Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Yet Another Interesting Idea Knee-Jerkingly Vilified

I could never quite figure out how/why partial privatization of Social Security ever got to be such a "conservative" idea (I mean, other than the fact that a Republican President, President Bush, came forward with it). a) You make it partial (33% perhaps to start). b) You make it voluntary (people will be free to stay in the present program). And c) you put in a sufficient number of safeguards (at age 55, for example, X amount has to be in short-term bond funds, at age 60 X+1, at age 65 X+2, etc.). What, pray tell, is the ever-loving problem here? I mean, seriously - does the solution to literally EVERY problem have to be a conventional one (not to mention one that grows the Leviathan, the bureaucracy, etc.)?

30 comments:

dmarks said...

"I mean, other than the fact that a Republican President, President Bush, came forward with it"

Are you sure? I could have sworn that Vice President Al Gore proposed something similar to this, before Bush did. I could very well be wrong about this. I can't find a reference to it.

John Myste said...

I could have swore Yassir Arafat said something about "creating the Palestinians a people" in a rallying cry against Israel. I can't find that either. Therefore, I can no longer swear to it, though I once did.

It may have happened, I don't know.

To be perfectly honest, I have no ida what Gore said, and that is all I am going to say about Arafat, so don't bring him up again!

Jerry Critter said...

SS is a insurance program. We already have an investment retirement program. It is called an IRA. There is no reason to combine to two.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

dmarks, people who argue against partial privatization always point to a dip in the stock market and go, "Look, see what would happen to your retirement if you put it in the stock market." And it's always like, yeah, if you put all of the money in on a Tuesday and took it all out on a Friday. I mean, it's ridiculous, the argument. Retirement is a 40 year process. It doesn't get wiped out with one singular dip in the market.............John, the only thing that I ever liked about Arafat was the fact that he reminded me of Ringo Starr - well, until he whipped out that frigging revolver of his. Then it was like, DUDE!!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I can think of three reasons to combine the 2, Jerry. a) A better return. b) An empowerment of the citizenry. And c) an opportunity to tell the behemoth Federal government to "Keep your greedy and disgusting paws off the sweat of my brow, bra." I mean, wouldn't that feel GREAT?

Beach Bum said...

I am in no way sure of the details but Gore's suggestion had something to do with some sort of government matching of money put into an account. I have no idea if this was something different from social security or if teh system would have been adapted to Gore's idea.

For all intent and purposes that is ancient history.


As for SS privatization come on Will, after the nuclear meltdown caused by the bankers you bring this up?

Yeah I read the part you wrote about "sufficient safeguards" and you know I have had your back a number of times at different sites but dude, if you believe anything is safe with the fine capitalistic pigs that nearly ruined the country I have a couple of bridges and a moon I could sell to you.

Jerry Critter said...

SS has always paid it full benefits. The "behemoth Federal government" is doing a good job with it.

Would I rather give that money to the Banksters so that they can skim a big slice off the top and then gamble with the rest? No. I would rather keep SS the way it is, providing a secure retirement base, and use other money, if I have any, to gamble in the financial markets.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

99% of U.S. companies didn't have to get bailed out, gents. The stock-market goes up, it goes down. But, yes, over a 40 year period, your investment would do far better in private hands than it would with a bunch of dullard bureaucrats in Washington.............And, Jerry, if you like the present system, you could stay with it. It (or at least my proposal) would be totally optional.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And Jerry, a lot of mutual funds are "no-load". With those particular investments, nothing gets "skimmed". OR you could invest in U.S. Savings bonds. The last that I looked, there wasn't any "skimming" with those, either.

Dudley the Fat Ass Liberal Beagle said...

Ah Will. Your rules make privatization superfluous. the percentage that you would allow invested in anything but government backed bonds is negligible.

As Jerry said, SS is an insurance and annuity program. Guarenteed return backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Not Wall Street.

dmarks said...

John; Beach Bum even remembered Gore's proposal. I'm not sure why you brought up the Arafat. Perhaps because his views on Jews were similar to that other famous "SS" from the mid 20th century.

Jerry said:

"SS has always paid it full benefits. The "behemoth Federal government" is doing a good job with it."

Are you sure? Just ask President Obama. He admitted that there was no money in it, and without the budget ceiling increase earlier in the month, there would have been no money to go out in the SS checks.

dmarks said...

Beach Bum said:

"if you believe anything is safe with the fine capitalistic pigs that nearly ruined the country I have a couple of bridges and a moon I could sell to you."

The pigs that ruined the country.... the leaders of F&F and the people in Congress that created the regulations and policies to make F&F derail the country... are anything but capitalists.

Dudley the Fat Ass Liberal Beagle said...

Yeah DMarks. That deregulation really worked good in 2008.

w-dervish said...

Will: Yet Another Interesting Idea...

No.

Will: ...Knee-Jerkingly Vilified.

No.

Will: What, pray tell, is the ever-loving problem here?

Dumb.

dmarks: I could have sworn that Vice President Al Gore proposed something similar to this, before Bush did.

No.

Jerry: SS is a insurance program. We already have an investment retirement program. It is called an IRA. There is no reason to combine to two.

Yes!

Beach Bum: if you believe anything is safe with the fine capitalistic pigs that nearly ruined the country...

Exactly.

Will: ...tell the... government to "Keep your... paws off the sweat of my brow... I mean, wouldn't that feel GREAT?

No. Dumb.

dmarks: The pigs that ruined the country.... the leaders of F&F and the people in Congress that created the regulations and policies...

No. Dumber.

Jerry Critter said...

w-d,
Spot on!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm not saying that this would be my first choice. My first choice would probably be a) raise the retirement age 6 months, b) means-test Social Security and further means-test Medicare (nothing draconian - 10%, maybe), and c) raise the cap $3-4,000.............But partial privatization is something that could clearly work, IMO.............Truth, the return that you would get (and, keep in mind, when you're in your 50s-60s, you're looking more for security than aggressive returns) with CDs, short-term bond funds, etc. is still better than what you'd be getting with Social Security.............And, AGAIN, it would be a) partial and b) voluntary. If you guys think that the present system is boffo, go for it.

w-dervish said...

Will: raise the retirement age 6 months.

Lower it.

Will: Means-test Social Security and further means-test Medicare.

No.

Will: raise the cap $3-4,000.

Eliminate cap.

Will: partial privatization is something that could clearly work.

No. Dumb.

Will: If you guys think that the present system is boffo, go for it.

Close. Eliminate cap.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Lower the retirement age. Yeah, that's just what we need, less productivity and more government handouts. You're a genius, wd.

Jerry Critter said...

Actually, lowering the retirement age for Social Security is not such a crazy idea. Here are some potential benefits.

w-dervish said...

Jerry: Here are some potential benefits [of lowering the retirement age]. *link to article by Thom Hartmann*

Yes!! EXACTLY what I was thinking of when I suggested it.

Will: You're a genius, wd.

No. Thom Hartman is.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I liked comments 12 and 16.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And I don't appreciate Mr. Hartmann throwing around terms like "anti-American". If it's wrong for the tea party to use such rhetoric, it's also wrong for a tow-the-line progressive like Mr. Hartmann.

w-dervish said...

Comment 12 was the worst (and most wrong) comment in this thread.

My favorite was 14.

I also liked comments 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, and 19.

w-dervish said...

Thom Hartmann calls them as he sees them... and he most definitely is not a "tow the line" progressive.

John Myste said...

Can someone number the comments, please?

dmarks said...

WD: Means-testing social security and medicare are great ideas, because there is no good reason for the government to give handouts to the well off and wealthy.

I know you disagree. You have argued in the past that the rich deserve this money from the government as a bribe to make them more likely to support more generous benefits for all.

I think that is one of the worst justifications for anything.

dmarks said...

Dudley said: "Yeah DMarks. That deregulation really worked good in 2008."

It was over-regulation that caused the mess in 2008. Specifically, F&F forcing banks to give out all those bad loans.

Dudley the Fat Ass Liberal Beagle said...

Bullshit Dmarks, It was blind greed that caused banks to make bad loans and bundle them as AAA securities that did it.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, give me one nonprogressive viewpoint that Mr. Hartmann espouses and I will personally give the dude a big pat on the back.......But he's still gotta knock it off with this "the other guy is unAmerican" bullshit. No place for that in civilized discourse.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

dmarks and Truth, it could in fact be BOTH, you know?