English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

I think it is not so recent at all. He was proposing the same while stumping for the presidency before his first term in office (circa 1998). He has been trying to privatize SS ever since.

2007-05-04 07:06:01 · answer #1 · answered by Nancy 4 · 0 0

I like it! The only way to clean up the Social Security program is to make people responsible for their own actions. If you blow money just to have a good time with no thought for the future, other people should not have to pay you for your wasteful actions. If, on the other hand, people fall into desperate straits, society should help them.
More to the point: most people could save the same amount they pay into social security each year from the time they start working until age 65 and would accumulate more than 1 million dollars; at the current 5.2% available in just a regular CD, they could draw $52,000 a year and not touch the amount they have saved. This could be passed on to their survivors. Under Social Security, if a person dies before reaching the minimal qualifying age to receive benefits, they lose everything they paid into it. f
People say, "What about the elderly? They are already on Social Security or will be soon? What will happen to them under the privatized Social Security?"
One possible solution is this: The Federal Government has for years spent the "excess" (the amount by which receipts exceed payments) Social Security payments for other programs. The Government can also take other tax receipts and use that to pay Social Security to current recipients and those who would soon retire.
The only problem with Bush's plan is that some people do NOT want change, even for the better; some Government people like to maintain control.
If people are allowed to save for their retirement, all but the irresponsible will do so, unless something tragic would prevent their doing so. That's when insurance would be needed, such as disability insurance. It can work; most people would be better off. For those few that it doesn't work, there have always been welfare programs; use these programs for those who NEED them.

2007-05-04 07:36:48 · answer #2 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 1 0

If Social Security goes to privatization, there will be alot of elderly people living on the streets, especially in low income communities, because they live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford to invest or even save. It is better to keep Social Security around to help these type of low income communities. Anyway, wasn't Social Security implemented to help the elderly from living on the streets and eating dog food.

2007-05-04 10:48:03 · answer #3 · answered by Yvonne M 1 · 0 1

I privatized my own social security! every payday, I put 6.2% of my paycheck in a mutul fund account at the bank, that pays around 6% interest avg., just to anticipate the lack of SS, that way I won't have to depend on the government for SS!

2007-05-06 04:48:50 · answer #4 · answered by musicman 5 · 0 0

First of all, it wasn't recent.

The proposal was to allow (not require, ALLOW) people to put a small portion of their social security money into a separate account where they could control how it was invested. The howls of protest ("he wants to destroy social security!") made it obvious that the proposal was going nowhere.

Personally I think it was a good idea.

2007-05-04 09:55:48 · answer #5 · answered by Judy 7 · 2 0

I am not familiar with the details. MY preference is to ABOLISH social security altogether and expect individuals to fund their own retirement. If people CHOOSE not to do so, they should have to live with the consequences. This plan naturally requires economic education. I haven't nailed down a plan for those who have been CONED into counting on the government until it was too late.

2007-05-04 12:50:17 · answer #6 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0 1

its good for people who know how to invest, its part of the government taking less responsibilty for most retires financial obligation which shouldnt have taken place. anyways the government is playing a shell game. they take the money for a while, spend it all then say, ok the games over we are done using you and your money. here take back your future money because we f'ed up.

2007-05-04 07:13:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

i'm not a Bush supporter (on the contrary, actually) but privatization is good

2007-05-04 07:08:55 · answer #8 · answered by succubus 2 · 1 0

I think it's a grand idea, but I am young so in my perspective it's that or nothing at all.

2007-05-04 07:08:42 · answer #9 · answered by 666K9 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers