McCain keeps pissing off conservatives

[MeatMop]

meatmop ... you have the capability of investing into IRA's right now. You can fund it with pre-tax dollars. Why do you want the government to do something for you that you can do yourself

gunit_sangh:  I contribute to an IRA, but you (inadvertently?) reinforced my point: "Why do you want the government to do something for you that you can do yourself?"

I DON'T!!! BUT THEY ALREADY DO!!!  I'm already PAYING Social Security taxes!  If I could opt out of Social Security I absolutely would in a heartbeat.  But as long as I'm legally bound to the system I would like to see a certain percentage of my deductions allocated specifically for me, guaranteed to be there when I retire.  I think it would yield more money in the long run, and (more importantly) would be a more stable, dependable system.  Right now, as I've said before, we have a trans-generational pyramid scheme.

Re-stated: The government is taking my money via Social Security taxes and essentially investing it in my retirement.  You're absolutely right gunit-sangh: Why would I want the government to do that when I can do it myself?  So if I have to pay the taxes under the current scheme, why is the government managing the fund?  Why can't I choose who manages the fund? 

goddammit gunit: you've never made so much sense on this board!  Congratulations my friend! 

Not everybody's good with money right?  Fine then, I am OK with restricting the type of funds you can put your Social Security into so that they're low risk, low yield funds...totally cool with me...make it a drop-down list of ultra-safe funds and all you gotta do is check a box.  You can then heavily restrict the amount of risk the private companies, who manage the funds as a government contract (contracted by you, the Social Security contributor), can take with "Social Security" money.

It may sound selfish to use the first person in the example above, but I think the theory holds true when applied in the third person as well. 

Happy trails,

MeatMop.

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

There's a lot of things our government does that a lot of people don't like and wish they could opt of ... but that's not how our democracy works. If you don't like it, there is always the option of moving to another country where you won't have to pay SS taxes.

The majority of folks have said they don't want to partially privatize social security. When dear leader started talking about it in 2005 the idea sank so fast that no proposal was even submitted to congress. Most people realized that it's just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into the hands of wall street and destroy a successful government program. Conservatives have been trying to destroy SS ever since it was implemented by FDR and they can't -- better luck next time 

[trex]

I have absolutely no problem voting for Senator John McCain, because it is a vote against an undisputable communist by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. 
     That said, if this election was about the best interests of America, we'd be choosing between Fred Thompson and Bill Richardson. 

It's a vote for a pot, against a kettle.

You can cook alot more stuff in a pot then you can a kettle

[Michael Aldrich]

There's a lot of things our government does that a lot of people don't like and wish they could opt of ... but that's not how our democracy works. If you don't like it, there is always the option of moving to another country where you won't have to pay SS taxes.

The majority of folks have said they don't want to partially privatize social security. When dear leader started talking about it in 2005 the idea sank so fast that no proposal was even submitted to congress. Most people realized that it's just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into the hands of wall street and destroy a successful government program. Conservatives have been trying to destroy SS ever since it was implemented by FDR and they can't -- better luck next time 

You're right, that's not how democracy works -- that's how fascism works.

[MeatMop]

There's a lot of things our government does that a lot of people don't like and wish they could opt of ... but that's not how our democracy works. If you don't like it, there is always the option of moving to another country where you won't have to pay SS taxes.

The majority of folks have said they don't want to partially privatize social security. When dear leader started talking about it in 2005 the idea sank so fast that no proposal was even submitted to congress. Most people realized that it's just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into the hands of wall street and destroy a successful government program. Conservatives have been trying to destroy SS ever since it was implemented by FDR and they can't -- better luck next time 

So you're no longer interested in debating the merits of either system?  You're going to take your ball and go home?

...and for the record- I never heard any Democrat or news media outlet provide the public with a proper definition, much less a fair discussion of partially privatized Social Security, save for the Wallstreet Journal, which most liberals react to by burying their head in the sand like an ostrich.

Most people realized that it's just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into the hands of wall street...

What an amazingly dishonest statement.  If you created a special type of fund for Social Security assets you could limit the risk involved, and put strict boundaries on what "wallstreet" could do with the money.  It would NOT be just a scam to shovel more dollars into wall street.  You would be shoveling real dollars into fund with YOUR name on it.  You would have REAL ASSETS.
A scam is where you put money in and don't necessarily get money out...kind of like what we have today.  Our present system is just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into an overhead-laden, inefficient, government pyramid scheme that is not sustainable under present conditions.

...and destroy a successful government program.

"Successful" is highly subjective.  Just because it isn't bankrupt right now doesn't mean its the most efficient way of serving the most people, or that it won't be bankrupt in the future (especially if the parameters aren't drastically changed).

MeatMop.

[Peter1469]

There's a lot of things our government does that a lot of people don't like and wish they could opt of ... but that's not how our democracy works. If you don't like it, there is always the option of moving to another country where you won't have to pay SS taxes.

The majority of folks have said they don't want to partially privatize social security. When dear leader started talking about it in 2005 the idea sank so fast that no proposal was even submitted to congress. Most people realized that it's just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into the hands of wall street and destroy a successful government program. Conservatives have been trying to destroy SS ever since it was implemented by FDR and they can't -- better luck next time 

Of course conservatives want to change the social security system- it is broken.  It is a clear example of an unsustainable social – welfare program.  When it was implemented there were 24 workers for every retiree (primarily because most people died before they could collect).  Now there are about 4, and soon there will be two.  The system cannot function as advertised!

Privatize the system with the controls that Meat said.  Pass a law that says if any fund manager deliberately mismanages the fund they get life in jail.  Have the government promise a return on your social security payments if the market is low enough for you to get less than your investment when you need it.  Problem solved: we still have a safety net and we let competent people manage the money to make lots more. 

[Michael Aldrich]

There's a lot of things our government does that a lot of people don't like and wish they could opt of ... but that's not how our democracy works. If you don't like it, there is always the option of moving to another country where you won't have to pay SS taxes.

The majority of folks have said they don't want to partially privatize social security. When dear leader started talking about it in 2005 the idea sank so fast that no proposal was even submitted to congress. Most people realized that it's just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into the hands of wall street and destroy a successful government program. Conservatives have been trying to destroy SS ever since it was implemented by FDR and they can't -- better luck next time 

Of course conservatives want to change the social security system- it is broken.  It is a clear example of an unsustainable social – welfare program.  When it was implemented there were 24 workers for every retiree (primarily because most people died before they could collect).  Now there are about 4, and soon there will be two.  The system cannot function as advertised!

Privatize the system with the controls that Meat said.  Pass a law that says if any fund manager deliberately mismanages the fund they get life in jail.  Have the government promise a return on your social security payments if the market is low enough for you to get less than your investment when you need it.  Problem solved: we still have a safety net and we let competent people manage the money to make lots more. 

Democrats can’t stand competent, self-reliant people. They need poor blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and single mothers to win elections. Without social welfare programs, the Democratic Party is duped.

[Peter1469]

The government has a successful 401K type program now- the thrift savings plan.  Put SS into that.     Of course you would have to create more funds- once a fund is too large you cannot properly manage it since you will be forced to purchase crap of investments due to limits on holdings. 

[trex]

There's a lot of things our government does that a lot of people don't like and wish they could opt of ... but that's not how our democracy works. If you don't like it, there is always the option of moving to another country where you won't have to pay SS taxes.

The majority of folks have said they don't want to partially privatize social security. When dear leader started talking about it in 2005 the idea sank so fast that no proposal was even submitted to congress. Most people realized that it's just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into the hands of wall street and destroy a successful government program. Conservatives have been trying to destroy SS ever since it was implemented by FDR and they can't -- better luck next time 

Of course conservatives want to change the social security system- it is broken.  It is a clear example of an unsustainable social – welfare program.  When it was implemented there were 24 workers for every retiree (primarily because most people died before they could collect).  Now there are about 4, and soon there will be two.  The system cannot function as advertised!

Privatize the system with the controls that Meat said.  Pass a law that says if any fund manager deliberately mismanages the fund they get life in jail.  Have the government promise a return on your social security payments if the market is low enough for you to get less than your investment when you need it.  Problem solved: we still have a safety net and we let competent people manage the money to make lots more. 

Democrats can’t stand competent, self-reliant people. They need poor blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and single mothers to win elections. Without social welfare programs, the Democratic Party is duped.

Fully agree

[Vermouth]

Social security is a government-mandated insurance tax. Returns should be needs-based. Privatizing it would be silly. Either keep it or get rid of it. It doesn't replace personal savings and shouldn't substitute for a retirement plan.

[Peter1469]

Social security is a government-mandated insurance tax. Returns should be needs-based. Privatizing it would be silly. Either keep it or get rid of it. It doesn't replace personal savings and shouldn't substitute for a retirement plan.

Even if you wanted social security to be totally a redistribution of wealth scheme, having private companies manage it make much more sense than the current non-system.  Even a mediocre mutual fund grows at more than double of what social security theoretically grows at.  In practice it doesn’t grow at all because it is spent.  So the Fed will have to print more money further driving down the value of the dollar.  By the time you retire it is going to cost you $100 for a loaf of cheap over-processed white bread if we keep this ball rolling the way that it is. 

[spunkloaf]

There's a lot of things our government does that a lot of people don't like and wish they could opt of ... but that's not how our democracy works. If you don't like it, there is always the option of moving to another country where you won't have to pay SS taxes.

The majority of folks have said they don't want to partially privatize social security. When dear leader started talking about it in 2005 the idea sank so fast that no proposal was even submitted to congress. Most people realized that it's just a scam to shovel more tax payer dollars into the hands of wall street and destroy a successful government program. Conservatives have been trying to destroy SS ever since it was implemented by FDR and they can't -- better luck next time 

Of course conservatives want to change the social security system- it is broken.  It is a clear example of an unsustainable social – welfare program.  When it was implemented there were 24 workers for every retiree (primarily because most people died before they could collect).  Now there are about 4, and soon there will be two.  The system cannot function as advertised!

Privatize the system with the controls that Meat said.  Pass a law that says if any fund manager deliberately mismanages the fund they get life in jail.  Have the government promise a return on your social security payments if the market is low enough for you to get less than your investment when you need it.  Problem solved: we still have a safety net and we let competent people manage the money to make lots more. 

Democrats can’t stand competent, self-reliant people. They need poor blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and single mothers to win elections. Without social welfare programs, the Democratic Party is duped.

Fully agree

This doesn't mean anything though.  So it has become rich vs. poor.  Who are you to say which is more deserving?

[Peter1469]

This doesn't mean anything though.  So it has become rich vs. poor.  Who are you to say which is more deserving?
[/quote]

I don't think that is it Spunk: it comes down to this- how can a society best provide for the poor?  By taking from the rich and giving to the poor through redistribution of wealth?  Or by creating the conditions that an expanding economy will rise all boats (read most boats) and everyone will be better off. 

[Pukka Sahib]

.  .  .