Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea

Want updates? Then become a fan of my Facebook fan page here: http://www.tinyurl.com/dixonrantsfanpage

Intro template: http://svp-online.weebly.com


We have a safety net for the elderly in this country called "Social Security". This system, which was passed into law during the Great Depression, and is now 75 years old, guarantees that seniors are able to retire without worrying about money, or without worrying about having a job at the age of 80. This system has been proven to work, but many on the right side of the political spectrum disagree.

In fact, many on the right believe that this safety net should be privatized. However, privatizing a social safety net, which is an oxymoron in it of itself, would be economically devastating. Here is why:

If we privatize Social Security, then each beneficiary would have to rely upon the ups and downs of the stock market to determine their pay. That may be a good idea for trading and betting on stocks, but that is not a good idea for guaranteeing that you will be able to have money once you retire. A simple drop in the stock market would mean that your savings would depreciate, which would lead to less money for retiring.

Also, by transitioning to the private sector, taxes would be invested into the market, as opposed to going directly to the beneficiaries, which would lead to an estimated $2 trillion dollars in lost revenue. That is very fiscally irresponsible, especially since there is currently trillions of dollars in surplus under our current Social Security system. That surplus guarantees that the millions of people on Social Security don't lose that revenue that gives them that safety net in a constantly changing economy.

So when I hear Republicans making claims that Social Security needs to be privatized, I laugh at the ludicrousness in their claims. They need to realize that the government is not bad, and is not as inefficient as they proclaim. Also, if we did privatize this safety net under Republican rule, after having an economic recession, due to their horrendous ways of dealing with the economy, how would seniors survive? I don't know how they would. But this further proves that Republicans would rather pamper Wall Street than help out senior citizens. But that is what I have come to expect from the obstructionist, corporatist, Party of no progress.

Sources:

http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/9440/privatizing-social-security-a-bad-ide...

http://www.democracyforamerica.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• why
• privatizing
• privatized
• social
• security
• safety
• net
• government
• is
• bad
• horrible
• idea
• fiscally
• irresponsible
• two
• trillion
• dollar
• deficit
• tax
• gap
• cost
• great
• depression
• FDR
• president
• republican
• obstructionism

[munden1971]

I don't want to see social security privatized. Thanks for making this video.

[DixonRants]

@munden1971 No prob!

[wakarusan1]

die ignorant socialist beta-male. 

[AroundSun]

It figures that most liberals look like this kid. Creepy uneducated economic illiterate.

[highgrove4514]

“Social security has been termed the third rail of American politics…like the third rail in the subway, touching social security is thought to result in in immediate electrocution.”

[CyberTechWolf]

Social Security wasn't created in 1936 due to a high demand for it, as a matter of fact no one was really asking for it. It became popular by how it was sold to the public. Social Security, if we do keep it. Should be privateized, its a crazy idea to do with your money as you wish I know. Socialism tactics have destroyed this countires economy and Capitalism has wrongfully taken the blame, sad really.

[ggadguy]

Instead of putting my social security money in he stock market, how about I decide what to do with it, with a financial planner. We could put the money in bonds, stocks, currencies, or gold (which has gone up 10 years in a row). The bottom line is that if I am a free person I should be free to opt out of it.

[cj62392]

Hasn't this guy ever heard of commodities?

[PanMistwood]

I would like to point out that your claim of its "surplus" is actually outdated and does not consider the future. If you take a look at both CBO reports and the official SS site, you'll find admission of a major deficit in the future and a slight one this year.

ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Your definition of "privatising" SS is also strange. It's simply letting people keep and save their own money. There's no "guarantee", but SS gives neither guarantee nor control either.