If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

[bripat9643]

A few points in reply to the liberal ignorance displayed in the OP:

* There is no money in the SS fund. That fund was raided back in the 1990s and it has contained nothing but an IOU since then. And the government that stole that money is now $18 trillion in debt and is still running a deficit. Yet, incredibly, liberals trust the government more than they do the private sector.

* Many investment funds suffered little or no loss in the recent downturn. It depends on which funds you choose as your investments. (My two funds lost almost nothing.)

* History shows that over the long term the stock market has been a sound investment, in most cases. You can't judge by a 1-year period or a 2-month period, etc.

* There are other investment options besides the stock market. You can invest in rollover CDs, for example. A decent rollover CD account would give you more money at the end of 40 years than you would get from SS.

What right wing MORONS (like you) constantly fail to understand is this.....

Social Security serves as the bare-minimum of safety nets for common Americans who may not be "savvy" enough to play at the stock market casino and dodge all the swindlers that hang out on Wall Street.

Second, YES, every citizen should look for other sources of retirement nest-eggs beyond social security.....Real estate, C-Ds, and some gambling with Wall Street should all be entertained.

Third, SS needs fixing...NO LEFT WINGER denies that....and there are tons of reasonable suggestions out there to NOT throw out "the baby with the bath water".....

Thank you for arrogantly assume that vast numbers of people are not savvy enough to play the stock market.

A 6th grader with a calculator can wisely invest.

But let's even assume that you are correct (which you are not), even then, WE ALREADY GAVE A SOLUTION.... one of the investment options can be a Municipal Bond fund. That is, investing in government T-Bonds. While it's no better of Return On Investment than Social Security, it's still better than SS in that if you work after retirement age, you don't lose your money (you lose your money with SS), and you don't keep paying into a private fund, for benefits you don't get (with SS you pay taxes into SS, for benefits you are not getting).

If you are too pathetic as a person to understand the most simple of concepts (Buy a stock market mutual fund with long track records, and a decent rate of return)..... ok.... you can buy a Bond Fund, and not buy stocks at all.

You will *STILL* be better off than Social Security.

And lastly, even Chili has a last resort, government paid for minimum pension. If you do so poorly, that you don't save enough for retirement, then the government will step in. But the private pensions have done so well, that few if any, use the government base pension. They all do better off under the private plan.

Just like all those people in Texas under the alternative plan, have all, without exception, done better than Social Security. The lowest income people have done better. The highest income people have done better. Everyone has done better.

So you can keep spamming links, and spewing propaganda, the facts are not on your side.

You cite a couple of counties and ignore the fact that the poor there are worse off. Idiot.

No they aren't, idiot. They are better off.

 

[Andylusion]

countries receives less from social security relative to our per capita income, than those in Chili do.

First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!

Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.

As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.

That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.

Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.

And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.

Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform

Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.

Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.

Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?

So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.

ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en

Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.

Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.

Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.

You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.

Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.

 

[bripat9643]

countries receives less from social security relative to our per capita income, than those in Chili do.

First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!

That's horseshit. Why don't you try relying on objective sources rather than the commie propaganda you normally consume.

 

[Andylusion]

That's pure horseshit. It ignores all the wealth this country would have if it wasn't pouring trillions of dollars down the sewer called "government."

A round-about definition of "anarchy" ???? (IDIOT !!!)

Look at Greece. Anarchy is where your system eventually leads.

Keep obsessing over Greece, it's as if countries never have any problems, ever. LOL.

Every single country that has engaged in socialism, has had problems in the areas they have socialized.

In the case of pension systems, the problem is universal. Every system in every country, where it is socialized, has had problems. The more socialized, the more problems.

Greece is the poster child for the topic we're discussing right now, because their system is almost exactly like our system. And they were having the exact same conversation for almost two decade prior to the crash, that we're havingt right now.

The people like you, who said there was nothing wrong, stick their heads in the sand, and scream tax-the-rich, won that argument in Greece for nearly 20 years.

And yet.... here they are. Pension are cut. Jobs are gone. The rich packed up and left. The system is broke. The country is in chaos.

Now if you are driving along, and the 'oil low' light comes on in your car, and you look around at other people who had the 'oil low' light come on, and they said "It's fine. That light is wrong", and their cars all blew up, you would very foolish to conclude that you should ignore the light, and keep driving.

We've been saying there's a problem for years, and that eventually Social Security will lose money.

You, and those like you, denied that.

Well now it's losing money. We were right... you and those like you were wrong.

Now we're telling you that it will eventually run out of money, and have $1.1 Trillion dollar deficits in the coming years.

You and those like you, are ignoring it, just like those in Greece ignored the warnings.

I don't want us to end up like Greece..... but if you keep ignoring the warning lights, the system will implode. If we do exactly what other people who failed, did..... we'll have the same results they did.

It's called Wisdom. Looking at the world, as it is, not as you think it should be, and making intelligent choices based on that.

The self proclaimed rational genius from central ohio with vast world experience is at it again guys. LOL.

Well which of us right now is being more rational about the topic? Mr. "attack the person refuting what I say personally" or me, which has responded with the facts?

You seem to be getting more childish by the minute.

 

[David_42]

countries receives less from social security relative to our per capita income, than those in Chili do.

First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!

Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.

As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.

That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.

Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.

And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.

Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform

Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.

Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.

Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?

So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.

ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en

Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.


View attachment 49425

Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.

Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.

You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.

Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.

"The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)

 

[David_42]

That's pure horseshit. It ignores all the wealth this country would have if it wasn't pouring trillions of dollars down the sewer called "government."

A round-about definition of "anarchy" ???? (IDIOT !!!)

Look at Greece. Anarchy is where your system eventually leads.

Keep obsessing over Greece, it's as if countries never have any problems, ever. LOL.

Every single country that has engaged in socialism, has had problems in the areas they have socialized.

In the case of pension systems, the problem is universal. Every system in every country, where it is socialized, has had problems. The more socialized, the more problems.

Greece is the poster child for the topic we're discussing right now, because their system is almost exactly like our system. And they were having the exact same conversation for almost two decade prior to the crash, that we're havingt right now.

The people like you, who said there was nothing wrong, stick their heads in the sand, and scream tax-the-rich, won that argument in Greece for nearly 20 years.

And yet.... here they are. Pension are cut. Jobs are gone. The rich packed up and left. The system is broke. The country is in chaos.

Now if you are driving along, and the 'oil low' light comes on in your car, and you look around at other people who had the 'oil low' light come on, and they said "It's fine. That light is wrong", and their cars all blew up, you would very foolish to conclude that you should ignore the light, and keep driving.

We've been saying there's a problem for years, and that eventually Social Security will lose money.

You, and those like you, denied that.

Well now it's losing money. We were right... you and those like you were wrong.

Now we're telling you that it will eventually run out of money, and have $1.1 Trillion dollar deficits in the coming years.

You and those like you, are ignoring it, just like those in Greece ignored the warnings.

I don't want us to end up like Greece..... but if you keep ignoring the warning lights, the system will implode. If we do exactly what other people who failed, did..... we'll have the same results they did.

It's called Wisdom. Looking at the world, as it is, not as you think it should be, and making intelligent choices based on that.

And every single country that has engaged in capitalism without a mix of socialism has problems, what's your point?
If socialist like things lead to anarchism, bring it on. "Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion."
The more socialized, the more problems? Agreed, you can't have socialism overtake capitalism, you need a balance, it's unhealthy both ways.
Greece is not almost exactly like our system, don't kid yourself. I don't put my head in the sand, there's more to it then higher taxation, Greece had a cultural problem with tax evasion. If you think we're going to end up like greece, you're hilariously ignorant.

 

[nat4900]

Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.

Ahem......are all the above countries somewhat "socialistic"? LOL

 

[Andylusion]

countries receives less from social security relative to our per capita income, than those in Chili do.

First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!

Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.

As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.

That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.

Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.

And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.

Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform

Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.

Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.

Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?

So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.

ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en

Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.


View attachment 49425

Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.

Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.

You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.

Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.

"The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)

Interesting. If there were not 500 plus posts, I'd go back and try and figure out which one you think "addressed" the Greece point.

I certainly can't remember any effort to "address" Greece.

As for your point about workers rising up against free-market capitalism.... I don't think so dude.

Which country would you claim has rejected free-market capitalism? The Top Five on the Economic Freedom Index, are places that are more Capitalist based than the US.

Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia

Saying the workers rose up against something.... really doesn't mean that it's bad, or that what they wanted was better.

People protest about all kinds of things, and just getting a bunch of people to scream and yell, and march around with signs, doesn't mean they are right in what they are demanding.

For example... just because you scream and yell about the minimum wage, doesn't mean that the facts do not show that unemployment is lower in countries that do not have a minimum wage.... because that is in fact what the statistics show.

I'm not asking you what the public opinion was on minimum wage. I'm not asking how you feel about it, or how the public feels about it. I'm not asking if they protested over it.

Which system.... free-markets, or government controlled wages, results in more people being employed? Free-market capitalism results in more people having jobs. Period.

So when I say that Free-market capitalism works better, than any socialized system... I'm not asking if they had a revolution, and protests, and public demands. I dont' care about that.

Which system works better? Answer.... Free-Market Capitalism. Until you can show evidence that it does not... all the "public demand, opinion poll, revolution blaw blaw blaw" Does not matter to me.

 

[Andylusion]

Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.

Ahem......are all the above countries somewhat "socialistic"? LOL

You don't understand the concept? What exactly are you "LOL" about? Are you laughing at your own ignorance?

Every country, as in every single country in the world.... is a mixed economy. THere is no such thing as pure socialist, or pure capitalist system in the world.

Everything is a matter of degrees. Even Stalinist Soviet Union, had 1/3rd of all their food, coming from 10% of the farms, which were profit-motivated Capitalists privately owned farms. And that was during Stalin which had no problem shooting business people.

Even Stalin could see that without Capitalist farmers, the country would starve to death.

Some of those countries are more socialized than others. That's true.

But in this case, we're talking about the Pension systems. Even those countries like Argentina, which has tons of government control and intervention.... even there, they know that the public pension system wasn't working. So they adopted privatization based on the Chilean model.

And it works. Capitalism always works. Always.

 

[Andylusion]

That's pure horseshit. It ignores all the wealth this country would have if it wasn't pouring trillions of dollars down the sewer called "government."

A round-about definition of "anarchy" ???? (IDIOT !!!)

Look at Greece. Anarchy is where your system eventually leads.

Keep obsessing over Greece, it's as if countries never have any problems, ever. LOL.

Every single country that has engaged in socialism, has had problems in the areas they have socialized.

In the case of pension systems, the problem is universal. Every system in every country, where it is socialized, has had problems. The more socialized, the more problems.

Greece is the poster child for the topic we're discussing right now, because their system is almost exactly like our system. And they were having the exact same conversation for almost two decade prior to the crash, that we're havingt right now.

The people like you, who said there was nothing wrong, stick their heads in the sand, and scream tax-the-rich, won that argument in Greece for nearly 20 years.

And yet.... here they are. Pension are cut. Jobs are gone. The rich packed up and left. The system is broke. The country is in chaos.

Now if you are driving along, and the 'oil low' light comes on in your car, and you look around at other people who had the 'oil low' light come on, and they said "It's fine. That light is wrong", and their cars all blew up, you would very foolish to conclude that you should ignore the light, and keep driving.

We've been saying there's a problem for years, and that eventually Social Security will lose money.

You, and those like you, denied that.

Well now it's losing money. We were right... you and those like you were wrong.

Now we're telling you that it will eventually run out of money, and have $1.1 Trillion dollar deficits in the coming years.

You and those like you, are ignoring it, just like those in Greece ignored the warnings.

I don't want us to end up like Greece..... but if you keep ignoring the warning lights, the system will implode. If we do exactly what other people who failed, did..... we'll have the same results they did.

It's called Wisdom. Looking at the world, as it is, not as you think it should be, and making intelligent choices based on that.

And every single country that has engaged in capitalism without a mix of socialism has problems, what's your point?
If socialist like things lead to anarchism, bring it on. "Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion."
The more socialized, the more problems? Agreed, you can't have socialism overtake capitalism, you need a balance, it's unhealthy both ways.
Greece is not almost exactly like our system, don't kid yourself. I don't put my head in the sand, there's more to it then higher taxation, Greece had a cultural problem with tax evasion. If you think we're going to end up like greece, you're hilariously ignorant.

Name one. Which country had a pure Free-market Capitalist based system, and had problems. Where is it?

 

[bripat9643]

That's pure horseshit. It ignores all the wealth this country would have if it wasn't pouring trillions of dollars down the sewer called "government."

A round-about definition of "anarchy" ???? (IDIOT !!!)

Look at Greece. Anarchy is where your system eventually leads.

Keep obsessing over Greece, it's as if countries never have any problems, ever. LOL.

Every single country that has engaged in socialism, has had problems in the areas they have socialized.

In the case of pension systems, the problem is universal. Every system in every country, where it is socialized, has had problems. The more socialized, the more problems.

Greece is the poster child for the topic we're discussing right now, because their system is almost exactly like our system. And they were having the exact same conversation for almost two decade prior to the crash, that we're havingt right now.

The people like you, who said there was nothing wrong, stick their heads in the sand, and scream tax-the-rich, won that argument in Greece for nearly 20 years.

And yet.... here they are. Pension are cut. Jobs are gone. The rich packed up and left. The system is broke. The country is in chaos.

Now if you are driving along, and the 'oil low' light comes on in your car, and you look around at other people who had the 'oil low' light come on, and they said "It's fine. That light is wrong", and their cars all blew up, you would very foolish to conclude that you should ignore the light, and keep driving.

We've been saying there's a problem for years, and that eventually Social Security will lose money.

You, and those like you, denied that.

Well now it's losing money. We were right... you and those like you were wrong.

Now we're telling you that it will eventually run out of money, and have $1.1 Trillion dollar deficits in the coming years.

You and those like you, are ignoring it, just like those in Greece ignored the warnings.

I don't want us to end up like Greece..... but if you keep ignoring the warning lights, the system will implode. If we do exactly what other people who failed, did..... we'll have the same results they did.

It's called Wisdom. Looking at the world, as it is, not as you think it should be, and making intelligent choices based on that.

And every single country that has engaged in capitalism without a mix of socialism has problems, what's your point?
If socialist like things lead to anarchism, bring it on. "Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion."
The more socialized, the more problems? Agreed, you can't have socialism overtake capitalism, you need a balance, it's unhealthy both ways.
Greece is not almost exactly like our system, don't kid yourself. I don't put my head in the sand, there's more to it then higher taxation, Greece had a cultural problem with tax evasion. If you think we're going to end up like greece, you're hilariously ignorant.

Every single country that has adopted socialism has had problems. Socialism doesn't solve problems. It creates bigger problems. Capitalism isn't "oppressive." Capitalism is the result of freedom. Socialism is government control. It never leads to "anarchism." It invariably leads to dictatorship. When it collapses it leads to chaos.

The so-called problems of "capitalism," are really just the problems of industrialism - a phenomenon that humanity had never witnessed prior to the advent of capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

A round-about definition of "anarchy" ???? (IDIOT !!!)

Look at Greece. Anarchy is where your system eventually leads.

Keep obsessing over Greece, it's as if countries never have any problems, ever. LOL.

Every single country that has engaged in socialism, has had problems in the areas they have socialized.

In the case of pension systems, the problem is universal. Every system in every country, where it is socialized, has had problems. The more socialized, the more problems.

Greece is the poster child for the topic we're discussing right now, because their system is almost exactly like our system. And they were having the exact same conversation for almost two decade prior to the crash, that we're havingt right now.

The people like you, who said there was nothing wrong, stick their heads in the sand, and scream tax-the-rich, won that argument in Greece for nearly 20 years.

And yet.... here they are. Pension are cut. Jobs are gone. The rich packed up and left. The system is broke. The country is in chaos.

Now if you are driving along, and the 'oil low' light comes on in your car, and you look around at other people who had the 'oil low' light come on, and they said "It's fine. That light is wrong", and their cars all blew up, you would very foolish to conclude that you should ignore the light, and keep driving.

We've been saying there's a problem for years, and that eventually Social Security will lose money.

You, and those like you, denied that.

Well now it's losing money. We were right... you and those like you were wrong.

Now we're telling you that it will eventually run out of money, and have $1.1 Trillion dollar deficits in the coming years.

You and those like you, are ignoring it, just like those in Greece ignored the warnings.

I don't want us to end up like Greece..... but if you keep ignoring the warning lights, the system will implode. If we do exactly what other people who failed, did..... we'll have the same results they did.

It's called Wisdom. Looking at the world, as it is, not as you think it should be, and making intelligent choices based on that.

And every single country that has engaged in capitalism without a mix of socialism has problems, what's your point?
If socialist like things lead to anarchism, bring it on. "Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion."
The more socialized, the more problems? Agreed, you can't have socialism overtake capitalism, you need a balance, it's unhealthy both ways.
Greece is not almost exactly like our system, don't kid yourself. I don't put my head in the sand, there's more to it then higher taxation, Greece had a cultural problem with tax evasion. If you think we're going to end up like greece, you're hilariously ignorant.

Name one. Which country had a pure Free-market Capitalist based system, and had problems. Where is it?

Socialists like to claim that the fact that capitalism didn't immediately solve all the problems it inherited from pre-capitalist systems means it's an evil system.

 

[nat4900]

And it works. Capitalism always works. Always.

Why do I get the feeling that this fanatic (dylusion, above) has a tattoo of Ayn Rand's face on hs ass?

 

[Andylusion]

And it works. Capitalism always works. Always.

Why do I get the feeling that this fanatic (dylusion, above) has a tattoo of Ayn Rand's face on hs ass?

Thanks for the compliment.

Actually no. I am a Christian. Ayn Rand was anti-religious. So while her economics were fantastically accurate, and have been proven correct dozens of times in the recent past, her morality was trash, and has been proven equally a failure throughout the past.

Ironically she didn't live out her own moral life, in the way that she promoted.... which seems odd.

But again, her economic beliefs have been proven right.

 

[TooTall]

The genius of the Social Security Act is that it acknowledges the unpleasant but undeniable fact that there will always be a significant number of Americans living from paycheck to paycheck, even during periods of economic boom; Americans who as a result will never be able to generate the income necessary to save for retirement – and what savings they do generate are used to pay for a car repair or replace the water heater.

The Act also acknowledges the fact that during a recession millions will lose their jobs through no fault of their own, likely to be compelled to exhaust their savings while unemployed, where many won't be able to replenish those exhausted savings.

And the Act acknowledges the fact that society has the right and obligation to safeguard citizens from the adverse consequences of a large number of older Americans no longer able to work who lack the resources to sustain themselves when that day arrives.

The notion, therefore, of 'privatizing' Social Security is completely devoid of merit.

None of the examples you gave have anything to do with privatizing Social Security. Whether it is deducted from your paycheck and deposited in Soc Sec or in a Stock marker fund would have no effect when someone is out of work.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, no shit.
If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

The stock market continued a period of volatility on Monday. Media reports sounded the alarm as the DOW opened 1,000 points down and other indexes took huge hits, only to climb back up a bit later in the day. While that performance, which had some people calling it black Monday, may have knocked a good deal of money out of people’s 401(k) retirement accounts, Social Security benefits remain by and large untouched by such fluctuations.

Some Republicans, however, are interested in changing that.

In June, presidential candidate Jeb Bush said that he thinks the next president will have to try to privatize Social Security. Others have gotten behind the idea as well: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) drafted a plan in 2013 that included partial privatization, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is in favor of using private accounts. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has included privatization in his budget blueprints.

The market drop, and ones before, expose the dangers of such a plan, which usually entails diverting some or all of the money workers contribute to Social Security through their paychecks into private investment accounts. That would put individuals in charge of making smart enough investment choices in the market to make big enough returns to support themselves in retirement.

But the reality is that’s not within reach for most individual people. During a market rout like Monday’s, many people will panic and sell. “We know a lot of people do what economists say is irrational, they sell at a low point,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center on Economic and Policy Research. Research shows that the best thing to do during a downturn is to hold out if possible. But that’s not how most people will react. “People see something like this and go, ‘I better get out,'” Baker said. “When they see the market start to go up, they say, ‘I better buy in,’ and then they’ve lost a lot.”

This is one of the big problems with privatizing Social Security: individual investors don’t tend to be that savvy in chasing higher returns. “A lot of people make wrong decisions,” Baker said. This is even true when it comes to retirement planning: Many people leave money on the table with their 401(k)s by not taking advantage of employer matches or cash out when they switch jobs and incur taxes. The point of Social Security contributions is to make saving for retirement mandatory, he pointed out. But “if you do that and then just tell people to do whatever you want [with the money], then a lot of people will make mistakes and end up with not very much in retirement.”

On a larger level, putting people’s Social Security contributions into private accounts makes them far more exposed to the irrationality of the market. “What’s beautiful about Social Security is that in the long the return workers get on contributions is linked to productivity growth and wage growth,” said Monique Morrissey, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “Whereas markets are notoriously volatile and often behave in ways that are not based on the fundamental strength and weakness of the economy.”

You're a moron.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And it works. Capitalism always works. Always.

Why do I get the feeling that this fanatic (dylusion, above) has a tattoo of Ayn Rand's face on hs ass?

Because you need a way to take your mind off of the reality that you don't know what you are talking about ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

countries receives less from social security relative to our per capita income, than those in Chili do.

First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!

Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.

As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.

That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.

Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.

And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.

Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform

Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.

Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.

Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?

So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.

ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en

Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.


View attachment 49425

Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.

Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.

You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.

Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.

"The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)

Please point out where you addressed Greece.

SS keeps many seniors from starving.

An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).

Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.

Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.

Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.

Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.

The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.

 

[Andylusion]

countries receives less from social security relative to our per capita income, than those in Chili do.

First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!

Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.

As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.

That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.

Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.

And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.

Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform

Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.

Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.

Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?

So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.

ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en

Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.


View attachment 49425

Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.

Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.

You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.

Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.

"The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)

Please point out where you addressed Greece.

SS keeps many seniors from starving.

An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).

Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.

Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.

Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.

Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.

The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.

Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.

But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.

Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

countries receives less from social security relative to our per capita income, than those in Chili do.

First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!

Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.

As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.

That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.

Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.

And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.

Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform

Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.

Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).

All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.

Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?

So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.

ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en

Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.


View attachment 49425

Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.

Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.

You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.

Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.

"The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)

Please point out where you addressed Greece.

SS keeps many seniors from starving.

An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).

Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.

Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.

Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.

Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.

The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.

Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.

But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.

Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.

While I am not a fan of the current system, I don't agree that it is "horrific".

While I consider myself somewhat libertarian, this is one place I equivocate.j

Retirement is not a right.

It is a priviledge.

However, if we are going to allow people to retire (essentially go on a pension of their own making or something else), they are going to pay into it.

The current system is pretty sucky.