Bush is Right on Social Security

http://oregonmag.com/SocSec1102.htm

>>1
Good article.

lawl @ liberals

Bush is wrong on SocSec.
http://leftbusinessobserver.com/SocialSecurityRevisited.html

>>4

Xel, get the fuck off 4chan and learn to become anonymous. Also, fall on a dick and die.

>>5 This is one massive dick we're talking about. Do you go down on your mother with that mouth? Also, why should I become anonymous when me having a moniker apparently bugs the fuck out of condom adverts such as yourself?

>>6 The dude that Bush is listening to regarding Soc Sec reform in America is the guy that also privatized Soc Sec for Pinochet in Chile. The Chileans got more payoff from the stock market than Americans can hope for, and 90 % of Chileans wish they were back in the old system nonetheless. They got about half of what they would have gotten in the old system. Depending on when you retire you would get your retirement cut substantially as well. And the democrats are the fiscally irresponsible ones. I'm no patriot but stuff like this makes me happy to be a Swede.

>>7
Social Security might benefit the poor more, but if you are around middle class, heck, maybe even lower middle class, private retirement accounts will benefit you.  The way it's set up right now, we have a pool, and it acts to redistribute income, to some extent, unless I"m mistaken. 

Who cares? The government shouldn't be sticking its nose in our pocketbooks.  Not to mention, Social Security has been perverted into becoming a national ID as well.  Nobody who gives a fuck about either personal or economic liberty would support it.  Fuck, at least Bush is doing something about it. 

>>8 >>9 The only thing Bush is doing is what was done for the Chileans; only the top tier are getting boosts. Here: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

>>10
So? The top tier are paying the most taxes.  It makes sense that it would hurt them more. 

Personal retirement accounts are much better.  I don't want my money at the fingertips of a bunch of spending-crazy bureaucrats, I want it in a normal account, or maybe stocks, under MY NAME, accessable BY ME, and NOT THEM.

>>11 "So? The top tier are paying the most taxes.  It makes sense that it would hurt them more." What are you talking about? The top tier rode all the way to fat city on that deal, and the rest got half of what they would have gotten with the public system - *and they got more stock market payoff than you can ever dream about getting*. Is that fair?
"Personal retirement accounts are much better.  I don't want my money at the fingertips of a bunch of spending-crazy bureaucrats, I want it in a normal account, or maybe stocks, under MY NAME, accessable BY ME, and NOT THEM." If you read that article you'll have myths like that pulled out of your ass. Your money is safe in the current system were it not for the fiscally responsible conservatives that are making it unsafe, complicated and corruptible while putting the blame on the institutions.

>>12
"The top tier rode all the way to fat city on that deal, and the rest got half of what they would have gotten with the public system - *and they got more stock market payoff than you can ever dream about getting*. Is that fair?"

Can you elaborate? This must be something I wasn't aware of, because frankly, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. 

"Your money is safe in the current system were it not for the fiscally responsible conservatives that are making it unsafe, complicated and corruptible while putting the blame on the institutions."

And it would be even more safe if it were put in a regular retirement account controlled by me.  I don't need D.C. bureaucrats to control my income, or save for my retirement.  I'd rather handle that myself. 

>>13
>>And it would be even more safe if it were put in a regular retirement account controlled by me.
perception or reality? that is the question

>>13 Here's your elaboration http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html
Would you like a power-point presentation?
"And it would be even more safe if it were put in a regular retirement account controlled by me.  I don't need D.C. bureaucrats to control my income, or save for my retirement.  I'd rather handle that myself." You don't get to handle it, the stock market does.

>>15
"You don't get to handle it, the stock market does."

If the government would take it's hands completely off my money and finances in general, I'd have complete control over it.  Life would be just peachy at that point. 

The bureaucrats have proven to be ridiculously irresponsible with money.  I don't think putting them in charge of my finances is generally a good idea.  The conservatives, republicans, and libertarians are right on economics. 

Privatization is but a step in the right direction - getting rid of government interference altogether.  You can say this is 'radical' all you want, but I don't see what is so damn 'radical' about the idea of being able to spend and handle your own money, rather than a bunch of government officials.

Social Security is nothing more than a pyramid scheme.  If private citizens were trying to do it, they would have been arrested long ago for pyramid scheming.  In the coming years, we are going to have a Social Security emergency. 

>>16

Amen.

Social Security is stupid.  Let people handle their own finances.  Too many people nowadays are becoming too reliant on the nanny-state to do everything for them. 

>>16 "Life would be just peachy at that point." Absolutely. What could possibly go wrong? http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=507
"The conservatives, republicans, and libertarians are right on economics." Um, nyet; http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm
 http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/dynamic_scoring.html#comments
The only reason soc sec is/could be screwed is because Bush is handling it woefully, and lying about the numbers. Soc Sec will survive, people will get their money under the current system and privatization will fuck people up something royally.
>>17 Some guy named Maklin got put into jail for guaranteeing in front of his costumer that his stock market system would give higher payoff than it could. Bush did exactly that too, but, hey.... CLINTON!!! CARTER!!! LAWGIVERS!!! WAAAAAAH! Clinton dems were ready to partially privatize, and their system would do something like this
Created private accounts that were a good deal for beneficiaries.
Been part of an overall plan that would have raised national saving.
Preserved a baseline defined-benefit component of Social Security.
Been implemented by highly-competent and public-spirited centrist technocrats.

Bush's privatization idea looks a bit like this:
Create private accounts that--with the 3% real clawback--are quite possibly a bad idea for many if not most beneficiaries.
Be part of an overall plan that is at least as likely to reduce as to add to national saving in the medium run.
May well eliminate (we're not sure because the devil is in unreleased details) the baseline defined-benefit component of Social Security.
Be implemented by deranged monkeys--the ones who brought us our current deficit, the steel tariff, the bizarre Medicare drug benefit, last year's corporate tax monstrosity, and the Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

"The only reason soc sec is/could be screwed is because Bush is handling it woefully, and lying about the numbers."

Even in the event that Social Security DOES turn out to be ok, you can actually direct your thanks to a REPUBLICAN, most notably Mr. Ron Paul, Republican member of congress, member of the libertarian party, and former chair of the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus http://www.rlc.org/  ), for introducing, supporting, and voting for legislation that would keep other politicians hands out of the Social Security money pot, and preventing them from using it for any purposes but for Social Security. 

"Soc Sec will survive, people will get their money under the current system and privatization will fuck people up something royally."

I don't think Social Security will survive.  If it does, it is clearly going to require either a massive tax hike, massive inflation, or massive benefit cuts.  In any case, someone is going to be hurting, and from the looks of any of the scenarios, it will be the lower and middle classes. 

This is aside from the fact that the feds shouldn't be able to do with YOUR hard earned money as THEY want.  The rights to money should stay in the hands of those who earned said money, and that is just. 

I'm convinced Mr. Abortion is Murder! is a fucking troll. No one can possibly spout off all this pro-republicans, anti-dems, "haha, YOU'RE A FEMINIST!" bullshit and actually take themselves seriously.

I'mean how old are you, seriously? No one is really talking like that anymore except for on TV. Are you, like, from the TV? Are you Wolf Blitzer? Tucker Carlson? No?

Because I really feel that when I read your stuff, that someone is playing a trick on me. Testing me somehow.

Testing my patience.

>>22
Why don't you try refuting what he is saying? If it is such bullshit, prove him wrong. 

>>21 Bush's plan will not really liberate people's money, and they will lose much anyway. It would a symolic, ideological and pyrrhic victory.

>>23 I actually haven't proven anything myself, but my links do show that the current iteration of Soc Sec is neither doomed nor unsustainable. This doesn't mean that it is justified from an economic/philosophical perspective but Bush lying about the benifits of Soc Sec is equal to treason, and an implementing of his plan would not only be harmful to America and an ideological porkbarrel for the rich, it would also be an economic blunder of the highest order.

>>24
I see.  So by preventing government officials from extorting people's hard earned money from them at the point of government guns, if necessary, Bush is not really liberating the people, and granting them the right to do with their own money as they wish?

>>25
Well, you are right about one thing, Social Security is a violation of individual rights, and thus a violation of libertarian philosophical principles. 

So by preventing government officials from extorting people's hard earned money from them at the point of government guns
This is tangental, but you do realize you live in a democratic republic? If you feel this way, vote someone into power who will act in accordance with your wishes. They're supposed to represent you, remember?

Until then, yes, you're going to be forced (at gunpoint lollers) to do what society has agreed upon. You do realize you live with other people who also have priorities, right?

I'm sick and tired of the "we're being robbed!" bullshit libertarians spout. The US isn't the USSR (yet).

>>26 "I see.  So by preventing government officials from extorting people's hard earned money from them at the point of government guns, if necessary, Bush is not really liberating the people, and granting them the right to do with their own money as they wish?" It's not exactly a liberation of their money, it's changing the direction of the money to a riskier and half-as-profitable route.
"Well, you are right about one thing, Social Security is a violation of individual rights, and thus a violation of libertarian philosophical principles." Not denying that, but what we don't need is for a president who is famous for directly pushing money upwards to commit people to this sort of lousy privatization. It would make people more dependant in the end, make people less convinced of the benefits of privatization and give the hard left something to argument with. What we need is the type of excellent bipartisan reform, was enacted in 1996, that proved left-wing demagogues wrong and lessened welfare rolls by being a balanced, non-ideological and fair change towards a quid pro quo nature. This privatization is a very bad idea.The same dude who is proposing the change worked for Pinochet, and this very change -that cost Chileans up to half of their reirement funds- will have disastrous effects for you too. But hey, I am a Swede, so burn your money at the altar of Adam Smith for all I care. Hope you like cat food.
"I'm sick and tired of the "we're being robbed!" bullshit libertarians spout. The US isn't the USSR (yet)." Taxes are a form of slavery, at least when the money distributed to others only make them lazy or less alert. That is why the welfare reform of 96 was so great; it encouraged work by explaining clearly that the feeding tube would be removed if nothing was done, but that it would not run dry or be tugged away at any given moment. It was government handouts, but a conditional one and it worked wonders. This faux-liberation of people's finances that Bush is proposing will fuck things up and harm the notion of economic liberalism.

lol america

>>28
"It's not exactly a liberation of their money, it's changing the direction of the money to a riskier and half-as-profitable route."

Well, I think it is but a step towards what I mentioned earlier.

See, Social Security is one of those things that's been around a little while, and it's kindof entrenched in people's minds.  I'd really like to see it gone entirely, and liberty restored as it was before the program was implimented, however I don't think the public would accept this.  Privatization, if done right, would possibly get the public ready for more economic liberty in the future (such as returning complete control of your money to... you.   

Aside from this, however, if Bush's proposal was to phase out Social Security alltogether (not private accounts, but again... restore complete control of the money to those who earned it), would you support it? I know you want things done slowly, so lets assume it is slowly phased out, maybe incrementally or a bit at a time or something.  Would you support it?

>>30 Incremental change? Sure thing, hands down. More stuff like the welfare reform of 1996, less conservative pandering/lies and democrat paralysis. I have seen the dark side of socialism. Actually, being a Swede, I fucksing live in the dark side. Just as long as the system is so fucking tight than no one can turn the tables and just as long as people get the the education and the preparation to let the market handle things. The current attempt at privatization may be a step in the right direction, but it would be ineffective, unfair, based on lies, very harmful to most Americans and their view of economic liberalism not to mention how poorly it worked in Chile. This is a small, sweeping and radical step and I can't approve of it even if I approve of the direction. It is an extreme solution looking for an extreme problem. The Infamous Deal That Causes Haemorrhaging in All Libertarians (TM) was very poorly implemented as well but the spreading inequality (the cause of the depression) was so ubiquitious it was okay to play hardball. This is not the case here.

bush is delicious cake, goddam right he's right

>>31
Ok, good.  So you agree then that Social Security should be incrementally phased out.  That's good, I agree with you.  I'm a bit skeptical of privatization, but I'd accept it on the grounds that it is what I mentioned just now -- an incremental change towards something better -- complete control over my earnings. 

>>33 But it is a pyrrhic victory extended by a man who has no respect for half of the country or the constitution or the bill of rights. If you accept it there is no telling what the right will try to serve you next.

>>34
True, and those are all VERY valid points, but again, I'd rather thumb the nose at the dems and let them know at the polls just how irritating (not to mention unconstitutional) their gun laws are, otherwise, they just simply won't change. 

Once the left has completed their transformation, and no longer supports gun control, I'd proceed to support the next most important right on the list... and next, and so on and so forth. 

Of course, if a pro-gun democrat comes forth, I'll give voting for him very serious thought.., as he'd likely be better than the republicans on all the other civil liberties as well. 

Worst thing I see in Bush is the privacy violations (and they are very bad), patriot act, etc.  I much prefer the libertarian party, and I'll vote for libertarians in certain circumstances.

Something you mentioned about him once that I've been thinking about a little, but haven't heard of before, was some sort of "shadow government".  Can you link me to the article discussing this? I think you had said he created one.  This I'd love to see if it is real, and you have links for me.  

>>35 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201410.html
There is more links like these to find.
I'm not much for conspiracy theorists but this article (and the site it is featured on) is excellent as well. http://www.c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=1441