| Kasz216 said: 1) Under a privatised scheme it wouldn't need to collect as much because it could earn far more then the "5%" rate the US government uses. You seem very confident about that. Tell me, do you have any proof that the privatised scheme WILL produce at least a promised 5% in a SAFE manner, or will it be just like superannuation where your money can be robbed, and the superannuation investment companies still make a profit, even though they make a net loss? Where does that money come from? I stated this before, superannuation is a riskier option. The 2007 GFC pushed people's superannuation levels to pre-2000 levels (this is despite them putting 8 years worth of contributions in them), yet firms such as Colonial First State were still able to pay a healthy dividend to their investors. 2) Reagan didn't take away restrictions on social security spending. This is how it was done when FDR started. You can look it up in the Social Security Act, it states that social security money can ONLY be spent on US treasuries. What Reagan did was force more people to pay into it. Previously fedral employees were aloud to opt out of social security... vecause it sucked. Raised the Retirement Age, and increased the tax on it. All that money goes to fill the gap in medicare, who's taxes are also way too low to cover even medicare. So really your proposing we add new regulations. That the Democrats don't want because the social security money hides the true amount of the deficit every since Lyndon B Johnson (D), signed a law that made Social Security off budget. Check out the section "III: How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off one of the Greatest Frauds Ever Perpetrated against the American People" Having Social Security independent from the budget is a better justification than Bush's plan to keep the war on terrorism off the budget. At least SS has an ncome coming in, and if off-budget, it shouldn't be allowed to be touched.3) Could of fooled me by US standards. Heck that's why we've run so many deficits lately. The Republican party has been run by the Neocons who are horrendeously, socially conservative and fiscally liberal. What a narrow-minded way of thinking. This is the same crap that Fox News pulls to try and give the term "liberal" a bad name. 4) People proposed that and a number of Congressmen actually promised to forgo their salarys or donate them to chairty during the shutdown. Some democratic senators apparently live paycheck to paycheck though. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0411/Rep_Sanchez_I_cant_give_up_my_paycheck.html I guess then that it would favour those living off corprate donations, hence once again why political donations are a bad idea. Nobody can be made accountable anymore. 5) And, AGAIN, you could, by privatising it gradually, both pay what is owed and do it slowly. The options right now in washington are "Privatise it" or "leave it" you keep arguing for an option that Democrats AND Republicans are outright against. Bth are aganst it because both are termed right-wing parties now. If government still has to pay it back now, how is that going to help the budget defecit for the next 30 years? By then, the boomer surge will be over and the aging population will recede. In general though, what you seem to missing is you are arugeing for an option that isn't on the table. And why isn't it? Because your government has been so bought out by corporate interest that they are rubbing their dirty little hands together waiting for another cash cow to pull money out of. Social Security is the last government-owned piggybank, so it's only logical that Wall Street is looking to get their hands on it. After all, win or loss, they will still generate billions from it. It will be the average worker that pays into it that has that option of losing. |
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
