Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

LOL.
SS isn't failing, the number of workers in the country isn't keeping up with the demand.
Try again.

 

Because it won't support their agenda that they want to steal, RWers word, peoples money and give it to private company that could go bankrupt.

And Sawyer as avoided the question 3 times, what happens to the money people give to the private company when they go bankrupt.
He can't answer it either, for either all those retirement accounts get vanished into thin air, or the gov't has to bail them out.
Might as well stay with SS and that blows his whole argument out of the water.

 

30 yrs ago, people like you were scaring us younger folks into thinking we would not have SS when we got to retirement. I'm a few years away yet, and guess what, I'm going to get SS, and so will the next generation(s). And it would be more soluble if the damn RWers would let the tweaks that need to happen, happen. Instead on wanting to give it to some non accountable private corporation that could go bankrupt and they lose everything.

You chicken little types need to get with the program, instead of fighting the program.

 

Guess what, if you are a few years away yet you will only get your full benefits for ten years, then you'll get 70-80 %. SS is collapsing.

 

Until such a time as society as a whole can do what you did, and I did also, and I teach the same principle, but not everyone can or will stick to it. There's alway a shiney new object in the window. Then there's real life situations out of one's control that happens as well.

I think there be a social safety net(s). Used as crutches, not a lifestyle.
But SS is the best program to insure there will be something for those who chase that shiney object or tragic event.

- - - Updated - - -

It has edged up. I'm not eligible for full funds until 67. Up 2 years from you. And it should probably inch it's way up to 70.
And as others have said, remove the cap, that will add substantially to the funds.
It is why we've all been saying tweaks. But RWers won't do none of this. They want to give it to some company that could go bankrupt.

 

Let's say your worst case scenario plays out and government has to bail out privatized SS. Kinda like we already have huh. A failed SS with no way to pay retirement benefits without taxes on other people because the money we paid in is gone. Difference is this happening to privatized SS is speculation whereas government is already there.

 

I brought that up. Then he went on some rant about open borders and illegal immigration.

- - - Updated - - -

You were talking about people living to 100 by the year 2040. A mere 23 yrs from now.

 

Congratulations, you have just admitted SS is dysfunctional and needs a complete makeover. Removing the cap turns what is ostensibly a self sustaining annuity fund retirement program into an entirely new entity. It turns it into unadulterated socialism with the rich paying for the retirement of those not so well off. That may be the route the coming generations choose to go but it is a complete SS rework and not "tinkering" with the current program.

 

Which is complete utter BS on your part, and you've been told this.
The money isn't gone. It's in a trust fund, gov't bonds. Same as your money in a bank. It isn't physically there, but you can get it if you need it. But you can't go count the cash.

If it went to a private company, then it is gone.

 

Then tell the damn consevatives to put in the tweaks we working folks have been asking for, for the last 30 yrs.

Quit trying to give my retirement money to some pvt corp that may lose it and I have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not dysfunctional. But that is your goal and the goal of the R party. You keep proving that every time you post.

 

Worthless smoke and mirrors bonds that have no investments only loans to itself and a mountain of IOUs that can only be paid off by taxing somebody. Madoff went to prison for much the same thing but government made its own rules for its own Ponzi scheme.

- - - Updated - - -

You admitted it's dysfunctional when you said we needs new tax on the rich to prop it up.

 

Nope.
The US gov't has been the safest investment vehicle for the last 100 yrs. But you're free to dispel that.
If the fed gov't does fail, there will be far more to worry about than retirement accounts.
And you can bet your bottom $$$, those pvt companies will be long gone.

Again, it's you and the R party, working to make it dysfunctional. You want to destroy peoples retirements with pvt companies than can go bankrupt. And then call on the US gov't to bail all of that out.
NO THANKS.

It's the classic, I got mine, now screw the rest of you. It's party line politics, pure and simple. Not caring about your children and grandchildren.

 

There is not much we can do to remove the shiny object problem- but anytime we use some social tool to enable getting what you want with someone else's money or help, we perpetuate the dependence of people. In my opinion- dependence kills strength, kills self-respect, independence, and does terrible things to people. Our sympathetic side wants to help those "in need", but our common sense can't separate the hand-up from the hand-out, and the consequences of those two kinds of help are exactly opposite. I consider that problem perhaps the greatest threat to our own success as a species; we cultivate weakness far more than we cultivate strength.

 

It's not like this insanity hasn't been tried before

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-chile-social-security-20160812-snap-story.html

And it's been a disaster

And guess where the author of the Chilean program went?

Yea...the Cato Institute

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for your opinion.

My opinion is that having a decent retirement in old age has value

 

Thomas Paine thought it should be EXCLUSIVELY financed by the rich

 

For the most part, SS isn't using someone elses money. Yes, I know today's workers support todays recipients, but it was their contributions while working that determines what they collect.
So, SS is still one of the best ways to ensure many folks who get to a point they can't work anymore, can have some form of income.
Also, it does allow older workers to leave the workforce so younger ones can fill in those jobs.

So SS isn't a dependence, until such an age they decide not to work anymore. 62 earliest, 70, I think, the latest. And then its still not dependence for they contributed to the cause.

 

Of course it has value- so we should all work towards providing that for ourselves, and to the extent we use government programs to support that, we should insist they be financially sound, honestly managed and realistic. There is no one who should care more about your retirement than you- and no one who will look out for it better. If you abdicate that responsibility, you need to look in the mirror for the cause.

 

There can be no greater tax dollar spent than one given to a person that has worked for a generation to build this great nation

 

Ya mean like happened in Chile...which didn't work...at all

But hey... an economic idea having a track record of failure has never caused Republicans to abandon that idea in the past...so why would it now...(trickle down...voodoo economics comes to mind)

 

Oh and for the record...Sawyer's Cato Institute predicted the demise of Social Security by 2010

 

Yet you admitted earlier that SS can't go on and is and needs a massive infusion of funds by putting a new tax on the rich. Face it, we are on the same side now on this issue, SS isn't working as planned and needs new revenue sources to continue meeting it's obligations or it needs replaced with a system that actually is self sustaining.

 

Obviously you haven't done your homework. 30-40 years ago, Chile and Venezuela were opposites. Venezuela was more capitalistic, Chile more socialist. Venezuela was doing well- Chile was miserable. Both countries reversed their political positions- and before long, everything else reversed too. Even lifespans shifted, and Chile gained while Venezuela lost. Today, it's near impossible to buy a loaf of bread in Venezuela, and it used to be a land with all kinds of goods readily available. I know; I worked down there for a month in the 80's. Venezuela has the worlds largest oil reserves... and the worlds worst economy today. Inflation was 141% in 2015, much higher now. At one point, the value of their dollar (Bolivar) dropped 55% in one month. When I was there, a Bolivar was equal to $0.32 (32 cents USD), so 20,000 of them would be worth $6400. In 2016, a 20,000 Bolivar bill was worth less than $5 USD. Chile is sound; Venezuela in in a death spiral. That is socialism as opposed to capitalism.

Do a little research, it's all over the place at reliable sources. Here's one-
http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/24/chile-vs-venezuela-new-at-reason

 

That, in a very crude, sloppy way describes all bonds whether corporate or government. Ever have a savings bond? Lots and lots pf people bought them after WWII. And every one of them paid off according to promise. Ever buy a municipal bond or a corporate bond? Some corporate bonds have turned worthless but never a government bond.

Time for you to stop the games about this.

You've been told about this too. I guess you like to get attention and conflict. It's a twisted personality that craves conflict as a form of attention.

Pardon me pointing out the obvious but the rich have always paid a tax on this. If I were not retired I would also have some income that isn't taxed by payroll taxes and I'm not "rich".

 

Pardon me but eliminating the cap on SS is a new tax no matter how you want to spin it. The cap exist so people are not forced to pay far more into SS than they could ever hope to take out. SS was founded as an old age security program that you paid into and then retired off of. This new tax on the rich would turn SS on its head and instead of being a self financed retirement it would be welfare for the old. That's fine if that's what the coming generations want but call it what it is, welfare.

 

Social security needs an update. So what? All federal programs are updated. It's about time

- - - Updated - - -

Ok welfare for the old then. Works for me