Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[BigDaddy4]

So people who are stupid, or who make poor investments, do not deserve to... live???

Did I say that? Perhaps you should address my comments, rather than making stuff up. Otherwise, stupid is as stupid does...

 

[BigDaddy4]

Also: if my grandmother didn't get social security checks because the fund failed with the recession, she would be homeless and dead.

Had grandma had the OPTION [please note this keyword here] to invest privately in her 20s and 30s, maybe into her 40s, she would have had a greater nest egg than SS alone. A wise investor, who would be nearing retirement, would take those earnings and invest in less risky investments that would more likely withstand an economic downturn like a few years ago.

Sounds like you and/or your family didn't like grandma very much if they wouldn't have taken her in and instead just left her homeless and to die.

 

[Billnew]

Exactly. That's how it has always worked and that's how insurance works.

Insurance invests it, with expectation of profit. Government spends it without monetary profit.(Sometimes with little profit at all)

And as IMO the government has no actual Constituional justification for claiming to have the power to give money to corporations I would concur that it is criminal. The problem is that where do you go to prosecute the Supreme Court , Legislature and Executive if they all agree to break the law by acting in a way they are not Constitutionally empowered to act? The only recourse for two of those three then becomes the ballot box and if the public is not inclined to do anything about it we get what we deserve for government.

You could say the same for welfare-giving of money to individuals. The government gives and it taketh away.
Welfare is basically a way to buy votes. People love to help someone in need, promising other people's money. So they vote for the person that promises to do that. Some people even think this is the Christian thing to do. But the bible doesn't tell us to take peoples money by force and give it to those in need. It says Each person should give generously and happily. The bible never demands Caesar help the needy, it calls for Christians to do it

 

[Albion]

Social Insurance is not identical to private insurance, but neither is it just another welfare program, so we need to avoid talking about it as some scam or subsidy, even as we talk about how it might be made more solvent.

 

[Billnew]

I have tried 5 times to edit my post to get my reply out of the quotes, but the quotes always come back.

 

[Albion]

I have tried 5 times to edit my post to get my reply out of the quotes, but the quotes always come back.

I know. It's hard to do sometimes. You have to rearrange things more extensively.

 

[Audacious]

Had grandma had the OPTION [please note this keyword here] to invest privately in her 20s and 30s, maybe into her 40s, she would have had a greater nest egg than SS alone. A wise investor, who would be nearing retirement, would take those earnings and invest in less risky investments that would more likely withstand an economic downturn like a few years ago.

Sounds like you and/or your family didn't like grandma very much if they wouldn't have taken her in and instead just left her homeless and to die.

My grandmother didn't have a lot of money to invest, ever, because she was a poor German immigrant who ended up trying to raise 3 kids by herself after her abuse husband left her.

But of course, I'm sure if she'd just made more money via magic she'd have more of a nest egg.

 

[BigDaddy4]

My grandmother didn't have a lot of money to invest, ever, because she was a poor German immigrant who ended up trying to raise 3 kids by herself after her abuse husband left her.

But of course, I'm sure if she'd just made more money via magic she'd have more of a nest egg.

Good for her! Then her OPTION [note key word] probably would have been to keep the SS the way it is. Apparently, by your post, she had enough to invest in some stocks and bonds. Perhaps no one told her what to do with them at/near retirement?

 

[grasping the after wind]

You do realize that, along with the US, virtually every modern country has protections for its citizens in this way, right? Your "survival of the fittest" mantra basically only exists in the worst places in the world.

More emotional hyperbole with a bit of smug condescension thrown in for good measure. Of course only modern( read statist) countries care about their citizens well being to the point that they make sure that they never are allowed to have a say in anything having to do with their own well being . Since we care so deeply about them and we know they are stump dumb dolts and can't be trusted to look out for themselves we surely could never allow them to have an opportunity to prove they might be half way competent investors. No one is talking about doing away with your precious social safety nets. Even Bush the Third( pronounced as a many an Irishman would pronounce it)seems to be only talking about taking a small part of the money used to fund one out of the myriad of those kind of programs that are in place and allow the person that will benefit from that program to make a decision about how that small amount of money might be invested to increase the yield from the current zero. Somehow though form that conversation, If I do not agree that every someday to be grandmother must never be allowed to take a chance that she might actually, when the time arrives, end up getting a bit more money to retire on simply because there exists some extremely stupid people that will invest extremely stupidly and get a bit less then I must be a Social Darwinist and everyone is going to die. For some reason I am supposed to believe that the whole system will come crashing down on us if we ever allow anyone to have even a small bit of control over how a small portion of the funding of their own retirement is invested.

In Sweden, people live longer than here, are happier, are healthier, and many other nice little things like that... and it's a giant welfare state. Your argument that helping people who are stupid hurts society is bunk.

I know very little of Sweden other than so many liberals, who probably have no more first hand experience of living there than I do, think it is heaven but calling it a giant anything is more hyperbole. it is quite small both in land mass an population. you would think such a wonderful place would be teeming with people and be inundated with more trying to get in but somehow that description applies to the US and not to Sweden, go figure. I must take your word for the fact that Sweden's great successs as a country stems from their government's attitude that their citizens are completely incapable of caring for their own needs even though I see no other country with that attitude that has such success that their people are the happiest on the planet. Perhaps the reason for thier bliss is that that kind of paternalism ssuits them better than it suits others? Perhaps the people of Sweden are just stupider than the rest of us and need to be constantly kept an eye on by a paternalistic state or they will simply self destruct? How though can they find a paternalistic state that is any smarter than they are if they only let other Swedes run it? Seems inconsistent that people too stupid to run their own lives will elect people taken from their own ranks to do a better job of it. They do say that ignorance is bliss so maybe your completely unsubstantiatable claim about them being happier than the rest of us is true.

Also: if my grandmother didn't get social security checks because the fund failed with the recession, she would be homeless and dead.

I do not get social security checks. How can I be posting this if I am homeless and dead? There are millions of Americans that are not homeless and not dead that do not get social security checks. How do you account for that?

Frankly, if I was dead I really would not care if I was homeless.


If my grandmother was in danger of being homeless I would take her in or get her to a government office to apply for welfare and housing assistance probably both and if she was in danger of dying because of lack of money for food I would feed her or get her to a government office to apply for an EBT card probably both. Why would you let yours go homeless and die? Maybe you thought there was only one social safety net for old people? Or maybe you just like hyperbolic emotional arguments?

 

[Audacious]

More emotional hyperbole with a bit of smug condescension thrown in for good measure. Of course only modern( read statist) countries care about their citizens well being to the point that they make sure that they never are allowed to have a say in anything having to do with their own well being .

This is not at all what happens in Scandinavia, dude. They don't restrict your freedom of choice; rather, they open more doors because they pay for more things. Nobody's forcing you to go to college, but if you want to there, it's paid for; nobody's forcing you to use public transportation, but if you want it, it's there. This idea that social democracy is controlling is not supported by the facts.

Since we care so deeply about them and we know they are stump dumb dolts and can't be trusted to look out for themselves we surely could never allow them to have an opportunity to prove they might be half way competent investors.

You can feel free to invest, but perhaps we should have a safety net just in case your investments go badly for reasons you can't predict, or in case you're bad at investment. Because you may suck at finances, but you still need food.

No one is talking about doing away with your precious social safety nets.

This is effectively what would happen to social security if it were privatized and there was another sudden recession.

Somehow though form that conversation, If I do not agree that every someday to be grandmother must never be allowed to take a chance that she might actually, when the time arrives, end up getting a bit more money to retire on simply because there exists some extremely stupid people that will invest extremely stupidly and get a bit less then I must be a Social Darwinist and everyone is going to die. For some reason I am supposed to believe that the whole system will come crashing down on us if we ever allow anyone to have even a small bit of control over how a small portion of the funding of their own retirement is invested

That is partial privatization of social security, not total. It's very different from what I was talking about.

I know very little of Sweden other than so many liberals, who probably have no more first hand experience of living there than I do, think it is heaven but calling it a giant anything is more hyperbole.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/social-spending-compared-500x431.png
No, not really. It spends a ton of its money on social spending and welfare, dude.

It is quite small both in land mass an population. you would think such a wonderful place would be teeming with people and be inundated with more trying to get in but somehow that description applies to the US and not to Sweden, go figure.

Sweden has more than twice the immigration rate of the US.

I do not get social security checks. How can I be posting this if I am homeless and dead? There are millions of Americans that are not homeless and not dead that do not get social security checks. How do you account for that?

Most homeless people are not 80 years old with severe health issues, lol.

Also: are you over 65? Do you have any other source of income? Because she is, and she doesn't.

If my grandmother was in danger of being homeless I would take her in or get her to a government office to apply for welfare and housing assistance probably both and if she was in danger of dying because of lack of money for food I would feed her or get her to a government office to apply for an EBT card probably both. Why would you let yours go homeless and die? Maybe you thought there was only one social safety net for old people? Or maybe you just like hyperbolic emotional arguments?

This is a fairly decent point that I didn't consider. However, if we're going to shrink social security or add an element that increases risk, that means we might end up having to increase welfare spending more, something which is probably not going to gain support any time soon.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Dude? My name aint dude.

My grandmother didn't have a lot of money to invest, ever, because she was a poor German immigrant who ended up trying to raise 3 kids by herself after her abuse husband left her.

But of course, I'm sure if she'd just made more money via magic she'd have more of a nest egg.

My grandma was the child of Polish immigrants that left Germany(Poland not being a political entity at the time because of the division of the land mass between Germany, Russia and the Austro Hungarian Empire) for the United States to escape the oppression of the relatives of your grandmother who were miles above my Polish ancestors in social status as actual Germans in The German Empire compared to lowly Poles. She raised her two brothers and two sisters after the death of her own mother in childbirth with her youngest sister, when she herself was 14 years old. Then after marrying my Grandfather, who came here from Germany as a Polish immigrant at the age of 13, raised four out of five ( one died at child birth) children during the Great Depression . While my Grandfather worked in the city Monday through Friday and came home on the weekends with the expectation that after he would get stinking drunk she would be obliged to consent to do her connubial duty. She ran the farm while he was in the city with the help of her children while he was off in the city working for whatever company he had not yet been let go by . When my Grandfather was arrested and sent to prison for illegally making whiskey during Prohibition , she was left solely in charge of caring for the family. After Prohibition, when my grandfather decided to sell the farm and buy a Tavern she was the official owner of the bar as my Grandfather, being a convicted felon, could not get a liquor license from the state of New York, Years later when one of her daughters was faced with her husband being killed by being mangled to death in an industrial accident at his work and due to that and the death a few years earlier of her oldest child in a car accident becoming mentally incapable of caring for her two remaining children ( the oldest having died in a car accident at the age of 18 on the way back to college from home after attending the funeral of my father) she raised a third family. Even after all of that at the age of eighty she still was capable enough to know the difference between a good investment and a bad one.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This is not at all what happens in Scandinavia, dude. They don't restrict your freedom of choice; rather, they open more doors because they pay for more things. Nobody's forcing you to go to college, but if you want to there, it's paid for; nobody's forcing you to use public transportation, but if you want it, it's there. This idea that social democracy is controlling is not supported by the facts.


You can feel free to invest, but perhaps we should have a safety net just in case your investments go badly for reasons you can't predict, or in case you're bad at investment. Because you may suck at finances, but you still need food.


This is effectively what would happen to social security if it were privatized and there was another sudden recession.


That is partial privatization of social security, not total. It's very different from what I was talking about.



http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/social-spending-compared-500x431.png
No, not really. It spends a ton of its money on social spending and welfare, dude.


Sweden has more than twice the immigration rate of the US.


Most homeless people are not 80 years old with severe health issues, lol.

Also: are you over 65? Do you have any other source of income? Because she is, and she doesn't.


This is a fairly decent point that I didn't consider. However, if we're going to shrink social security or add an element that increases risk, that means we might end up having to increase welfare spending more, something which is probably not going to gain support any time soon.

Dude? Really?