The government has proven time and time again that it can't be trusted with our money. Why WOULDN'T you want to dismantle the system and start encouraging private investment accounts?
2007-07-27 06:48:57 · 18 answers · asked by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Crushinator, that's just the point. A private firm IS trying to make a profit, and the only way they're going to do that is to PERFORM. If they don't do well investing people's money, then nobody is going to use them. The government, however, doesn't have any motivation for performing well with your money because you have to give it to them whether you like it or not.
2007-07-27 06:55:03 · update #1
KERMIT M
What does the stock market have to do with it? The government has to invest in the same stock market that private companies do.
2007-07-27 06:59:55 · update #2
The government needs people who have money to subsidize those who don't. And people paying now to afford the payments to people who contributed decades ago and are collecting now. And the fact that many die without collecting ANY benefits - or certainly less than they put in - is a "cushion" for the government.
Social Security is not a retirement account - it's a Ponzi scheme and a crapshoot.
It needs to be this way even if the total return is lower for all.
The culture of dependency on government is a huge national problem.
Even FDR said that relief (welfare) programs have a "narcotic effect."
We even call them "ENTITLEMENTS" now! Maybe "handouts" is also not the best name for them, but it might be slightly more accurate, for some programs.
2007-07-27 06:51:56 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
I believe a big reason it won't be privatized is the fact that, on average, the American people don't want responsibility. With a gov't tax structure and handout system in place, the individual has nothing to do, no responsibility. If it were optional, or privatized, the individual would have to make decisions for themselves. Some would make good ones, some bad, but the key is that the ones that choose badly don't want to admit it was their own fault. It is much easier and more comfortable to let the gov't handle it, and if you don't like the outcome, complain about them....it's certainly not your fault. Individual responsibility for themselves is disappearing, sad fact folks.
2007-07-27 08:13:41 · answer #2 · answered by genius 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing wrong with it or at least part of it as the President wanted to do. If everyone would look at the system that all federal employees have where they can take part of their retirement investment and invest it in one or more of 5 funds you will see the system the President wanted Congress to consider.Its so interesting that democrats who say they want citizens to have access to the same medical system they have in government turn around and say no you can not have the same retirement system. I had both when I was an employee of the federal government I sure liked my ability to invest my future retirement monies more than the health care.
2007-07-27 06:54:52 · answer #3 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I agree. Of course it would be someone like Fidelity. (Not Enron, duh!)You also need assurance that your $ will be there.I believe the way to do that is to have partial SS until the whole program is set up. It would have to be mandatory not unlike SS. But you control where part the $ go for investment. The other part must go into something very stable for slow growth. You would not be able to withdraw this money under any circumstances until you reach at least age 62. The medical portion should be there and possibly regulated at least by law. I am not an economist but I do know that it couldn't be worse than government run. it would be your choice and an incentive to save.
2007-07-27 07:07:07 · answer #4 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because that would reduce the amount of control over our lives that government has. Welfare, social security, and every other giveaway is just a power grab. When we become dependent on a hand out we accept any thing out of the people that we think will protect that one thing. That is how they get away with all the crap they do now. Also privatizing Social Security would increase the wealth of our nation and reduce poverty. Poverty is on of the biggest sources of power to the Democrat party. They will fight every thing that might reduce it. You get rid of poverty and they are gone. If everyone had all the money sent to the government in their name for Social Security (around 14% of your salary) invested in conservative stocks and bonds. most would retire millionaires. Now many are wondering when the government will raise the retirement age so high that we won't be able to get there. Of course they can always just print the money like LBJ did.
2007-07-27 06:58:08 · answer #5 · answered by wwgiese 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Why could it not be privatized to a non-profit group? You are right, as long as the idiots in D.C. can look over and see that green, they will replace it with I.O.U.'s.
On the other hand, I have seen how these for-profit greed-mongers manipulate crap also. Case in point is my company taking away half my pensions worth - something that would have affected my decision to work here in the first place.
The whole problem is attitude in this country and too many people will take the steroids to be better ball players... feed people the line of B.S. to be elected... hide their stupidity behind the garbage can in the financial statements and on and on.
Quite a pickle.
2007-07-27 07:03:25 · answer #6 · answered by John K 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nothing would be wrong with privatizing it, because a rational fund manager can help grow the fund even if stock market averages take a downturn.
However, I would recommend also limiting the people paid by it to those who really cannot work due to physical and/or mental disability (too many cheaters on it these days); this will also curb costs.
2007-07-27 08:02:08 · answer #7 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You might be right. But typically when the government messes up somebody can be held accountable. Where as if it was privatized...well all I can imagine is Enron in the back of my head.
Privatizing social security is a bad idea. If they do privatize it, I think it should be an optional tax.
2007-07-27 06:55:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton actually had a good plan in 1996, but his people would not let him propose it...
Bush tried pretty much the same plan 2 years ago and the Dems went nuts...Lieing to seniors he was cutting their SS.
I don't think there can be real debate to fix it, until the scare tactics stop.
2007-07-27 06:53:59 · answer #9 · answered by Ken C 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because the Private Companies like Merrill Lynch ET al cannot be trusted with this kind of money as they have proven countless times in the past. Almost every one has violated SEC rules committed fraud, etc. For profit companies are out to make as much money as possible for themselves...they have been salivating for years to get their hands on this kind of money and will "steal" as much as they can through hidden fees, trading charges commissions etc. They will set it up so that their are no minimum guarantees. SS now is an insurance policy they will change it into a crap shoot.
"If they don't do well with peoples money" ---they will have less money "to take elsewhere"
Plus they have all kinds of ways to make money regardless of how their investments of other peoples money does.
2007-07-27 06:57:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋