No. Social Security is a rippoff and it's unconstitutional. We are all forced to contribute to Social Security. We have no choice. The benefits, compared to the contributions, are terrible. If everyone paid into a private pension fund with an average rate of return, instead of Social Security, they would be much better off. If a private sector pension fund was run like Social Security, the owners would all be put in prison.Are these private funds guaranteed/insured by the government? Are they in the stock market?
Government workers in Matagorda, Galveston, and Brazoria county Texas were allowed to opt of Social Security in 1981 and 1982, and instead, contribute to private pension funds. Many of them are retired today and getting substantially more income than they would have received, had they stayed in the Social Security system.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/0...-by-choice-the Originally Posted by joe bloe
What kind of a poll allows people to vote for multiple choices ?Democrats usually vote more than once for the same choice. That's why they always "get out the vote" better than Republicans. We Republicans also stop voting after we're dead; that gives the Democrats another advantage.
Timmyboy voted 3 times for 3 different answers ?????? Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Are these private funds guaranteed/insured by the government? Are they in the stock market?
My concern is that not every elderly person or working person is always good at managing private accounts, especially if they involve stocks. I would just be concerned about a ton of elderly people retired and broke which would not be good for the country.
I am not a opposed to a combination approach of secured government/tax funds and partial private funds, more of a hybrid really, one that we can transition to. Originally Posted by markroxny
Are these private funds guaranteed/insured by the government? Are they in the stock market?That's precisely what George W Bush tried to do. The Democrats fought it tooth and nail. No system will ever be perfect. Some people will inevitably fall through the cracks.
My concern is that not every elderly person or working person is always good at managing private accounts, especially if they involve stocks. I would just be concerned about a ton of elderly people retired and broke which would not be good for the country.
I am not a opposed to a combination approach of secured government/tax funds and partial private funds, more of a hybrid really, one that we can transition to. Originally Posted by markroxny
That's precisely what George W Bush tried to do. The Democrats fought it tooth and nail. No system will ever be perfect. Some people will inevitably fall through the cracks.I supported what Bush was trying to do, we just didn't trust the implementation.
By setting up a system in which the government guarantees no one will be left destitute, it creates a self fullfilling prophesy.
The government has set up a retirement system with the rational that people are irresponsible and won't save for retirement, and by so doing, it is telling people they don't need to save because the government will take of them. Originally Posted by joe bloe
It isn't the government's role to protect people from making bad decisions. And SSI has become a mechanism of re-distributing the benefits of work from those who earn to those who do not. Originally Posted by WhirlawayIt's becoming clear that Social Security and Medicare are going to be means tested in the next few years, as the debt crisis worsens. That's a complete violation of the contract between the government and the tax payer, just another way of re-distributing income.
I supported what Bush was trying to do, we just didn't trust the implementation.I don't think most Republicans are completely against the government helping the truly needy if private charity and family are not sufficient.
I understand your argument as a conservative principal but the reality is there are times when the government does have to help save people from themselves, that's why we have laws for example. Before SS we had tons of broke elderly people and now we don't. I just think the implementation was flawed in that it was structured like a Pyramid, and eventually the people at the bottom get the shaft in a pyramid money structure.
I would prefer to see a hybrid model and the option to opt out. I think doing away with SS altogether would be disastrous. Originally Posted by markroxny
I don't think most Republicans are completely against the government helping the truly needy if private charity and family are not sufficient.Again i think eliminating SS will create human suffering especially of the elderly. This concept of "personal responsibility" is fine for older people who are good at managing their own retirement accounts, and I think they should be able to. But in all truth, most will not be good at that. I have no problem with safety nets for a group like the elderly. Yea i get ss taken out of my check and that money goes to retired people in the short term. But i far prefer that to seeing droves of broke hungry old people all over the US.
The legitimate goal of any government entitlement program must be to minimize human suffering. All people of good will agree on that. The problem with the liberal mindset is that it's short sited in terms of dealing with human suffering. In the long run, liberal programs are not sustainable and ultimately increase suffering more than they decrease it.
We are about to go bankrupt; if we don't dramatically cut entitlement programs, there will be no money left to redistribute. The truly needy will not be taken care of because of overly generous unsustainable programs.
The best system is one that encourages people to be self reliant and not become dependant social welfare. That's the tough love philosophy of conservatives. In the long run, tough love is more compassionate than a social welfare nanny state that addicts people to welfare and ultimately goes bankrupt.
. Originally Posted by joe bloe
