Blackburn Calls For Individual Social Security Accounts

more at foxnews.com

February 8, 2010

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• fresh clips
• Marsha Blackburn
• fox news
• social security
• george w. bush
• tax cuts
• republicans

[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.

[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]

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?

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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

[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]

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?

[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.