By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Social Security in the U.S Be Privatized?

 

Should Social Security Be Privatized?

Yes 28 24.14%
 
No 78 67.24%
 
Maybe 3 2.59%
 
Undecided 7 6.03%
 
Total:116
S.T.A.G.E. said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:
Social security shouldn't exist at all. The money put in does not appreciate, it depreciates. Stop stealing my money so I can invest it and grow it myself.

Actually, time hasnt proven this train of thought. Look up US savings accounts. Money needs to be set aside just like your 401k and CD's (which you do yourself).

I'm not sure what you're contesting. 

generic-user-1 said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:
Social security shouldn't exist at all. The money put in does not appreciate, it depreciates. Stop stealing my money so I can invest it and grow it myself.

for every winner there are 2 losers and the banks(the bank allways wins) so have fun with alot of homeless old people dieng in the streets...

I'm good with that. :)



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
DJEVOLVE said:


Yes and Australia is heavily regulated compared to the US. Hey is linking countrys that don't function the same at all.

No  its not. Australia is much higher on the economic freedom index.

Total Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=australia|unitedstates&src=country

Business Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=australia|unitedstates&src=country

One of Australia's benefits is that small businesses are not over-regulated out of existence.

 


Yes and since the 1980's massive business has lobbied to push all the regulation, taxs etc on the small business, that's why we need to enforce anti-trust laws. These laws are lobbied in effect by the monopolies we currently have today.



DJEVOLVE said:
sc94597 said:

No  its not. Australia is much higher on the economic freedom index.

Total Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=australia|unitedstates&src=country

Business Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=australia|unitedstates&src=country

One of Australia's benefits is that small businesses are not over-regulated out of existence.

 


Yes and since the 1980's massive business has lobbied to push all the regulation, taxs etc on the small business, that's why we need to enforce anti-trust laws. These laws are lobbied in effect by the monopolies we currently have today.

The Heritage foundation is a right wing extreme front group funded by the KOCH brothers, You have lost all crediability using these links. Sorry but I'm not debating with someone who uses some of the most Corrupt families in history as thier proof.

 

If the Koch brothers didn't exist, the left would have to invent them. They're the plutocrats from central casting – oil-and-gas billionaires ready to buy any congressman, fund any lie, fight any law, bust any union, despoil any landscape, or shirk any (tax) burden to push their free-market religion and pump up their profits. 
 
But no need to invent – Charles and David Koch are the real deal. Over the past 30-some years, they've poured more than 100 million dollars into a sprawling network of foundations, think tanks, front groups, advocacy organizations, lobbyists and GOP lawmakers, all to the glory of their hard-core libertarian agenda. They don't oppose big government so much as government – taxes, environmental protections, safety-net programs, public education: the whole bit. (By all accounts, the Kochs are true believers; they really buy that road-to-serfdom stuff about the the holiness of free markets. Still, you can't help but notice how neatly their philosophy lines up with their business interests.) They like to think of elected politicians as merely "actors playing out a script," and themselves as supplying "the themes and words for the scripts." Imagine Karl Rove’s strategic cunning, crossed with Ron Paul’s screw-the-poor ideology, and hooked up to Warren Buffett's checking account, and you’re halfway there.
 
For years, the brothers shunned the spotlight. David Koch used to joke that the family business, the Wichita, Kansas-based Koch Industries – with annual revenues* estimated at $100 billion, it's the second-biggest private firm in America – was "the largest company you’ve never heard of." But when Barack Obama became president, the Kochs, like a lot of right-wingers, flipped out. They threw their weight behind a stealth campaign to turn back the president’s "socialist" agenda: They were early backers, some say puppet masters, of the Tea Party movement, and when the tea-infused GOP retook the House in the famous midterm "shellacking" of 2010, it was with a big assist from Koch money. (They later blessed the brief, ill-fated presidential run of Tea Party-favorite Herman Cain. That's how crazy – or cynical – these guys are.) Progressive activists and the news media started paying attention – most notably ThinkProgress and Jane Mayer of The New Yorker – and pretty soon the Kochs had become the poster boys of "the 1 percent" and a surefire fundraising tool for the Democratic Party; at the mere mention of the Koch name, liberal wallets fall open.
 
Now the Kochs are the subject of a blistering (but to all appearances factual) documentary by the activist filmmaker Robert Greenwald. Koch Brothers Exposed aims to show how the brothers' machinations affect the lives of "living, breathing human beings," as Greenwald put it to me at the film’s New York premiere in late March. "When I learned about the damage the Kochs were doing to our democracy, I wanted to make sure more Americans understood what they're up to."
 
On the evidence of Koch Brothers Exposed, the more relevant question is: What aren't they up to? The film – scrappy and low-budget, but effective all the same – weaves together a string of shorter videos produced over the past year by Greenwald’s nonprofit Brave New Films, each looking at a separate tentacle of the "Kochtopus," as lefty wags have dubbed the Kochs' network. It recounts how the brothers have:

 • helped fund efforts to undo a model diversity policy in the Wake County school system in North Carolina, effectively resegregating the district – part of a larger campaign, the film alleges, to weaken the public school system and prepare the way for widespread privatization;
• pushed voter ID laws – purportedly aimed at combating ballot fraud but really designed to keep Democrats from voting – through their financial support for the American Legislative Exchange Council, an increasingly radioactive business group specializing in the drafting of corporate-friendly pick-up-and-pass legislation for state lawmakers. (ALEC is also behind the insane "Stand Your Ground" gun laws at issue in the Trayvon Martin shooting case);
• pumped millions of dollars into more than 150 colleges and university in exchange for control over hiring and curriculum decisions, to ensure students will be exposed to the free-market fundamentalism of Ayn Rand, Freidrich von Hayek and like minds;
• bankrolled a coordinated campaign to swing public opinion in favor of privatizing Social Security, deploying Koch-funded think tanks, experts, and pundits to spread the myth that the program is on the brink of bankruptcy.

(Greenwald might equally well have documented Koch-funded efforts to repeal Obama's health care law, deny climate change, undermine collective-bargaining rights, or block Wall Street reform, but there's only so much a single film can cover.)

All diabolical stuff, from the liberal point of view. Of course, you might want to argue that even if the scale of the Kochs' doings puts them in a league of their own, they're just exercising their constitutional right to play politics at the platinum level, like plenty of other high rollers on the right (and on the left, for that matter). Which of course gets at the basic problem – the gigantic power of money in American politics makes a joke of our democracy. And, for sure, without ever touching the subject directly Greenwald's film makes a powerful case for campaign finance reform, by showing the malign sway a couple of rich guys with radical views can have over millions of lives. But Greenwald isn't just saying the system is rotten, or that the Kochs are wrong (though he is saying both); he wants to persuade us – viscerally – that these guys are bad.

He makes a strong circumstantial case. The film brings us to Penn Road in Crossett, Arkansas, a low-income black community where, by all appearances, the residents who haven't already died from cancer are stuck at home, tethered to oxygen tanks. Could all this death and illness have anything to do with the stream of stinking toxic waste water out back oozing downstream from the Koch-owned Georgia-Pacific plant? The residents sure think so. A woman named Dolores Wimberley sobs at the grave of her non-smoking, non-drinking 43-year-old daughter, who died of lung cancer, and says, "I feel that Georgia Pacific and Koch is responsible for my daughter’s death."

Koch Industries vehemently denies any responsibility for the cancer deaths in Crossett and touts its environmental record as "exemplary." As ThinkProgress and others have documented, it is not: Koch Industries has been named one of the top ten worst polluters in the country and found criminally liable in more than one pollution-related case, including one involving the discharge of (carcinogenic) benzene. And, wouldn't you know, the company has lobbied hard to prevent the E.P.A. from classifying formaldehyde, produced in huge quantities by none other than Georgia-Pacific, as a "known carcinogen" in humans.

Greenwald lays it on a bit thick here and there, but that's kind of the point. "A lot of progressives really believe that if we can turn out one more white paper with bullet points about how to fix Problem X, we can fix it," Greenwald says. "But that's not primarily the way you reach people or move them. You reach the heart first. What I always try to do is make the political personal."
 
But you have to ask: Who’s going to watch, or even hear about, Koch Brothers Exposed?  The film isn't being released to theaters, since Greenwald reckoned few moviegoers would be willing to pony up $10 or more to see a no-frills documentary about a couple of oldster ideologues, however powerful or well researched. So to get the word out Brave New Films has teamed up with 40-plus progressive membership organizations and labor unions to form a far-flung anti-Koch coalition. The idea is that groups and individuals will hold screenings everywhere from their homes to bowling alleys, church basements, college campuses, and union halls. "The ultimate goal," Greenwald told Alternet, another partner, is "organize, organize — and then, organize." (Lefty activists are notoriously single-issue, but the all-enveloping reach of the Kochtopus makes opposing the brothers something all liberals can get behind: education, environment, labor rights, campaign finance, corporate malfeasance – everyone’s cause is on the line.) Available via streaming outlets and cable video-on-demand starting May 8, the film has the potential at least to reach beyond the choir into millions of American homes.
 
Have the Kochs caught Greenwald's flick? It has certainly crossed their radar. Google "Koch Brothers Exposed" and the first thing you see is a paid text ad that reads, "YouTube propagandist-for-hire dishonestly attacks Koch for cash." It links to Kochfacts.com, the company’s all-purpose damage-limitation website. A lawyer for Koch industries recently fired off a statement to Deadline Hollywood saying, "Mr. Greenwald's statements are maliciously false and misleading, and we urge the news media not to republish them," conveniently forgetting that the news media (from The New Yorker to the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times) is a major source of Greenwald's information. The film maker is pushing back with his Top Ten Koch Facts and a busy media schedule.

Whether or not Greenwald’s film reaches its hoped-for audience, we can expect to hear plenty about the Koch brothers this campaign season. Obama and the Democrats are going to make the election a referendum on a Republican Party hijacked by ideological zealots, 1 percenters, and religious nuts – we’re a long way from hope and change here – and the Kochs make a handy proxy for two out of the three. Team Obama regularly beats the Koch drum in their fundraising emails, leading to an angry public back-and-forth recently between a Koch lieutenant and the president's campaign manager. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has been discreetly courting the Kochs, who backed him for president in 2008 and are said to have pledged to raise $100 million to defeat Obama. As Greenwald put it in a recent interview, Charles and David Koch "are going to do everything their money will allow them to do to influence this election negatively



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-koch-brothers-exposed-20120420



Back in the market crash of 2008, 6 trillion in capital was wiped out including tons of privatized savings and pensions. The company that I was working for at the time lost 26 million in employee pensions.

So no. Had Social Security been privatized at the time, so many people would have suffered.

At least if the government needs to pay your SS at worst, it can print money, the private market can not. Once is gone its gone. And when you consider how many depend on it, it would be very irresponsible to gamble with people's future especially in light of what happened.

For most folks its not about getting rich... its just about being able to survive. 



sc94597 said:
DJEVOLVE said:


Yes and Australia is heavily regulated compared to the US. Hey is linking countrys that don't function the same at all.

No  its not. Australia is much higher on the economic freedom index.

Total Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=australia|unitedstates&src=country

Business Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=australia|unitedstates&src=country

One of Australia's benefits is that small businesses are not over-regulated out of existence.

 

I knew the data on this page was complete nonsense, Was looking at it scratching my head, like no this is actually false. However have a good one, I'm not going to debate this anymore, the poll shows the majority is against this and your research lacks fact checking and data that's actually correct.



Around the Network
DJEVOLVE said:
sc94597 said:

No  its not. Australia is much higher on the economic freedom index.

Total Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=australia|unitedstates&src=country

Business Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=australia|unitedstates&src=country

One of Australia's benefits is that small businesses are not over-regulated out of existence.

 

I knew the data on this page was complete nonsense, Was looking at it scratching my head, like no this is actually false. However have a good one, I'm not going to debate this anymore, the poll shows the majority is against this and your research lacks fact checking and data that's actually correct.

Why don't you support your argument with sources instead of posting a wall about how the Koch Bros. suck? If anything the heritage foundation is less advantaged by saying Australia has a more free economy than the U.S. Tomorrow I will link some left wingers who also agree with this sentiment though. 



Shadow1980 said:

Social Security not only shouldn't be privatized, it doesn't need to be privatized. The problem of solvency can be fixed by eliminating the payroll tax cap and making it to where all income taxed at the same rate. For the year 2015 no annual income above $118,500 is subject to the payroll tax that funds SS. That means that while somebody making $120,000 pays more into SS than someone making $12,000, somebody making $1,200,000 doesn't pay any more than the person making $120,000. While everybody at or below the cap pays the 6.2%, someone making ten times the cap pays only 0.62%. This means it's a regressive tax, as the higher you income is above the cap the less tax you pay as a percentage of your income. Everybody should pay the same 6.2% regardless of whether they make ten thousand or ten million. In fact, maybe we should consider adding an additional 1-2% to the payroll tax on all incomes above $200,000/year.

P.S.: If someone wants to rebut me, please don't bother if you're going to cite Cato, Heritage, or other libertarian or conservative think tanks that believe in "Privatize all the things!" as a matter of principle. I don't consider those trustworthy sources.

One question: who is going to support a blatant redistribution of money other than socialist? We are talking about realistic solutions that actually have a chance of happening and that don't have other negative consequences.



Shadow1980 said:
sc94597 said:

One question: who is going to support a blatant redistribution of money other than socialist? We are talking about realistic solutions that actually have a chance of happening and that don't have other negative consequences.



What socialism is:

  • Public ownership of the means of production, either indirectly by the state or directly by the workers and/or consumers.

What socialism is not:

  • Progressive taxation (or taxation in general)
  • "Wealth redistribution"
  • Regulations
  • Basic public infrastructure
  • Police & emergency services
  • Military defense
  • Social insurance (e.g., Social Security)

Have you taken a look outside lately? Go down any main road in your town. Tell me, what do you see? Capitalism. Capitalism everywhere. Even now we're posting on a privately-owned website while using internet service provided by a capitalist enterprise. That same enterprise also likely provides cable, which airs myriad programs created by private enterprises on networks owned and operated by private enterprises. If you were eating while posting, your snacks and drinks were made by a capitalist enterprise. And the food was made by a private for-profit company and bought from a store owned and operated by a capitalist enterprise. The transportation used to get to the store is likely privately-owned (either a personal vehicle or private for-profit public transportation) and the vehicle was manufactured and sold by a capitalist enterprise, fueled by gasoline purchased at a privately-owned gas station and derived from oil dug up and refined by a private company, and you probably passed several other capitalist enterprises on the way to the store. Wal-mart. GameStop. Best Buy. Starbucks. Dollar General. Walgreens. McDonalds. Pizza Hut. BP. Grocery stores and retail chains and restaurants and bars and gas stations and banks and auto repair shops and auto dealerships and various entertainment establishments (movie theaters, bowling alleys, mini golf, etc.) up the yin yang. The list goes on and on and on and on.

"Socialism" actually used to mean something. Y'know, like when a government actually nationalizes the private sector (or parts of it), or workers gather to form a co-op or buy out a factory to own between themselves collectively. But now it's been devalued over time to mean little more than "economic policies conservatives don't like." Of course, that should be expected, as debasement of language happens a lot in political demagoguery. Even back in the 40s that dirty socialist George Orwell lamented how the word "fascism" had already been similarly debased: "It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else." That hasn't really changed that much today, with "socialism," "Marxism," and "communism" having been added to the list of debased terms alongside "fascism." The Red Scare and the legacy of Joe McCarthy is still alive and well, and it's been kept alive by people who think that government is inherently bad ("always the problem; never the solution") and that any government services and any government regulations must necessarily be part of a slippery slope towards Stalinism.

When Obama or Hillary start going on a tear and start nationalizing everything in sight, then you can talk about "socialism." But most of the things the right gripes about are not "socialism." I've had enough of the red-baiting. It's just as asinine and almost as offensive as when some protestor somewhere holds up a sign comparing politicians they don't like to Hitler.

Having read Proudhon and Marx, I can say that a greater concept of "socialism" predates your dictionary definition of "public ownership of the means of production." But that is not what my point was. My point was that only socialists, which I define as persons whose primary political goal is the enforcement of an egalitarian wealth distribution (if we consider pre-Proudhonian socialism as well as post-Proudhonian socialism), are the people that will support the forceful and outright redistribution of wealth that a progressive social security tax would entail (unless you also imply that said millionaires will be getting back what they put in.) 

Military defense (when funded by government) is indeed socialism even by your definition. The government owns the means of production for national defense. The same is true for police & emergency services (albeit some of them are voluntary organizations many are funded by taxation.) 

What I see when I look outside is a mixed-economy, not so disimilar from the fascism that Mussolini and Hitler espoused and the Mercantilism that plauged most countries before the 18th century. Corporations and the state(s) in bed with each-other. The only solution is the same solution that we've applied to religion and government. Separation of economics and the state, just like sepearation of church and state. I do not support the politicization and the democratization of economics because they are less efficient and more destructive than the market options. 

If you want a grander understanding of what socialism entails, I think you should read Proudhon's "What is property?" In it, he explicates how socialism is precisely anti-propertarian. For that reason, if you wish to take somebody's property without reparating them, then yes, you are indeed a socialist (or a thief.) The first being a theif who justifies such theft by the argument that lockean property rights are not truly proper. 

What is property? 

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/



sc94597 said:
Shadow1980 said:

Social Security not only shouldn't be privatized, it doesn't need to be privatized. The problem of solvency can be fixed by eliminating the payroll tax cap and making it to where all income taxed at the same rate. For the year 2015 no annual income above $118,500 is subject to the payroll tax that funds SS. That means that while somebody making $120,000 pays more into SS than someone making $12,000, somebody making $1,200,000 doesn't pay any more than the person making $120,000. While everybody at or below the cap pays the 6.2%, someone making ten times the cap pays only 0.62%. This means it's a regressive tax, as the higher you income is above the cap the less tax you pay as a percentage of your income. Everybody should pay the same 6.2% regardless of whether they make ten thousand or ten million. In fact, maybe we should consider adding an additional 1-2% to the payroll tax on all incomes above $200,000/year.

P.S.: If someone wants to rebut me, please don't bother if you're going to cite Cato, Heritage, or other libertarian or conservative think tanks that believe in "Privatize all the things!" as a matter of principle. I don't consider those trustworthy sources.

One question: who is going to support a blatant redistribution of money other than socialist? We are talking about realistic solutions that actually have a chance of happening and that don't have other negative consequences.


why shouldnt th majority support this redistribution?  it workes for everyone but the hedgefund managers(those are the onlyone that make alot of money and dont have to care for the economy).

 

even if you own all of ford,m$ or apple, redistribution will work for you, because thats money that stays in the economy and doesnt get lost in some banks pockets.



generic-user-1 said:
sc94597 said:

One question: who is going to support a blatant redistribution of money other than socialist? We are talking about realistic solutions that actually have a chance of happening and that don't have other negative consequences.


why shouldnt th majority support this redistribution?  it workes for everyone but the hedgefund managers(those are the onlyone that make alot of money and dont have to care for the economy).

 

even if you own all of ford,m$ or apple, redistribution will work for you, because thats money that stays in the economy and doesnt get lost in some banks pockets.

I won't argue about what "should be" but rather what "is." The majority of Americans, regardless of their economic status, do not support redistributions of wealth when they are evident and outwardly so. Much of the redistributive legislation that has gotten passed is more subtle and has other merits. That makes a progressive tax (or even a flat tax) on social security unlikely, because the rewards would be equally distributed for an unequal pay in. Furthermore, this would create a financial burden that would have to be accomodated for by the cut of some other tax, otherwise the deadweight loss becomes too much and you accelarate the process of executives of corporations movement overseas and to tax havens. Additionally, in the scenario I proposed in this thread - workers get to manage their own retirements (which is what the American far-left - an essentially syndicalist movement - would want), which is a thousand times better than government (whom you seem to agree is heavily influenced by the rich) doing as such. So it's not even a left wing principle to have government in control of retirements. It is a state socialist one which proponents of mixed economies have adopted when liberals merged with social democrats.