Why did Democrats block Bush's attempt to establish some self directed personal Social Security accounts?

Question

Democrats really want to control you - not let you control your own future. For many people the rate of return on Social Security is only slightly over 1%: http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/CDA98-01.cfm Bush had the right idea.

Come on democrats - lets see something other than your opinions - why happen to be poorly backed up with facts, if backed up at all. How many downturns in the stock market over the last 50 years, and how long have those downturns lasted? Please don't just parrot the lame democratic party line.

Answer 1

It would have meant more freedom and control over our own destiny and the Dems cant stand that idea.
Check out what Houston county in texas did when there was a way to opt out of SS. their retires are drawing almost 4 times what SS pays

Answer 2

My Two cents which is what i have after over forty years working. Only things they have come up with so far kills Social Security all together. Privatization of Social Security would work however the lerkers and rip offs are already rubbing there hands together on how they will make a fortune off of what Joe Private Civilian gets.
To add more problems with the issues Privatizing ss now drops all of the money already paid in right back to the Fed Resv Banks and every one has lost all they have paid Then again that would help pay the national Debit, But if your over fifty starting over and investing at this point you will die working because you will never earn enough to ever retire and live off of what you invest ...........basically your chances are better with the Lottery. You used to be able to Retire with you ss at 55 now 62 or 67 later it will be 72 its a no win situation. I say pay all back what they have put in and then let them invest it then Drop SS and maybe just maybe your bosses no longer having to pay the ss tax will give you a raise equal to what they no longer have to pay ss. WOW WHAT a Dream excuse me i have to go take some tylenol.

Answer 3

My mutual funds annuity is less than 1%. Some stocks are in the negative. Social Security is supposed to be guaranteed to be there for you. If you were to invest unwisely and loose money, who would support you? How many people can invest money and do well with their investments? If they do, what kind of inside information do they have available to them?

A certain few who are priviliged might very well do better with their money, but many more would lose money. Sometimes in a downturned economy almost everyone loses money. Don't we want Social Security to be there? Who is gonna take care of those who have nothing left, because they squanderred it on investments? Welfare? Who pays for that? The middle class, while the upper class absorbs all the profits from the misfortunes of poor people investing their money in stupid ventures?

You see the dilemna?

This would make rich people richer for sure. This is kinda like playing 5 card stud with fearful unknowledgeable card players who don't know how to bluff or what probabilities are of them having a better hand, or anything about the game, and having them put their money in there! It's crazy. And it is not just any money, it is their last dime!

If you do this and they fail, somebody has to support them with their money! You willing to do that?

Answer 4

They blocked because the idea is bad judgment, at the very least. Why would they want to do something that will increase our record deficit, and take away the guarantee of social security for the elderly. Is the stock market guaranteed? Many of these people would end up with nothing in their retirement, and would lose homes, and medicine, and food, and security.

Answer 5

Sorry, but Bush has NEVER had the right idea. He wants to privatize social security because that is what CORPORATIONS want. Come on, wake up. It was never for the benefit of social security recipients. It was another way for private firms to get a hold of SS money. If you think that Bush does anything for the benefit of the average American, then you are really in the dark.

Answer 6

The bush plan wasn't to establish private self-directed social security accounts, it was to gut the system and give the money to his rich buddies. The Democrats were right to block the plan. I agree that social security could use an update, but the Bush plan was bad news. Any successful change in social security is going to take years to design and even longer to implement.

Answer 7

Democrats blocked Bush's plan because it wasn't a reform--it was a plan to rob people of their money. Bush's plan would have done nothing but sucke people's money into the poclets if his business cronies--with no protection or help to the average workiing person.

Skip the neocon spin--everyone knows the "give people control of their money" is as empty a lie as the rest of their hypocrisy.

Answer 8

IRA's (individual retirement accounts) are already legal The law the Republicans want to pass will allow people who have them to not pay into the social security system at all.

Answer 9

Regardless of your political persuasion, abandoning Social Security in favor of personal control over your financial future could be disastrous for many reasons:
1. Most people are not 'financial wizards' or good money managers, and don't understand basic information about interest rates, insurance, etc. They would be lost in a world of 'high finance' where they had to make investment decisions that would affect their retirement (and, since our education system doesn't even teach students how to balance a checkbook, there would be little hope of any kind of education process to teach people how to do this);
2. It would be a boondoggle for stockbrokers, financial planners, banks, and other charlatans who would see this new pool of 'investors' as easy prey, take advantage of their naivete', and steal their life savings, leaving them destitute and in need of government welfare;
3. The stock market is volatile and nothing more than an uncertain crap shoot. Look at what's happened to many people's portfolios just in the past few weeks. Left to their own devices, most Americans would not understand the complexities of investing, and would cause panic - which could lead to severe economic depression;
4. 'self-directed Social Security accounts' would be a new profit center for financial institutions, insurance companies, investment houses, and assorted shysters who could easily mismanage, manipulate or misuse funds in trust. It was also give these corporations broader powers than they have now, allowing them to "change the rules" at a whim to enhance their bottom line and gouge their customers who are depending on these funds for their own social security.

Social Security is one of the best managed government agencies, providing dependable payments to those who depend on the money every month. What needs to be changed is who qualifies for Social Security benefits:

It's curious to note that those who have the most are often those who complain the most about "entitlements" - they think the welfare system should be abolished because they don't like their tax dollars being given to a divorced mother of four children trying to make ends meet on a pittance. Yet, they don't object to 'corporate welfare' for billion-dollar for-profit companies; they don't object to tax breaks, abatement's, property tax relief, tax incentives, bail-outs or government grants for wealthy individuals or large corporations who don't need the money.
Social Security needs to revert to what it was supposed to be: an insurance program for the truly needy. Even TIME magazine called it "insurance" a few years ago, but it has become the great American give away - and most of it goes to those who don't need any financial assistance.
But the argument is, "I worked hard and paid into it, so I DESERVE it! I'm entitled to it!" Hogwash! You buy house insurance and pray to God you never have to file a claim. You buy car insurance and hope you never are in an accident and have to collect.
It should be no different with Social Security: until you absolutely need it, you shouldn't be entitled to it. But the MilqueToast politicians are too cowardly to go up against millions of constituents who would boil them alive if they ever took away their Social Security check.
So, there are millions of people out there who have comfortable life savings, substantial investment portfolios,
multiple luxury sedans, multiple homes, and who enjoy luxury cruises and fine dining in five-star restaurants, all thanks - in part - to their paltry little monthly Social Security checks that they demand, even though they're worth hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars in their own right! That's nothing more than sheer greed.
Social Security will be stable for generations if the rich would just gracefully bow out and understand that it's a pool they paid into so help those who weren't as fortunate as they were in preparing for their golden years. -RKO- 08/25/07

Answer 10

Social Security means you are too stupid to do with your money what you want and to save it for the future.

So the government automatically takes it away from you and you have sit there and take it while you are drooling and adjusting the chin strap on your helmet.

And YES, a Demo-rat invented SOCIALIST Security.