Enron employees saw their forced company stock investments shrink from $80 a share to just pennies and after years of layoffs and company crashes
Who ever put the idea of privatizing the Social Security System in Bush's mouth deserve to be with Saddam
2007-02-28 22:31:55 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's all part of the War on the Middle Class.
2007-02-28 22:35:32 · answer #1 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The top brass at Enron stole from the employees and drained their retirement funds. Enron was a scandal, not the typical occurrence. Privatizing Social Security was an idea that was around before Bush took office. The government's doing a lousy job with S.S. and keeps using those funds for other things. Life long contributors to this fund may end up retiring with nothing.
2007-02-28 22:40:07 · answer #2 · answered by Debra D 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
If you look at any long term period equivalent to the years you would have money taken from you for Social Security prior to receiving benefits, the stock market has significantly outperformed the ********* rate of return that the government gives. When you consider the effects of cumulative compounded interest, that would yield a significantly higher return that SocSec gives. This is valid for any and all periods since the inception of SocSec.
Secondly, if privatized, then people OWN their retirement. So, if they die, their families get all the money, and people can leave an inheritance to their children. With SocSec, that doesn't happen.
Also, the government has no obligation to pay SocSec. Repeat. They have no obligation to continue paying SocSec. Nobody is entitled to this money. Government can eliminate it or reduce it if they so choose. Case law has made this quite clear.
Additional benefits are that the increase in investment would be a boon our economy. Also, people would not have to additionally invest 15% of their incomes in order to have something to retire on.
There really is no good reason to not have SocSec privatized.
2007-02-28 23:13:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not the whole picture in your statement. Yes if people invested all of their SS into stocks, which is a very high risk volitile investment, they would run that risk. No big deal to younger folks, because even with the ups and downs of the market, there has been growth. When I was just grad from College the DOW was just over 10k now its at 12k. When people get older and closer to needing their money they can shift those funds into slower growth, but less risky investments like mutual funds. Then When they are begining to draw on those funds, they can move them into bonds little growth miniscule risk.
2007-02-28 22:39:28 · answer #4 · answered by vospire s 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
If you are investing in stocks you have to offset the fast growers with blue chips or other slower more stable stock. The privatization would allow you to decide if you wanted to invest or stay in the government plan. In the government plan you are living on the labor of others, in privatization you are free to get larger returns. The market has and will be the best investment as long as you diversify. 401's are doing great you only get hurt if you are greedy or have poor judgment.
2007-02-28 22:58:51 · answer #5 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They'll do anything to keep the rich even richer, that's what capitalism is all about. Here in the UK Under Thather's Britain people were ured to take out private pensions. I listen on the radio the other night and one guy paid in to a private pension and never recieved a penny after 30 years of paying in.
2007-02-28 22:54:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The main goal of Bush's SS privitization was to have to spend LOTS of Government money NOW in order to fund the transition and push the deficit even higher. The humungous deficit would then be used to justify cutting social programs to bare bones.
Another example of robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
2007-02-28 23:31:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are a fear mongering nitwit liberal. NO one proposed completely shifting 100% of SS to the Stock Market. The proposal was to allow a very small percentage(2-3%) of ones SS dollars be directed into conservative financial investments thus yielding greater returns than could be gained just in the SS trust fund.
I hope you are young because their will be NO SS for your generation unless something is changed. If they do not do something now there will be nothing left for your generation and in the meantime you will be paying extraordinary high taxes to support the older generation.
2007-02-28 22:38:57 · answer #8 · answered by mr_methane_gasman 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
You do realise that Enron happend with Billy boy right? False readings and all? ring a bell? the "plunge"?
2007-02-28 22:36:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
the cost of beans would rise and more people would buy and eat them.
2007-02-28 22:46:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋