Social Security-Kerry?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Aug 9, 2004.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    These are the sorts of things we should be hearing about!

     
  2. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Of course Bush is not for privatizing SS either. BTW, privatizing and elliminating are the same when you are talking about a government program. Do not be fooled into thinking you can have a privatized government program.

    Travis
     
  3. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    I am not sure, but isn't our postal system privatized? How about the banking system? Just asking and too lazy to research.
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    postal system is private but federally protected. Banking system, private, partially protected.
     
  5. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Thanks; it's tough being old and lazy.

    Not that anyone should use either of those two instances for justification of privatization of anything!
     
  6. Fmr jarhead
    Offline

    Fmr jarhead Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,119
    Thanks Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    SoFLA
    Ratings:
    +103
    The proposed "privatizing" of the SS would simply be the option of those who are younger, and have a better chance at investing their 6.5% of payroll taxes (half of what is currently taken out), and having a mixture of investment options very similar to a 401K but without the company stock plan. There would be several mutual funds to choose from, and, voila! Instant privatization....no muss, no fuss! The other half would remain in the SS fund.....

    (No one has answered to what Kerry's real intent is, yet! Aren't there any screaming socialists on this forum who would be supportive of Kerry's plan?)

    Wouldn't the proposed legalization of gay marriages have a huge impact on the cost of Social Security, as well? Wouldn't there be more spouses getting payments that are not currently accounted for in the system?

    (More stuff to think about when deciding which chad to leave hanging!)
     
  7. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    government protected monopoly for the postal system.

    Travis
     
  8. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
     
  9. Fmr jarhead
    Offline

    Fmr jarhead Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,119
    Thanks Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    SoFLA
    Ratings:
    +103
    tpahl, I don't argue your point, that if you pay in, you should get something back....but what about this new "class" of recipient that is being created, and not accounted for, in the planning, and the depletion of the fund.

    Spouses get more benefits (even if they don't work) after the income earner dies....so the proprtion of what is paid out, increases, and now has to provide for 2 people, instead of 1.

    Do you see how this could cause an expedited demise of the Social Security system, if gay marriages become the law of the land?
     
  10. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    I agree that it would expedite the process. and I welcome the demise of social security. But even if you think SS is a good thing, it is unfair to argue against gay marriage on this basis. Gays are paying in like everyone else. They should be able to chose a benficiary to their 'share' of the pot, just as heterosecusal get to give it to their spouses. The fact that it makes a screwed up system even worse is not gay peoples fault and they should not be punished because of it.

    Traivs
     

Share This Page