Why is it that liberals still want Social Security run by the government when...?

Question

stock market has always offered a better return?

You can take any two points in history, compare the rate of return of Social Security and the Dow Jones average and the Dow always comes up better on returns.

I thought liberals want to take care of the little guy?

The Social Security system has been a ponzi scheme from day 1. Republicans did not cause the problem, they did not deal with it. Democrats ran Congress until 1994 and had it for 40 years.

Galveston County in Texas opted out of Social Security in the 1980's. The rate of return for its replacement is 2-3 times Social Security and there is basically no risk.

Answer 1

We all know liberals want to CONTROL the little guy. Control him by keeping him on welfare, giving him hand-outs, not making him go out and do anything for money.

The funny thing is, if we redistributed all the wealth in the U.S. equally throughout, in ten years the rich would be rich again, and the poor, poor again.

Rich people (for the most part) are rich because they worked their **** off for it, and poor folks are poor because they cannot manage money, and don't work for it. If you don't believe me, look at those who win the lottery...in ten years, most are broke again and back in the same situation they were before they won.

Capitalism works because people want different things...some people are happy being the janitor and living in an apartment, some people want the world. Keep rolling.

Answer 2

Social Security works just great. Look at the enormous social change it made starting in the 30s. Elderly people no longer have to live with their kids and the 'multigenerational family' has become a thing of the past--plus people can retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people. The GI Bill was a HUGE success. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s we had the biggest percentage of college grads in the world. We had the biggest percentage of homeowners, mostly because of the VHA. In the 1950s the REPUBLICANS pushed through the school lunch program in the name of defense! They found that a large percentage of American schoolkids were growing up malnourished and therefore would be unfit for military service, so they decided to feed them at school. (Of course, like Food Stamps, another big reason for the program was to subsidize agribusiness). They also pushed through a federal program to vaccinate children and many childhood diseases simply disappeared--smallpox and polio being the worst, now almost completely unheard of. Medicare cares for the elderly and chronically ill. It has the same outcomes, the same customer satisfaction as commercial insurance at much lower cost. We only have Medicare in the first place because the insurance companies didn't want to bother with people who actually get sick, so we, the taxpayers, took them off their hands. But if we just expanded Medicare to cover everyone in the country we'd get the same level of care we do now but save hundreds of billions a year. Then there's unemployment, worker's compensation, disability insurance, etc. All those systems work as expected. Yes, there is some fraud and waste, but less than corresponding commercial systems, also cheaper overhead and better govt. oversight.

Answer 3

Because social security is supposed to be secure.
The Market is speculative and that is why it offers better return. The idea of social security came after the great stock market crash that lead to the depression. It was to provide a working American with some kind of secured retirement in exchange for loaning the Government monies out of each check.
This was to help pay for New Deal reforms at the same time insuring that the people would not become burdens to the State after retirement. The Conservatives in the Republican party pushed in the 1960's to keep taxes down in-spite of Johnson's great society, and pushed for the use of the Social Security (slush fund as they referred it) to be used to finance the Vietnam war. Than when in the 1980's recession hit Reagan signed a bill allowing these benefits themselves to be taxed, treating social security recipients as if they were burdens of the state.
The
Democrats were trying vehemently to keep a balanced budget as well as keeping New Deal and Great Society programs from being totally dismantled during Reagan's ramp-id military spending spree(Star wars) and the only taxes Reagan wouldn't veto were ones like on social security and on waitresses' tips. But giving our social security to the financial Wizards of Wall Street that about us things like ENRON is not acceptable.

Answer 4

Sorry for the cut and paste, but this answers your question:

First, money that would have gone into the Social Security trust fund will be diverted into private accounts, and this siphoning of funds will increase government borrowing and raise interest rates on all government debt.

Second, many people will lose money in their accounts and not be able to repay what they have borrowed to create a private account when they die or become disabled. This could become a serious drain on the trust fund depending on the performance of stocks, bonds, individual investment choices, administrative expenses, and inflation.

Estimates by the Social Security trustees (using rather pessimistic assumptions) and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that the trust fund is solvent for another 38 to 48 years if we do nothing. In other words, Social Security is not going broke anytime soon.

Answer 5

number 1 what goes up will come down.
number 2 Look at Enron.
I you want to look at history why not check out what happen to England when they change what happened to their pension. The very same way the President wanted to change American Pension.
It's funny how people preceive the government. They assume that the democrats want to take care of the little guy. However it was President Clinton try to enact changes with welfare. Not the republicans.
The republicans are suppose to believe in less government however how is it less government when even a private citizen is having their conversations listen too?
Just a few little things I have notice that really don't follow party suits!

Answer 6

The stock market is a crap shot and if you can't afford to lose the money, Never, never, put your money in the stock market!

We do want to take care of the little guy! We want to make sure he has something rather than the rich have it all with the little guy having squat!

Now if we could just keep Republican fingers out of the Social Security Funds we would be very solvent indeed, rather than getting the funds stolen, never to be paid back!

Answer 7

The stock market is simply , another form of legalize, gambling. The common man, doesn't make enough money to play the market, he has Mouthe's to feed, and a home in which he'll never be able to buy. Only people with excess $$$ can Play. Remember: It takes money to make money. The current system, will insure that even us poor people with at least have money to pay the drug companies for the meds we might need. Thank God for soup kitchens

Answer 8

if you want Gorge Bush to put your Social Security in stock well it will never be, he lost. What if the stock market crashes, what happens to your money. If you like Bush that well send him your money let him put it in the stock market, Kenneth Lay if forget was Bush', big buddy. I want mine right where it is run by the Democrat government. Boy, you are so smart take your money send it to Bush and tel him to go for it. Big Guy

Answer 9

Some people cannot afford to invest in the stock market.I think ALL citizens should receive the same retirement benefits that our elected officials get,after,we pay for it.If it's deserved by them,why not everyone else??Oh,yeah,it would cost too much...

Answer 10

More control over the population.