So can you explain this part then?
Question:
Why, then, does there seem to be a political consensus to save this monstrosity?
Politicians will tell you it's because the American people want it. The polls say so.
And indeed they do. But the fact is taxpayers support this status quo out of fear and not knowledge.
Certainly, no sane individual would buy a program that has the personal investment economics that I just described.
When President Bush proposed changing the program to one of ownership and private accounts, the Democratic Party launched major league into the politics of cynicism. The message that working Americans heard was that they would be kicked off a government program guaranteeing them a payment at retirement in exchange for taking their money and investing it in the stock market.
Is it any wonder that many dived for cover?
I call this the politics of cynicism because there is not a single Democratic senator or congressman who would purchase an insurance policy with the type of legal and economic realities of Social Security. Shut the door and one by one they know the truth.
The Democrats' campaign to "save Social Security" has really been a campaign to save their own butts.
To have endorsed the president's reform would have been an endorsement of a fundamental move away from welfare state politics that has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party.
Now, playing on fears and not the real interests of working Americans, and the inability of Republicans to stick to and sell their message, the Democrats have won.
The real victims are the low and middle income Americans whose hard earned money is being sucked into this black hole that will only get deeper and blacker. This is happening while Democrats bewail wage and wealth stagnation at the lower end of our income spectrum.
Is a Republican White House, for fear that it will look like it did nothing on Social Security, about to join Democrats in the ranks of the politics of cynicism?
Answer:
Captain, it's an editorial, not a question. I have no idea if you play the market or not. If so, you must be doing better than most for you to suggest this position. If not, how would you know? Investing in stocks, bonds, or funds is a complicated procedure. I'd like to see stats on whether a majority or minority of investors in the markets lose money. I'd bet a large majority lose, & a very small minority will gain significantly.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Stocks & funds are risky investrments because few people understand how the markets work, thus making them easy marks for the crooks. Without an accounting degree, I have no business trying to out play the experts.
Besides, SS is meant to be retirement insurance, not an investment. This insurance has a higher rate of return than any privately offered policy, making it a good deal.
EXCEPT that as now funded, it will become bankrupt in less than 50 years. As long as the birthrate is lower than the death rate, eventually it will become bankrupt no matter what we do to fund it properly. We need to use the time it is solvent to encourage our people to save (not live in debt) toward retirement. This system cannot last forever. But private investment from SS money is just wrong.
I like candy...
I read it and all I can say is :::::sigh::::: losing battle it seems has been going on for a while.
The answer is "NO".
Politics is a dirty profession with persons wanting to gain from positions in government to get their interests instead of helping the people that catapulted them to power.
Dear Captain Knobjob
What would have happened if you had taken your SS and put it into a 401k from Enron or Worldcom or Lucent?
If Bush and the GOP had the courage of their convictions
(since the had a majority in the senate and house)
How come they couldnt get this done
If as Bush said SS was going bankrupt how would taking money out of it help. Was it just the fact that Bush's big bizz cronies wanted to get their hands on that money?
Would it work out like the S&L scandals of the late 80's
Just like SS instead of safe steady investments money was placed in the hands of Wall Street and Banking speculators (crooks) for a garunteed higher profit
a thousand banks went out of business and it cost American taxpayers 500 billion dollars its an almost exact parallel
60 years ago 1 in 3 retiree's died from poverty and starvation
SS has saved Millions Try Learning some History
******************************...
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
President Dwight D Eisenhower
******************************...
Well captain I guess this question is now closed
We can't even spank our own kids or go over and anihalliate an enemy because of Democrats. The Republicans can't do anything because John Q Public is lead to believe the Republicans are only out for the rich. When in reality, the Democrats are only out to hear themselves talk. I guess the simple way to put it is.NO BALLS. We will all be dead or speaking Muslim if we don't put the Democrats and the rest of the cynical world in it's place pretty quick. I like candy too.
Privitization was a boondoogle for Wall Street. Social Security is one of the most popular, effective and efficient government program ever.
More Questions & Answers...