, just another way of re-distributing income.

The responsible citizen, that saved for retirement, will be punished by losing government benefits he paid for.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by markroxny

I supported what Bush was trying to do, we just didn't trust the implementation.

I understand your argument as a conservative principal but the reality is there are times when the government does have to help save people from themselves, that's why we have laws for example. Before SS we had tons of broke elderly people and now we don't. I just think the implementation was flawed in that it was structured like a Pyramid, and eventually the people at the bottom get the shaft in a pyramid money structure.

I would prefer to see a hybrid model and the option to opt out. I think doing away with SS altogether would be disastrous.

I don't think most Republicans are completely against the government helping the truly needy if private charity and family are not sufficient.

The legitimate goal of any government entitlement program must be to minimize human suffering. All people of good will agree on that. The problem with the liberal mindset is that it's short-sighted in terms of dealing with human suffering. In the long run, liberal programs are not sustainable and ultimately increase suffering more than they decrease it.

We are about to go bankrupt; if we don't dramatically cut entitlement programs, there will be no money left to redistribute. The truly needy will not be taken care of because of overly generous unsustainable programs.

The best system is one that encourages people to be self reliant and not become dependant social welfare. That's the tough love philosophy of conservatives. In the long run, tough love is more compassionate than a social welfare nanny state that addicts people to welfare and ultimately goes bankrupt.

Our current sytem of social welfare does not just provide for the truly needy. It has grown into a monster that is bankrupting us. We currently spend $60,000 in social welfare for every low income household, with only $18,000 actually being delivered to the recipient. This can not continue if we want to avoid a financial disaster.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I don't think most Republicans are completely against the government helping the truly needy if private charity and family are not sufficient.

The legitimate goal of any government entitlement program must be to minimize human suffering. All people of good will agree on that. The problem with the liberal mindset is that it's short sited in terms of dealing with human suffering. In the long run, liberal programs are not sustainable and ultimately increase suffering more than they decrease it.

We are about to go bankrupt; if we don't dramatically cut entitlement programs, there will be no money left to redistribute. The truly needy will not be taken care of because of overly generous unsustainable programs.

The best system is one that encourages people to be self reliant and not become dependant social welfare. That's the tough love philosophy of conservatives. In the long run, tough love is more compassionate than a social welfare nanny state that addicts people to welfare and ultimately goes bankrupt.

.

Again i think eliminating SS will create human suffering especially of the elderly. This concept of "personal responsibility" is fine for older people who are good at managing their own retirement accounts, and I think they should be able to. But in all truth, most will not be good at that. I have no problem with safety nets for a group like the elderly. Yea i get ss taken out of my check and that money goes to retired people in the short term. But i far prefer that to seeing droves of broke hungry old people all over the US.

I feel it's my civic duty to pay my share and help out. I do agree that the current system needs to be re-vamped because it wasn't structured well in terms of money in and money out.

I'm confidant a solution can be found and I have no doubt it will. We don't have to do away with it all together, just improve the way it's funded, the way it's managed, structured and the way it works.

My 2 cents

[Whirlaway]

The Obama administration opposed changes that would have kept the current SSI program in place for those over 50 and phased in a private account system for the younger generations that follow.

The current system will be a burning tire around the necks of the upcoming 30-something generation; but Obama and the Progressive left don't care.

[JD Barleycorn]

It is called the Chilean Plan. It was done in Chili and it worked. So before the last loophole closed in the US three counties got out of SS and adopted the plan. They are doing very well and have been for 20 years. The proof is right there but no reporter has the guts to talk about it and the politicians wish it would go away.

Most establish republicans resemble democrats except they think that they can dole out the benefits more efficiently. Most conservatives want less government, a lot less but do not support no goverment. That is a left wing smear, fear tactic. I would like to have control of my SS funds then it is my fault if I fail. I can also take action to avoid a problem like a fiscal cliff. Not so with government control. If I want to invest in gold or silver then I can and I can leave the money, my money, to someone if I croak before I spend it all. It is my money after all.

By not electing Ryan as VP we have stuck ourselves with SS in its current, failing form for the next four years.