fordy said:
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.
People probably think reagan lifted regulations because it was the first time in a long time that social security actually had a surplus. It had been running deficits to the point of where Reagan and Tip O'Neil (Democrat Speaker of the house) had to work together to prevent the system from crashing by like, 1984 or 85.
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.
http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/#gre
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.
|
|
Weird, my last post didn't post.
Either way, don't feel like typing it all out again so i'll just hit the big two right now.
About Reagan, your just quoting a random website. I could quote a random website that says Barak Obama was born in Kenya and trained in a Singapore Madrassa to take down the US.
I could also quote a random website that says John McCain was programmed by the vietenese to be a Manchurian Candiate.
For a more respected website I'd note this, which is actually talking about republican lies, but mentions very clearly that this is how he system was all along, Reagan didn't change it, neither did Lyndon B Johnson.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp
US social seciurity money was always forced to be invested in "Securities backed by the full faith and trust of the US government."
So in otherwords, Social Security always could only be used to buy US government bonds.
Once it did... that Social Security money would then always find it's way into the general fund via buying bonds.
This is how it's always worked. People likely just forgot since it had been forever since social security ever actually had a surplus.
The sad part is how Obama was willing to not send out social security checks while paying for plenty of other things when logic should suggest that defaulting on social security payments = defualting on your debts, because you aren't paying the american people who paid into the system what they were owned. However this was due to Fleming V Nestor. Which ruled that people didn't own the government bonds, but the government did, and that paying into social security you weren't owed anything.
Secondly, it's I don't watch Fox News, and the fact that Neo Conservatives came from the Democratic party is common knowledge. Well, not so much common knowledge as common knowledge among those who study politics but still.
During WW2, the Democrats were the War time, get up in everyones buisness party and the Republicans were the isolationist we shouldn't be messing into other countries affairs group.
They were basically led by Henry "Scoop" Jackson. However the Demcorats stance lightened after the Soviets became the primary international "threat" since they were communists and a split in the party happened in the Liberal wing fo the democrats. Between the Neo-conservatives and The "non-war" democrats who didn't want to interfere with the soviet union because they were socialist (in theory.)
This probably puts it better
Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of
Truman,
Kennedy,
Johnson,
Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of
William Kristol and
John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Rejecting_the_Democratic_Party
