Do "Young Du'ers" think Bush Privitization of Social Security is Good?

[KoKo]

Fess Up...are you sick of that "Medicare Tax" which shows up on your "W-2 Form?" Do you figure you are being "ripped off" paying all those "SS" taxes to take care of relatives who should have saved for their own medical and retirement expenses? Are you secretly "resentful" of your older relatives who are "sucking up to and off of the Government?"

Do you think you will be better "Investing in the Market" on your own...taking your licks if the market implodes when you need to retire?"
Do You believe the Market will always win out and if you can invest you will retire with a "big cash fund" from your "long term investing strategy?"

Or...do you figure that having a "known" quantity of money you can count on when you are laid off or retire is more important? Is having that money "tucked away" more important that your "investment freedom?"

Curious...

[Ian David]

1. Only if we can invest in gold and foreign currencies

I'll be damned if I'll invest in MY stockmarket.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. Personally I don't think it is a good idea

I don't mind taxes as long as I know the money is going to help people, not bomb the shit out of them. I think social security should remain 100% under government control. The market is too unpredictable to entrust it with everyone's retirement funds. Most people don't even know how to invest correctly (me included) and if we went into a depression or recession we would all be out on the streets. Also, I think many people would be scammed by people they hire to invest their funds. Many people couldn't afford to hire a professional. You can still invest money in stocks and I think it is a good idea, and will help in retirement-HOWEVER, there has to be some base amount that people are gauranteed (social security). Also, many businesses such as my employer SBC offer a generous retirement plan. They will match 80% of everything up to 200 dollars a month that you put away for retirement. Let's be real here also. Most people are materialistic and like to spend money. If you have 5,000 dollars sitting around are you going to invest it in retirement? Doubtful. I would probably waste it at Louis Vuitton LOL, and many people would use the money for college, healthcare ect...and be screwed when retirement comes along.

[KansDem]

14. "The market is too unpredictable to entrust it with everyone's retirement"

This is the million-dollar question.

In the wake of Enron, Arthur Anderson, Harken, etc...how can we trust Wall Street to look out after the peoples' interest?

What will happen with another financial corporation entrusted with SS private accounts goes under? Will the US government step in and bail it out? Will the US government have to pony up $$$ for all of those cheated out of their accounts?

And how will this be good for Social Security? Allow Wall Street to invest in shady deals, making big bucks for the brokers, overplay its scams and ponzi schemes, and then have the US government step in to clean up the mess...?

Why take a chance at all???

[roseBudd]

2. I saw some interesting gender based stats on exactly that question

Males think they are going to hit pay dirt and tend to be all for privatization. Females not.

[JohnKleeb]

3. I hate the idea of privatizing social security

From what I hear about privatization of it, it's basically putting SS money in the stock market which I find absurd. SS was a good program intiated by the new deal of President Roosevelt, and its obvious to me that htis privatization is a ploy by the republicans to get rid of it.

[TwilightZone]

4. Could you use a few more quote symbols, please?

n/t

[RoeBear]

5. I certainly wish that i

could have directed my own retirement savings investments.
IBM, Polaroid and Xerox in the 60's
Microsoft and Apple in the 70's

Hoo Boy would I be sitting nice now

[politicat]

8. But did you know to buy those when they were valuable?

My great-grandparents got in on the bottom floor of Xerox before it was a verb, but it was entirely luck. They had several other stocks that tanked entirely.

It's fabulous to wishfully invest with hindsight, but it's not so easy to do so in real time.

Pcat

[spanone]

31. Hindsight is useless when the stock market is involved.

It's easy to know what made money in the market in the past. You can bet for every person that made money in Xerox or the others mentioned that thousands of others lost money in companies they thought or 'heard' would make fortunes. I'd rather take the money to Vegas.

[politicat]

6. No. I'm 28 and I'm glad to pay them.

And since I'm self employed, I get hit for a bigger bite than most wage earners.

I look at it this way: If I wasn't paying the SS taxes, I'd be paying out of pocket, after taxes, for my grandparents. I don't think my taxes would go down nearly enough to pay for their care.

Further, I've invested, and not made nearly as much on the stock market over the long term as have treasury bonds. I know I'm not good enough to know when to cash out and when to stick.

Savings tucked away are always a safer bet than trying to manage this on my own. Besides, I don't have time to be a funds manager, and that's what government is supposed to be for.

Besides, the BFEE has made a mess of everything else they've touched. Why should we let them take a functional program that is fully funded for the next 50 years without any worries and mess it up?

Pcat

[justiceischeap]

7. I'm in my early 30's

But I don't like the idea of my SS money being in such an unstable environment as the stock market. Let's just say for giggles that the market crashes like it did in the early 1900's. We're all screwed. Plus wasn't a test done in Sweden where some economists invested a certain amount of SS to see how the market faired compared to government? As I recall reading about this, they invested in Volvo (bought out by Ford), Saab (bought out by GM) and some other well-respected Swedish company that failed as well. Not a good idea IMO. Plus, my money in the market only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[JI7]

9. it's old people who voted for Bush, young people voted for Kerry

those under 30 voted for Kerry by over 60 percent.

the old people mostly voted for Bush. ask the old people why they voted for him and if they support privatization of social security.,

[KoKo]

11. You are very harsh about this...Who did you see at the Anti-Iraq Invasion

Protests and when you were on the ground canvassing for Kerry....who are the folks out there at the Vote Protests....what I've seen it's not your
"Middle Americans."

It's the 20 Somethings and US...the oldies....from what I've seen "on the ground."

:shrug:

[zoeb]

12. I can't wait to see how much those

well paid WalMart employees put away for the future on a $10,100 per year salary.

[girl gone mad]

13. I'll be honest.

I've often thought that it seems kind of unfair that our society spends a significant amount of money to keep seniors alive, while poor young people have so few health care options. Politicians deem old people more worthy of medical coverage, and the fact that they comprise the largest voting block probably has something to do with it.

I do sometimes resent the fact that my mom doesn't seem to realize how much harder it is for my husband and I to pay our bills than it ever was for my father and her, and she seems to take her great health insurance and my dad's big pension for granted.

I'm against SS privatization for so many reasons, though.

[Bridget Burke]

22. So you think killing off the old folks will help your health care?

Or would you prefer your parents penniless & sleeping in your living room? You'd probably resent them even more.

Wouldn't we all benefit if the government directed funds away from illegal wars & unusable Defense Department scams like Star Wars II--& towards programs that would benefit everybody? Better, cheaper health care for all & a bit of tuning-up for Social Security?

[girl gone mad]

24. Where did I say I Want to kill off old folks?

Give me a break.

[DrGonzoLives]

39. Because you didn't toe the party line

and the screaming idiots have been very vocal on DU the past few days, it seems.

[rman]

23. why direct resentment at your mom

when the cause is government policies?

why not resent the fact that the government keeps reducing the social safety net?

[girl gone mad]

25. Resentment because my mom doesn't seem to notice..

that health insurance is completely unnafordable for my family right now and she makes ridiculous comments to me about it. She just doesn't get it.
She voted for Bush because she thought the reason her house hadn't sold yet was that people thought Kerry might win. She really doesn't understand that times are tough for a lot of people, and that many young people are struggling just to afford food and shelter.

My grandmother raised 10 children on my grandfather's teacher's salary. I can't imagine any young family today being able to raise that many kids on just one teacher's salary, can you?

[wicket]

15. I'm 26 and I think it's a HORRIBLE idea

Bush is trying to destroy Social Security, plain and simple.

[aWaKeNoW]

26. I second that being 27

I am not liking the idea that dubya is even thinking about privatizing SS :grr:

[JohnLocke]

16. No (nt).

[Lenape85]

17. NO DUER SHOULD BE FOR PRIVATIZATION, EVEN YOUNG 'UNS LIKE ME

If you are for privatization, you should be on that other site

[Obviousman]

18. No

Plain and Simple
William Donohue

[unblock]

19. privatization of social security is not a bad idea

it's a pure, unadulterated, steaming pile of male bovine excrement.

[OhioBlue]

20. Absolutely not

I'm in my early 30's and I certainly don't trust my future to the likes of Ken Lay. I SS privatization comes to fruition, it will bring the opportunists out of the wood work.

[fnottr]

21. Definitely not

Social Security was created during the depression to ensure that everyone had a savings that was independent of the stock market. Putting Social Security money into the private stock market is completely antithetical to the reason the program was created in the first place.

The program needs to be fixed, but privatization is not the answer.

[nickshepDEM]

27. Im 20 and Im not old enough to gamble.

Investing in the market would be a disaster. Some people would do great, some would do ok, and others would be up shits creek without a paddle. Might as well try our luck at the Craps table or something.

[oneighty]

28. Since the stock market

is such a great place to MAKE money why does not the Federal Government invest all taxpayer monies in the Stock Market thereby doing away with all taxes forever. We will all live off dividends!

It will be like a perpetual motion machine.

It will not work. They know it and those that do not know it will learn.

180

[Starlight]

38. "It will be like a perpetual motion machine."

:evilgrin:

[KoKo]

43. The "Index Funds" and "Day Traders" have taken over...does anyone

want their savings for their old days with maybe some health problems invested with "Hedge Funds and Day Traders?" I for sure don't!

I need to plan...and how can anyone "Plan" on the "Stock Market?" How would you know what you would need to live on based on an "Unknown" (Rummy's favortie phrase.) Whatever my employer didn't take out for "SS" I might be tempted to put into lousy investments or real estate which is often "up and down" or maybe "pyramid schemes" or other "fanciful get rich quick schemes."

As it stands now...I have to pay the damned Govt. exhorbitant amounts...but I figured it was worth it in the end...for me to feel safe in case I screwed up my life, otherwise.

This new scheme means I can screw it all up and live in a box under a bridge if that's what it comes to for my "personal reponsibility" because of "Privatization."

I might not end up like that because I'm cautious and frugal...but what about those of us who aren't? Those who have major catastrophes which wipe out all the savings or those of us who just spend and spend...because we can't control ourselves or are gullible for the "get rich quick schemes."

We have to think of "society as a whole" imho...and try to take care of all of us and not just think that we will escape because we are smarter than having "locked in savings" to save us from our personal foibles. :shrug:

[LifeDuringWartime]

29. hell no!

n/t

[mattclearing]

30. Uhn-uh. Social Security Reform is a scam.

I'm 28, and firmly believe that this is just a ploy to borrow a trillion dollars worth of foreign investment and then suck it out of the stock market. Just like the tech boom.

[Blue_Roses]

32. Many of those that are

"sucking up to and off the government" are elderly who have put their time in and then some. Many are veterans of WWII.

Social Security should not be touched. No matter what your retirement savings is, a lot of people are one disaster away from financial ruin. I just saw a retirement home in my neighborhood go up in flames--literally--this week. It was a low-housing income retirement home for elderly and disabled. All 52 units were lost and everyone is without a home. Most only got out with the clothes on their backs. Bush needs to leave Social Security alone and people need to stay on his back about getting the facts out. How can anyone believe anything he says after he lied about WMD and the Iraq war.

It's gonna take the people like you and me to keep this from being touched, 'cause Congress will have an uphill battle. This is one of the biggest worries I have with another Bush term.

[CityDem]

33. I am for partial privatization

Under strict conditions, I would support private investment accounts with SS deductions. First, all people over a certain age (45-50) would have to be guaranteed current benefit levels. Younger people should be given the option of partial private accounts vs. fixed benefit. I will manage my money much better than the feds. And if I die at the age of 65, my private account will go to my estate. The current system is unsustainable and a change is necessary. We should not be opposed to something just because AWOL is in favor of it.

[Blue_Roses]

35. It's not gonna work that way though

That's what many people have the misconception about. Most of the investments will be through large corporations. Josh Marshall--talkingpointsmemo.com--was talking about this very thing last week. People really need to get the facts and not believe into what Bush is telling them about this.

[johnny walker]

34. Yes. This is the only way I will get something out.

Yup.

[zacho]

36. If it can be executed well

If the change can be gradual I think it is a great idea. My qualm with the change is that it will artificially increase the amount of money in the stock market. This in turn will drive the stock market up. As history shows us (just look at the 20's 80's and 90's) when more money is transferred into the stock market, it will burst painfully. The mutual funds (and me) will be able to predict when the market will turn for the worst and they will get out. The result will be a major recession.

[ThorsHammer]

37. No

SS should be kept safe. If people want to invest their own money, fine, let them, but some basic level of SS needs to be kept as a safety net.

[Cruzin]

41. Ummmm

SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEIR own money. The government takes their money with no vote on workers behalf. Personally, I think I could fare a better return on my SS money then the government is giving me and I am willing to do so at my own risk of not having a nest egg as I age.

My Money...My Choice...My Consequence. Freedom is the bitchinest.

[American Tragedy]

40. You'd have to be pretty selfish to believe that

<<Do you figure you are being "ripped off" paying all those "SS" taxes to take care of relatives who should have saved for their own medical and retirement expenses? Are you secretly "resentful" of your older relatives who are "sucking up to and off of the Government?">>


They paid into SS for the past decades, so they're entitled to the benefits now. And most of them do save for their own medical and retirement expenses, but it is extremely difficult to accumulate enough money, even if one is relatively well-paid. Certainly, none of them could have anticipated the outrageous inflation of the costs of prescription drugs and medical treatments.

The point of programs like this is that our society has determined that men and women should not be driven into bankruptcy and total dependency due to illness and misfortune, and this applies particularly to older folks who are prone to medical crises. If we can afford to construct a safety net, to protect people from sudden forces beyond their control, we should do so.

If it is privatized, it completely defeats that purpose. It just becomes forced individual savings that are subject to the fluctuations of the market. Furthermore, we who pay into the system are just about a decade away from being totally outnumbered by SS recipients. It will be difficult enough to cover all of them, but with this plan we face either killing the benefits for which they have worked, or going much, much deeper into debt.

[robbedvoter]

42. You'll be enronized like the rest of us. No choice where the money

goes either - W's biggest contributors I presume. Old GOP scam W championed since the 70s. Check his prediction:

Bush ... warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves.
http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/midland.html
(prediction made in...1978

It's of course your choice: believe W or, say Paul Krugman.

[Guaranteed]

44. Boy, do I!

I LOVE the idea of giving part of my paycheck away to corporate whores to play games with!