Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The term, "privatization", is a republican code-word for destroying Social Security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
That's just silly.
Republicans have zero interest in destroying Social Security because it would destroy any chance of being re-elected.
Republicans -- and Democrats -- very much want to *save* Social Security.
If republicans fulfilled their ongoing death-wish to eliminate Social Security, there wouldn't be any more elections to win or lose, because the nation would have collapsed into chaos. They've been trying to wipe it out, ever since it was started.
In the 1936 elections, republican presidential nominee Alf Landon campaigned on a pledge to end Social Security. In 1953, the Republicans in Congress assumed that with Eisenhower as president, they'd be able to eliminate it. That was the first time there'd been a republican administration, since 1933. They had it all planned, but Ike blocked it. He was the only barrier to its destruction. As recently as 2005, Bush and Ryan were on-board with the plan to privatize it, but the Democrats, even though in a minority, were able to raise such a protest, that the plan fizzled. Imagine what would have happened to the accounts that workers had established in a privatization scheme, when the Recession of 2008 hit.
So don't tell me that the Republicans wouldn't kill the whole program, if they could. They'd worry about 60 million people or more, starving on the streets, only after the inevitable result of privatization occurred. There have been other countries that converted their retirement systems into private investment accounts. In some cases, the workers who retire, get far less than what they were promised. Here's an example of one from a 2005 article, where the plan was started 25 years before. The 2nd link is to what claims to be an unbiased, more recent discussion of the subject.
No, the elderly won't be cleaning hotels, mowing lawns and picking fruit. Our younger citizens will be doing that, freeing up less strenuous retail jobs for the older folks. Ageism in hiring will also change because as the boomers retire there will be fewer workers to fill current jobs - so older workers should start becoming desirable again.
You may want to rethink that. It's pretty hard to pick fruit with a smartphone in one hand.
Republicans have zero interest in destroying Social Security because it would destroy any chance of being re-elected.
Republicans -- and Democrats -- very much want to *save* Social Security.
Every time there's a new President, especially a Republican, we have to have these doom and gloom rumors about Social Security and Medicare. You'd think we've all been around long enough and seen enough elections to know these are scare tactics by one party or another. It seems rather easy to put seniors in a panic with such nonsense. No wonder such rumors are started by those that want to persuade you to dislike one party or another.
Perhaps folks should have managed their lives better, so as not to be dependent on ss. Sure, there are those unfortunates. Society usually takes care of them. As to the other chicken littles, the internet is filled with trolling.
My response, in net: a) some foolishly did not take care of business, when they could have, b) some are unfortunate, c) some are manipulative conwomen and men; scum.
Faith, work, planning, at any age is the tonic that will fix things, or at least make them tolerable.
If republicans fulfilled their ongoing death-wish to eliminate Social Security, there wouldn't be any more elections to win or lose, because the nation would have collapsed into chaos. They've been trying to wipe it out, ever since it was started.
In the 1936 elections, republican presidential nominee Alf Landon campaigned on a pledge to end Social Security. In 1953, the Republicans in Congress assumed that with Eisenhower as president, they'd be able to eliminate it. That was the first time there'd been a republican administration, since 1933. They had it all planned, but Ike blocked it. He was the only barrier to its destruction. As recently as 2005, Bush and Ryan were on-board with the plan to privatize it, but the Democrats, even though in a minority, were able to raise such a protest, that the plan fizzled. Imagine what would have happened to the accounts that workers had established in a privatization scheme, when the Recession of 2008 hit.
So don't tell me that the Republicans wouldn't kill the whole program, if they could. They'd worry about 60 million people or more, starving on the streets, only after the inevitable result of privatization occurred. There have been other countries that converted their retirement systems into private investment accounts. In some cases, the workers who retire, get far less than what they were promised. Here's an example of one from a 2005 article, where the plan was started 25 years before. The 2nd link is to what claims to be an unbiased, more recent discussion of the subject.
Some of the same reasons individuals would have in safely growing their money in private retirement accounts are the same reasons government has with SS and pension funds. At least with pension funds you have to contribute individually and if you elect spousal benefits your take an actuarial based deduction. With SS your spouse can get half without ever having contributed and no reduction to the workers benefit. With SS you can and many do get 1 1/2 times their stated benefit in real benefits. Add to that children, the disabled etc.
Now if you privatize SS how do you account for non working spouses or those with limited work histories? Children? The disabled etc? They probably feel they have a mandate to do what they want with social net programs since so many who benefit from them never bothered to vote or voted for them. So if they don't care why should the people who got elected who want to cut. If we can look back at previous efforts by some of the same people and current platform positions we should not be surprised if they do what we knew they wanted to do.
Every time there's a new President, especially a Republican, we have to have these doom and gloom rumors about Social Security and Medicare. You'd think we've all been around long enough and seen enough elections to know these are scare tactics by one party or another. It seems rather easy to put seniors in a panic with such nonsense. No wonder such rumors are started by those that want to persuade you to dislike one party or another.
There is a major difference this time and if not reformed this election cycle that difference will become even greater. We are coming ever closer to the day of reckoning when SS is only able to pay out 70% of benefits and or when the national debt becomes so great it threatens our credit rating, fiscal solvency and our dollars standard in international markets. Those consequences would hit everyone and make aging issues along with other financial issues take us to a place we never want to have to think about.
Trump's proposed 13.5% across-the-board cut in federal spending would result in a cut to Social Security that would reduce the average monthly benefit by $182, from $1,360 in 2017 to $1,177.
If you are a retiree who voted for him- did you not know what his policies were?
If someone is going to experience that much hardship because their SS benefits are cut by $182/month then it is their fault. 100% entirely THEIR fault. They should have worked longer, delayed receiving benefits, and saved more. SS was ALWAYS meant to supplement a pension ( if available AND personal savings). SS was NEVER meant to be a retirees only form of retirement income.
THose of us who saved religiously from day 1 and now have investment portfolios in the $$millions were prepared for any eventual cuts in SS. We scrimped, we saved, we saved , and then you know what we did? We saved some more! We didn't spend every last dime of our paychecks. We didn't buy the latest and greatest new gadgets. We didn't have more children than we could afford. It's called individual responsibility.
No, the elderly won't be cleaning hotels, mowing lawns and picking fruit. Our younger citizens will be doing that, freeing up less strenuous retail jobs for the older folks. Ageism in hiring will also change because as the boomers retire there will be fewer workers to fill current jobs - so older workers should start becoming desirable again.
The issue of who does what will be determined by skill set and productivity. Not by engineered social policy. I really doubt that many 75-80 year olds have the skill set and productivity of younger workers. I don't see to many stocking shelves or being on the floor helping customers along with being personally familiar with the products being sold and their value to folks. I have seen efforts to hire older workers as supermarket cashiers and saw myself and others avoiding their lines and their eventual disappearance.
If someone is going to experience that much hardship because their SS benefits are cut by $182/month then it is their fault. 100% entirely THEIR fault. They should have worked longer, delayed receiving benefits, and saved more. SS was ALWAYS meant to supplement a pension ( if available AND personal savings). SS was NEVER meant to be a retirees only form of retirement income.
THose of us who saved religiously from day 1 and now have investment portfolios in the $$millions were prepared for any eventual cuts in SS. We scrimped, we saved, we saved , and then you know what we did? We saved some more! We didn't spend every last dime of our paychecks. We didn't buy the latest and greatest new gadgets. We didn't have more children than we could afford. It's called individual responsibility.
Completely agree. Everyone knows that the government sucks at handling money. So why would you put all your eggs in that one basket? If you take care of your own self, you don't have to live in constant fear like so many do .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
