Why should people be given a choice on SS ?

[Emultra]

Because we have a right to life, property and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Genx87]

Does that answer the question as to how we are going to provide for the millions who choose to opt out that very may well loose everything they divested? I hardly doubt that as a civilized nation we are just going to say, tough crap. We will have to allow them to draw more than they paid in since what they paid in won't be enought to live on should the worst happen and they loose every thing.

What are you talking about? When they opt out they will have a program which is an exact replica of the current thrift program all federal employees get to take part in.

That is why I ask you, when was the last time anybody who participated in the federal thrift program lost their shirt?

 

[ahurtt]

Nobody is really "entitled" to anything and I think we as Americans would do well to remember that. The fact that we even have government sponsored "entitlement" programs is only a testament to our general good-natured desire not to see people suffer. Nowhere is it stated in the constitution that it is the governments job to care for the sick and needy. That's what charity is for. The fact we have such programs shows we care about others and we do realize that some people get dealt a bad hand in life. But there are just as many out there who abuse our benevolence and sit back squeezing out babies they can't afford to raise, not working, and basically getting a free ride when they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves. It is technically nobody's job to care for you and look out for you except your parents until you turn 18 and after that, your own. If you fail to plan for the future while you are able-bodied enough to do so, shame on you. There is no real "entitlement." It would be more aptly named a "charity" program.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Nobody is really "entitled" to anything and I think we as Americans would do well to remember that. The fact that we even have government sponsored "entitlement" programs is only a testament to our general good-natured desire not to see people suffer. Nowhere is it stated in the constitution that it is the governments job to care for the sick and needy. That's what charity is for. The fact we have such programs shows we care about others and we do realize that some people get dealt a bad hand in life. But there are just as many out there who abuse our benevolence and sit back squeezing out babies they can't afford to raise, not working, and basically getting a free ride when they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves. It is technically nobody's job to care for you and look out for you except your parents until you turn 18 and after that, your own. If you fail to plan for the future while you are able-bodied enough to do so, shame on you. There is no real "entitlement." It would be more aptly named a "charity" program.

In respect to the OP, how is SS an "entitlement" program?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Does that answer the question as to how we are going to provide for the millions who choose to opt out that very may well loose everything they divested? I hardly doubt that as a civilized nation we are just going to say, tough crap. We will have to allow them to draw more than they paid in since what they paid in won't be enought to live on should the worst happen and they loose every thing.

What are you talking about? When they opt out they will have a program which is an exact replica of the current thrift program all federal employees get to take part in.

That is why I ask you, when was the last time anybody who participated in the federal thrift program lost their shirt?

You basing this on what you say is the FACT that if the funds fail then chances are the U.S. govt is non-existent. What if you are wrong? And in my big humble opinion, I think you are WAY out in left field.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Way to miss the point. If they screw up and loose everything, they are NOT going to be hung out to dry. We are going to have to support these people and how do you think we will do that, ah yes, with Social Security.

have you ever looked at the federal thrift program?

When was the last time anybody lost everything when they participated in it?

Does that answer the question as to how we are going to provide for the millions who choose to opt out that very may well loose everything they divested? I hardly doubt that as a civilized nation we are just going to say, tough crap. We will have to allow them to draw more than they paid in since what they paid in won't be enought to live on should the worst happen and they loose every thing.

It's not like they'd be able to put all of their money into one stock. The greatest risk they would have would be to put it into an index fund that mirrors the S&P. If you lose all of your money because you invested it into the S&P, chances are our entire economy is in the sh!tter (similar to the depression). Once that happens, I doubt the government will be able to pay out SS to nearly the extent it had previously.

 

[Genx87]

You basing this on what you say is the FACT that if the funds fail then chances are the U.S. govt is non-existent. What if you are wrong?

What if the earth is really flat but the govts of the world manipulate pictures to make it look like a sphere?

I look at the federal thrift program and havent seen it take a dive. And I dont see it taking a dive with a constant flow of tax payers money in it to invest.

That is why I said if this thing takes a dive to the point where people lose all their money. Then the chances are real high the financial markets collapsed. If that happens the only likely reason if the govt collapsed.

At that point both systems wont provide any money to anybody and it is a moot point.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Way to miss the point. If they screw up and loose everything, they are NOT going to be hung out to dry. We are going to have to support these people and how do you think we will do that, ah yes, with Social Security.

have you ever looked at the federal thrift program?

When was the last time anybody lost everything when they participated in it?

Does that answer the question as to how we are going to provide for the millions who choose to opt out that very may well loose everything they divested? I hardly doubt that as a civilized nation we are just going to say, tough crap. We will have to allow them to draw more than they paid in since what they paid in won't be enought to live on should the worst happen and they loose every thing.

It's not like they'd be able to put all of their money into one stock. The greatest risk they would have would be to put it into an index fund that mirrors the S&P. If you lose all of your money because you invested it into the S&P, chances are our entire economy is in the sh!tter (similar to the depression). Once that happens, I doubt the government will be able to pay out SS to nearly the extent it had previously.

Again, chances are. There is no guarantee that if the S&P takes a crap in 20 years the entire enonomy will have failed. Too many what ifs. Hell, I am all for letting people take all their money and diverting it away from SS. Just sign a contract in blood that you won't come knocking on Uncle Sams door when you loose your shirts, and you can all have at it.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Because it's their money and their retirement?

CsG

Winnar! :beer:

Give me back my money spent on warring then. Thanks. It's my money. Oh yeah.. .you big government repugs forget you have to pay for your wars.

 

[Genx87]

Again, chances are. There is no guarantee that if the S&P takes a crap in 20 years the entire enonomy will have failed. Too many what ifs. Hell, I am all for letting people take all their money and diverting it away from SS. Just sign a contract in blood that you won't come knocking on Uncle Sams door when you loose your shirts, and you can all have at it.

If the S&P collapses what else do you think will happen?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

You basing this on what you say is the FACT that if the funds fail then chances are the U.S. govt is non-existent. What if you are wrong?

What if the earth is really flat but the govts of the world manipulate pictures to make it look like a sphere?

I look at the federal thrift program and havent seen it take a dive. And I dont see it taking a dive with a constant flow of tax payers money in it to invest.

That is why I said if this thing takes a dive to the point where people lose all their money. Then the chances are real high the financial markets collapsed. If that happens the only likely reason if the govt collapsed.

At that point both systems wont provide any money to anybody and it is a moot point.

I hear you man. I think it is a moot point, too. Here is my prediction, SS won't change at all. Bush does not have enough support on both sides of the aisle for this kind of reform. Perhaps he should go back to the drawing board and come up with something that does not so obvioulsy benefit such a select few.

 

[CaptnKirk]

To hell with Social Security . . It's time to for Renewing

 

[Genx87]

I hear you man. I think it is a moot point, too. Here is my prediction, SS won't change at all. Bush does not have enough support on both sides of the aisle for this kind of reform. Perhaps he should go back to the drawing board and come up with something that does not so obvioulsy benefit such a select few.

I think it wont get through either becuase some of the repubs are wussbags and the democrats are political hacks.

The question we need to ask is when this thing implodes our economy. Which party will the American people remember as the party who obstructed efforts to fix it?

How exactly does this system benefit a select few? Everybody would have the ability to take part in this program if they choose to. Remember Bush's plan is optional. So why is the party of "No" so worried about letting you keep your own money?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Way to miss the point. If they screw up and loose everything, they are NOT going to be hung out to dry. We are going to have to support these people and how do you think we will do that, ah yes, with Social Security.

have you ever looked at the federal thrift program?

When was the last time anybody lost everything when they participated in it?

Does that answer the question as to how we are going to provide for the millions who choose to opt out that very may well loose everything they divested? I hardly doubt that as a civilized nation we are just going to say, tough crap. We will have to allow them to draw more than they paid in since what they paid in won't be enought to live on should the worst happen and they loose every thing.

It's not like they'd be able to put all of their money into one stock. The greatest risk they would have would be to put it into an index fund that mirrors the S&P. If you lose all of your money because you invested it into the S&P, chances are our entire economy is in the sh!tter (similar to the depression). Once that happens, I doubt the government will be able to pay out SS to nearly the extent it had previously.

Again, chances are. There is no guarantee that if the S&P takes a crap in 20 years the entire enonomy will have failed. Too many what ifs. Hell, I am all for letting people take all their money and diverting it away from SS. Just sign a contract in blood that you won't come knocking on Uncle Sams door when you loose your shirts, and you can all have at it.

You do realize that the S&P consists of many of the top companies in the nation right? If they go out of business, we're fvcked. There's really no sugar coating it.

And an S&P index fund would be the riskiest of the options that you could invest into. If you want, you can invest into T-Bonds if you want to make sure that your money is guaranteed as long as the government exists.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I hear you man. I think it is a moot point, too. Here is my prediction, SS won't change at all. Bush does not have enough support on both sides of the aisle for this kind of reform. Perhaps he should go back to the drawing board and come up with something that does not so obvioulsy benefit such a select few.

I think it wont get through either becuase some of the repubs are wussbags and the democrats are political hacks.

The question we need to ask is when this thing implodes our economy. Which party will the American people remember as the party who obstructed efforts to fix it?

How exactly does this system benefit a select few? Everybody would have the ability to take part in this program if they choose to. Remember Bush's plan is optional. So why is the party of "No" so worried about letting you keep your own money?

And here we go with the branding of the republicans who don't support this as wussbags or affraid of their voters. Perhaps they just know this is not the way to fix SS.

We're are both off topic at this point. The OP was addressing why should people even be given a chance to opt out. Since it seems it won't pass, I think we have our answer. They don't feel this is the way to fix the problem.

 

[dannybin1742]

We can't just have a bunch of broke old people walking around sick and homeless...can we ?

if you pick up a history book, this is the way society was before SS, and for some reason the gopies want to go back to it.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: polm
I don't get this whole argument that the American People deserve to choose whether they want their SS money to be put into risky investments.

If these people's investments fail, and they have NO money to fall back on, then who in the world is going to have to take care of them ?

I'm thinking that those with no SS money will have to be supported by the rest of the nation. We can't just have a bunch of broke old people walking around sick and homeless...can we ?

You take care of this simply by putting the weight of the risk on the person TAKING the risk. The reason why they deserve to choose what to do with THEIR money is that it's THEIR money. I don't have any right to force you to spend your money on ANYTHING, whether it's a new video card of Social Security.

As for "cleaning up the mess", a contract is a contract. the person making the choice MUST assume the risk. If he blows it all and ends up with NOTHING (highly unlikely unless he fails horribly to diversify) then it's on him to figure out a way to survive. If he's gotta work until he drops, so be it. It's a risk *I* would be more than glad to take for myself, and I see no reason why anyone else shouldn't. However, if you don't want the risk, everything that's been published about this "reform" so far clearly states that you get the *OPTION* whether to go private or stay with the traditional SS.

Jason

 

[dannybin1742]

SS is not to be one's only retirement. It was never intended to be solely relied upon

this is complete bs

pick up a history book, thats exactly what it was intended for, it was meant to give elderly that didn't have a huge life saving a chance at a livable retirement

 

[misle]

Last I heard, the purposed plan would only let you divert up to 4% of your SS tax to investments. So, if the market goes belly up, that person only has 96% left to live on. That doesn't seem like a huge gamble to me.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Because it's their money and their retirement?

CsG

But I'm concerned most with the burden left on society when the investments fail.

How will we support all of the people whos investments fail ?

The same way you support them, now: 12% of your income (probably more by then).

 

[thekarney]

lol, people who rant and rave that the us stock markets cant possibly be reliable enough to invest our money in are not looking at history. Also, if the US markets were in fact bad enough FOR AN ENTIRE GENERATION that we would see negative returns on Social Security, our privatized accounts would be the last thing on our minds, lol. You dems blow my mind; if you want, stay in your failing system - don't hold me back from doing what I will with MY OWN MONEY.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: thekarney
lol, people who rant and rave that the us stock markets cant possibly be reliable enough to invest our money in are not looking at history. Also, if the US markets were in fact bad enough FOR AN ENTIRE GENERATION that we would see negative returns on Social Security, our privatized accounts would be the last thing on our minds, lol. You dems blow my mind; if you want, stay in your failing system - don't hold me back from doing what I will with MY OWN MONEY.

You can hate it all you want and blame the Dems, however we would not be having this discussion were it not for some Rebublcans not agreeing with you. You elected them, I guess they must think they know better. Looks like your money will continue to be "held back" unless Bush can convince them otherwise.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: misle
Last I heard, the purposed plan would only let you divert up to 4% of your SS tax to investments. So, if the market goes belly up, that person only has 96% left to live on. That doesn't seem like a huge gamble to me.

Just to clarify, one of the proposals (Bush hasn't laid out a plan) is to divert up to four percentage points of your contribution not four percent which would be 2/3'd of your contribution and 1/3 of yours and you employers total combined contribution.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: misle
Last I heard, the purposed plan would only let you divert up to 4% of your SS tax to investments. So, if the market goes belly up, that person only has 96% left to live on. That doesn't seem like a huge gamble to me.

Just to clarify, one of the proposals (Bush hasn't laid out a plan) is to divert up to four percentage points of your contribution not four percent which would be 2/3'd of your contribution and 1/2 of yours and you employers total contribution.

Woohoo! Even better! I was feeling bummed about getting control of only 4 percent of my own money for a minute there

Jason

 

[Riprorin]

Why should people be given a choice on SS ?

Umm, it's their money.