Blackburn Calls For Individual Social Security Accounts

[LynnTTT]

SS was never intended be any kind of a savings plan. When begun in the late 1930's. it was intended to provide a minimum living for the elderly who could no longer work (at the time very few people lived years past the 65 retirement age) and to provide for children left without a working parent. When the market crashed in Oct 2008, how much of your SS money would you like to have put into the stock market?

[oterj0]

If it's not a savings plan but a min living for the elderly, why are the benefits paid related to the amount paid in SS taxes? If its about a min living, everyone has the same min living, so why not pay all retirees the same amount in benefits? The question is not how much of my SS taxes I would like to have had in stocks during the crash, the question is how much money do I expect to get from SS when I retire in 2043?? The answer is nothing. I expect $0, so opting out now is my preference.

[Boomer1949]

All they have to do is raise the ceiling on the income that is taxed for SS. The law is that income up to 106K is taxes, anything beyond that is not. So raise the ceiling to 1 million and the SS, Medicare and even Medicaid would be funded as far as the eye can see.

[oterj0]

If this would fix SS' finances, doesn't that say that the higher incomes are essentially donors and not getting their money back on the additional SS taxes above the current cap? What everyone seems to forget here is that SS is simply a money transfer program. There is no investment, so one person's gain must be another person's loss. Are you comfortable taking from all those "rich" people who make over $106k so we can continue the SS ponzi scheme?

[mbaguer]

this woman is an idiot.

[MrGnarus]

why not give social security money to goldman sachs. i sure they will take care of you

[oterj0]

Why do you care what I do with my own money? If I choose to give my money to Goldman Sachs to invest, what does it matter to you?

[Eldrad235]

i hope to god that all the smart americans come out and make sure these fucking republicans dont get in office again

[flowergirl1313]

Blackburn is a retard. What happens when people start losing their social security money in the stock market? Let them starve?

[oterj0]

If people voluntarily invest in the stock market and then lose it, how is that our corporate problem? I support your right to stay in SS if you'd support my right to opt out of SS. Would you be okay with me voluntarily giving up all my future benefits in exchange for not having to pay FICA taxes any more?

[flowergirl1313]

SS is a SAFETY NET. It isn't a "corporate problem", is it a social contract problem. If a large portion of the people age 50-65 had opted out of SS and the market crashed like it did last year, they would be screwed. The gov't isnt going to let hundreds of thousands of old people die of proverty.

Are you nuts? Think before you speak. I don't have kids, but I pay taxes so others can go to school. I don't drive, but pay taxes for the roads. You don't get to pick.

[oterj0]

Why would people age 50 - 65 opt out of SS? Having paid into the system for 25+ years then giving up all benefits wouldn't make much sense, would it? Either way, people who opt out of the system are not society's problem. Each individual is choosing to take care of themselves.

We don't have to fund govt that way. User fees charge the people who benefit directly for their consumption. No need for you to pay for other kids' school or roads you don't use. Reduce taxes and replace with user fees.

[flowergirl1313]

Are you being dense on purpose. I see other people trying to explain to you the faults in your theory, but you aren't grasping it. 50-60 year olds would have opted out years ago, but would be screwed because they would have have their SS money in the market.  They would have been far enough away from retirement to still have most of their money in stocks.

And fees wouldn't work because every part of the country (except cities) would not have enough fees to fund their roads & schools

[oterj0]

Either you support voluntary opt outs or not. There's no fault in believing in choice for those who wish to try to do better. SS can be left alone for those who wish to stay in the system.

Why wouldn't fees work? Want to send your kid to school, that'll be $5k. Want to drive on paved roads, gasoline taxes or toll roads. That fees currently aren't high enough reflects that taxes supplement. Replace taxes with user fees. Same money, it's just coming directly from beneficiaries.

[flowergirl1313]

So, poor people won't be able to sent their kids to school. Okay, I get to that hate America.

You wouldn't have to worry about retirement because most people wouldn't make it to retirement age on your plan. Road would be unsafe. Food wouldn't get inspected. Cars would be unsafe. People forget that the gov't does a lot to keep up safe and fee for service wouldn't work. The END . You should really tv on the net and read the Locke and Hobbs. The thinkers the Founding Fathers read.

[oterj0]

You assume that because poor people don't pay any taxes directly, that under a pay for use system they would not have extra buying power for things like school. They may not directly pay property taxes, but I guarantee you that their landlords factor in taxes into the rent, so the poor actually already pay for their own schooling indirectly. It's called embedded taxation. Do you really believe that the rich are so stupid as to just bend over and take it when they get taxed? Shit rolls downhill.

[oterj0]

And none of those things you assert would happen. I'm not against all govt services, I just think they should be paid for directly by those who benefit. Non-excludable services will have to be funded by taxation, but most services can be made pay for use. That you exclude the possibility of pay for use as not possible just shows that you're mind is closed and you've stopped thinking about better solutions. I'm sorry you've given up on thinking.

[brabon1]

your dad earns his living as a govenment worker????

off with the mothfucking socialist pigs head

you fuckin hypocrite....eat shit

[Troo44]

WHats this about?

[j0hnwi11iams]

Typical Republican wall of stupidity doing the bidding of Wall Street who would love nothing less than adding our security to their fucking jackpot.

[oterj0]

I don't want to take your security and give it to Wall St. I'm happy to leave SS alone if you'd simply allow me to opt out of paying FICA taxes if I give up all future benefits? I've paid in for 10 yrs now and I'll give up every penny of benefits owed to just get out now.

[squidb8]

Wait, G-dub, suggested we partially Privatize social security. He suggested that we peg some of the funds to the stock market.

The last two years should have shown us the dangers of doing that. Shouldn't the country be a few years into an economic growth span before we try to bring up the possible strategy.

[freesk8]

Yay! Privatize Social Security!

I'm no Republican, but I'd vote for that!

[Starry2000]

"I'm no Republican, but I'd vote for that! "

And you would get absolutely creamed, and fucked out of what you were promised and have probably already earned.

One reason why they want it privatized is because it is much better to both perform dirty deals and hide them. It is also easier to hide it's miserable failure, and/or pin any blame on the person in question.

Oh, and it doesn't address the reasons why we NEED it in the first place. It completely ignores those fundamental problems.

[freesk8]

I don't expect to see any of the FICA money that has been seized from me over the last 26 years of employment.

I'd gladly forswear all future payments from social security in exchange for $1,000 and the right not to have to pay in to the Soc. Sec. system any more.

You can call me crazy, but that is the low level of faith I have in the intentions and abilities of Congress.

Why do YOU trust them?

[OhioDemocrat]

@freesk8

Ok, youre crazy! What would you do with that $1000? Social Security will be there into the future as long as republicans and libertarians dont screw it up.

[freesk8]

Don't worry, we libertarians have little to no chance of getting in to a position to alter US laws.

Republicans LIKE social security because their main voters are old folks sucking on the govt teat. The GOP even added the medicare drug benefit.

It is D's and R's overspending that has destroyed social security (which just went negative this week.)

I'm offering you a good deal! Pay me $1,000 now, and you can avoid paying me tens of thousands (which I don't think I'll ever see) later.

[oterj0]

Forget paying me $1000, I'd forego all of my future SS benefits if I were simply allowed to opt out.

[oterj0]

If that's the case, then why don't you let him/her do it? If it's a loser for him/her, then it would be to the benefit of the SS system and indirectly to your benefit. Would you agree to some form of opt out for people who are willing to give up benefits?

[OhioDemocrat]

oterj0

Allowing people to "opt out" as you put it is no answer. Some would spend the money foolishly and the Gov. would end up supporting them in their retirement years just to keep them from starving. And unless everyone participates the system it will not work to its fullest benefit.

[oterj0]

Two points. First, if people opt out, then they are voluntarily giving up future benefits. Why do you feel the need to support them in their retirement years if they were the ones who voluntarily gave up said benefits?

Second, why does everyone need to participate in the system for it to work to its fullest benefit? I'm not sure I understand why I have to be forced to participate in a system I am morally opposed to when it's obstensibly a program for my benefit.

[OhioDemocrat]

#1 Im sure you will agree some people would squander the money and have nothing left for their senior years. We as a society would have compassion on these people and not just let them die in the streets of homelessness and hunger.

#2 The program is a benefit for all. By allowing some to opt out it would decrease the amount of money going into the program thus decreasing the amount available to those who receive it.

[oterj0]

There's no reason to be corporately compassionate. If we as individuals want to support our fellow neighbors in retirement, that's great, but it shouldn't be compulsory. Further, that people recognize govt will take care of them no matter what encourages more bad behavior. People should fear starvation; it prevents them from doing stupid things.

The program is not a benefit to all. It is most certainly a detriment to me. If opt out is not possible, then I will seek to eliminate SS.

[brabon1]

we tried it your way before the great depression of the 30s

EAT SHIT AND DIE YOU CORPORATIST PIG

THERE IS A REVOLUTION COMING

SO UP AGAINST THE WALL YOU REDNECK MOTHER

[oterj0]

It's not an either or proposition. I just asked that people be allowed to voluntarily choose to opt out. Everyone else is free to remain in SS. Do you have an objection to opt outs if SS is otherwise left as is??

PS

I'm most certainly not a redneck. I'm a yankee through and through, just one who loves freedom!

[oterj0]

#1 People need to feel pain to avoid doing bad things. The govt taking away the pain only leads to more bad choices. Your corporate "compassion" leads to more destitution. Private charity works because it's stigmatized aid; public charity is a crutch.

#2 If someone opts out, they both pay no SS taxes and also receive no benefits. That they probably contributed for years without getting a penny back works well for those who remain in the system. And no, it's not a benefit for me. I want out!

[awerner2007]

I consider myself a socialist, but i dont like the current ponzi scheme system of soc security. this is the best reform ive heard of so far. any better ideas out there?

[Starry2000]

"any better ideas out there? "

Yes. First you address the fundamental problems that SS is meant, was always meant, to merely band-aid which are all pirvate sector and riddled with horrible archaic tech and corruption. Second, you raise the taxes on the very wealthy to the levels they were in the golden age.

[awerner2007]

fair enough. but is raising taxes on the very wealthy enough? Especially considering rising medical costs and longer life spans.

[Starry2000]

"but is raising taxes on the very wealthy enough?"

It would be enough if done in tandem with addressing the medical and agricultural industries, and not through the ways you might expect.

It would still be enough if they addressed some other things instead but those two would result in an immediate relief across the board to everyone.

[bigc028282]

The only reason why this is being talked about is because "they" mismanaged it. "They" have know it was going broke for longer than I have been alive, and done NOTHING but talk.

How about we rescind NAFTA, and all the corp "cut and run" breaks it provides. No "cap in trade" bills either.(read that piece of crap) Stimulate manufacturing and farming, instead of the banksters

. "END THE (oil) WARS" would be a great idea as well. We could subsidize it all, including gas, and still save money.

[j0hnwi11iams]

There is nothing Ponzi about it. Ask future generations how they would like to live without the benefit of science and technology if they complain about the unbearable burden of supporting social security. Republicans have trained you to be an ungrateful little bitch.

[awerner2007]

Lol, great a personal attack instead of a real argument.

[awerner2007]

also, if we are to regard all the benefits of technology and accredit them to the past we must regard the negatives and attach to the past. Meaning we have to blame people for nuclear armament, climate change, etc.

Perhaps, im simple minded but Id rather focus on the best way to handle the situation now then consider all that crap. Its not like I believe old people should live on the streets or something stupid like that so come up with an actual argument next time.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Social security is a form of insurance and it is best to treat it as such. It is not an investment fund like republicans are trying to turn it into. Social security is in case your life savings get destroyed by greedy and corrupt assholes on wall street.

[loon0493]

exactly, that would be like letting the fox into the hen house

[oterj0]

Okay, so then let's do away with the way benefits are currently calculated. Under the current system, benefits are a function of SS wages. Why do that if it's insurance? Shouldn't a minimum living in case one's "life savings get destroyed by" whomever be a fixed amount? Why give rich people higher benefits?? Would you agree to changing the benefits formula to a fixed benefit for all retirees?

[oterj0]

Look up the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Any "investment" system where current beneficiaries are paid for by current investors and current investors will be paid in the future by future investors without there ever being any real investment is a Ponzi scheme. The pay-as-you-go system is a Ponzi scheme by definition.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Look up the definition of insurance. Social Security is not an "investment".

[oterj0]

SS is insurance? Then why are benefits calculated based on income where the more SS income you had, the more benefits you get? That doesnt sound like insurance to me. If it truly is supposed to be insurance, then there should be one equal benefit for all representing the min standard of living we tolerate for our seniors. That we calculate benefits semi-proportionally to income belies your argument that its insurance. Either way, forget the word "investment", the paygo system is a Ponzi scheme.

[j0hnwi11iams]

There are a number of reasons why SS works the way it does, primarily so as not to punish those people who are actually prepared for retirement.

[oterj0]

"There are a number of reasons why SS works the way it does.."

So what are they??

The one about not punishing people who are prepared for retirement is inconsistent with your insurance premise. If it's insurance, then by definition, those who aren't prepared derive benefit to the detriment of those who are prepared. This is insurance, you benefit if the insured incident (poverty) happens to you, otherwise nothing. If it's retirement, benefits are proportional to contributions. Which is it?

[j0hnwi11iams]

A ponzi scheme would involve luring investors with high interest rates. In order to pay those interest rates the scoundrel has to lure in more and more investors at an exponential rate. Social security involves no such "investors" and has no "interest". The incoming funds are dependent on the population. When a problem of liquidity is discovered due to population shifts, adjustments are made to the plan.

[oterj0]

You're arguing that because SS doesnt derive contributions through false pretense of high ROI but rather through legal compulsion, it is therefore not a Ponzi scheme? Is it better in your mind that SS is funded through coercion instead of deception? A Ponzi scheme refers to the system type, i.e. a system where contributions are funneled through one entity (govt) and beneficiaries are paid with new contributor money (paygo). You're arguing details; it's a paygo (Ponzi) system either way.

[j0hnwi11iams]

That is exactly what I am arguing. It is an insurance policy. One that can not be refused on account of pre-existing conditions, like being broke.

[oterj0]

Um, what does that have to do with whether or not one can opt out. Of course, once you buy an annuity (govt or private), the benefits should come regardless of your financial situation. That says nothing about whether or not people should be forced to buy the annuity.

[j0hnwi11iams]

The purpose is to cover everyone. We don't want your homeless ass wandering the streets and committing crimes because you had a lack of good judgement in abandoning SS when you thought you didn't need it.

[oterj0]

So I guess all homeless people are criminals? You're making a couple of assumptions here. First, you assume that the only way to insure Americans' income in retirement is through a govt ponzi scheme. Much like most states require auto insurance, we could require everyone to buy income insurance (or an annuity) for their retirement. We require a minimum annuity income in retirement and let people buy from whatever provider they choose. Why does the govt have to run the annuity program?

[scbluesman13]

Just a general question: Who do you trust more to manage your social security benefits... the government? or the investment firms? Seems to me both are equally crooked, but only one can bail out the other, and not the other way around...

[oterj0]

Why do we have to make this choice corporately?  Why can't I decide who I trust with my money and you decide who you trust with yours? Is that such a radical idea??

[scbluesman13]

I'd be fine with that too, except that's not how social security works. It's set up as a pool of money that's paid into and disbursed out of. If it was set up as individual funds, I would be more much satisfied managing it on my own, or at least making my own decision as to who manages it for me.

[oterj0]

My proposal is for people to be allowed to voluntarily opt out of the system if they forego all future benefits. The default is that people stay in the system until they choose to opt out. People who wish to stay in the system are free to do so with no action required on their part. Do you think an opt out provision would be a good idea?

[scbluesman13]

In Theory yes, this kind of opt out would be great, but in practice it would collapse the SS system because of how it pays out those drawing SS vs. those who are still working and paying into it. It's success depends on future contributors - children in their infancy now will be the ones paying into the system in order to pay out our benefits when we retire 30 years from now. It could be described as a pyramid scheme, but it's flatter than that.

[oterj0]

It would take some serious analytics to answer that question, but remember that the idea of the opt out is that you give up all future benefits. By having contributed for how ever long and then getting no benefits in return, SS solvency should actually be improved. The paygo nature of it may still require additional funds or benefit reductions to remain solvent, but should be workable since its unlikely everyone would opt out. Just a guess, but I think opt out would improve solvency

[rkeppler3633]

I got a better idea. Let's pay social security benefits and run ads featuring every republican who says otherwise.

[BigPurple121]

@rkeppler3633

I have a better idea, lets increase benefits. Why not spend a 30% or even 40% of our GDP on social security? It's not like we're running record deficits or are about to break the 100% Debt-GDP ratio or fighting two wars or have anything else to worry about. SPEND, SPEND, SPEND MONEY THAT ISN'T YOURS! That's my motto!

[oldtownkid]

Republicans trying to put Social Security in the hands of Wall Street again, these are the "new" ideas that they are promoting now. I don't think this is gonna set well with a lot of people, just the thought that people's retirement depends on how well the market does is terrifying.

[brabon1]

are repukes all fucktards????

didnt they see what happened to peoples iras and 401ks????

i lost half of my worth during the last crash

ALL WINGNUTS MUST DIE....AND I WILL TAKE ALL THEIR MONEY

[oterj0]

Why did you let that happen? Why didn't you put your money into oil or gold? Why does your misfortune have to be everyone else's? I should be required to donate 15.3% of my income to FICA taxes so you can get revenge for your malinvestment? Doesn't make sense.

[brabon1]

no...you should be required to give me all of your income

after i pop a cap into your cold hearted heart

go fuck yourself

[oterj0]

If you want my money, come and get it. Just remember that I don't call the police, though.

How do I do the latter?

[hollygolightly66]

Instead of Cap and Tax just ban Republican women from using hair spray. That's a huge step towards repairing the ozone.

[oterj0]

What do CO2 emissions have to do with ozone depletion via CFCs?

[brabon1]

do your parents get social security and medicare???

what is their address

first, im gonna kick the shit out of both of them for not aborting your ass...then im taking that socialist money that they dont need

[oterj0]

What does this have to do with the comment you're replying to?

Anyway, as a matter of fact, my parents are a) not 65 yet, and b) my dad doesn't participate in SS, because he's civil service before they made civil servants do SS. My mom may be eligible for some SS benefits, but she spent most of her life as a homemaker, so it's not much.

PS

I can't imagine your niceties endear you much with readers here. Are you trying to win an argument or look like a fool?

[atripa645]

"cutting back the bureaucracy" is the code phrase for gutting programs that don't benefit the wealthy only. Why are republicans afraid to tell the American people what they really want?

[Zakdayak]

I agree with you atripa645 , but more to the point, cutting bureacrats (which every Prez from Carter on has done) actually increases outsourcing and subcontracts, which is more expensive and privatizes what should be public sector.

[voyeurdug]

Absolutely!!! A talking point and generally held notion about government is that it's large and growing... whereas IN FACT it's been shrinking since 1974, some by cutting programs, some by outsourcing, and some by attrition.

[oterj0]

By what measure is govt shrinking? Expenses as % of GDP? Inflation adjusted expenses?

[bigc028282]

Wheres my money MF's

and we are supposed to let your f*cktards run our health care? IDIOTS

[taoofmichael]

The US government?

or Aetna, Cigna, Blue Shield, Humana, et al?

Take your pick. Somebody is going to run it. I say we let the people run it for a change -- instead of the multi-national Wall Street crime syndicate.

[bigc028282]

@taoofmichael and you think "the people" run the gov?

[taoofmichael]

Well no. Right now they dont. But since I believe in the constitution and the American system of govt, I have hope that might be changed.

The people will never run Aetna, Cigna, et al.

[bigc028282]

@taoofmichael I might agree if the UNITED STATES, which is a corporation, wasn't in ownership of corps like GM, FANNIE MAE, and ??

[taoofmichael]

So lets let GM, and Fannie Mae, and Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup, and AIG, LEGALLY run the govt? Is that your solution?

[taoofmichael]

Well the US is a corporation by some definition. But I think you are purposefully trying to conflate two different things. So let me put it this way:

Corporations which by their charter are legally bound to seek profit for their investors, MAKING SECONDARY ANY OTHER CONCERN, in my view are a problem, when they gain too much power over people's lives.

[integral]

Old Marsha is one of those GOP swine who put the lie to the idea that the Dems and Repubs are no different, equally bad.

[UNDERTAKER2525]

Wow. You really have to be off your game to be a republican and get owned by a Fox News Broadcaster. But then again isn't the entire GOP still behind this failed plan. I guess most are smart enough to just not answer the question.

[TrollBuster9090]

"I guess most are smart enough to just not answer the question."

They'll have to answer it very soon. Apparently the House Democrats are going to table a House resolution against privatization of Social Security, so that Republicans will have to vote yes or no on it.

If Republicans get upset over the idea of the ruling party forcing meaningless wedge-issue votes for the sake of politics they can at least take comfort in the thought that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[doink1422]

offer course it won't fly. with the voter we pay into it so it will be there when we retire.

[redcloak676]

We can look for republicans to seek every way possible to get hold of your money now that there is talk of reining in these huge corporations. Why is it all these republican women are imbeciles? They seem to have the market cornered.

[taoofmichael]

Watch out for the Republican woman hair.

Republicans vote for women who have country singer hair -- Blackburn, Bachman, Palin. They spend much more time on their har, than on their policy positions.

And now we have another "looker" in the Senate -- Scott Brown.

[Richardgwm]

I hear Republicans are still debating the Louisianna Purchase.

[wayne388]

Ah, didn't they promote this stuff in '05? Talk about rehashing tired ideas about putting your post-retirement salary at the mercy of the corporations.

[oterj0]

What if people choose to do so of their own free will? If you're free to stay in the current system, would you be okay with people voluntarily opting out of SS?

[doink1422]

i guess i can have yours if you don't want it