You know, I was just searching around and came across this article [url]http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200502\NAT20050203a.html[/url] - it's completely for private accounts and makes some of the claims others above have already refuted.

What struck me was the last paragraph regarding some private accounts in Texas:

Holbrook's anecdote underscores another aspect touted by backers of private accounts -- that the money paid into them is the private property of the employee. As a result, private retirement account funds are passed on to an employee's heirs upon his or her death, unlike unpaid Social Security benefits, which are forfeited to the government.

Survivors get some social security benefits currently, so whatever, but has this come up?

Regardless, the tone of the paragraph reflects the right's position: anti-government, pro-private property, anti-New Deal.

Another article from the right:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/02/social_security.html

Social Security is not really meant to catch people who fall from life’s ordinary and expected institutional supports; it’s designed to be a critical part of these expected supports.

I'll stop surfing, now.

Antipathy to the New Deal is a character trait of the culture of modern American conservatism and a major part of the explanation for Bush's iconoclasm and radical vision of how to restructure social security. Hate can be an agent of change and is in this case.

If the British attempt to privatize pensions is any indication, the problem with Bush's plan wouldn't be that people would fail to generate returns from their private investments; the problem is that their returns wouldn't cover the costs of their financial managers (who would overwhelmingly be the greatest beneficiaries of his disaster of a plan).

Social security is old-age insurance. All this talk of doing away with it as we've known it for the last seventy years is deeply troubling to nonnos and nonnas.

I have a present for everyone who's using the word 'conservative' to describe Bushco's plans:

" " " " " " " " " " " " " "

Help yourself; feel free to use them liberally.

social security benefits are not forfeited to the government when someone dies. social security, in addition to going to the elderly to supplement meager incomes, is a life insurance. a friend of mine whose father died when he was a child subsisted on his mothers income and social security for years.

the funniest thing about the plan to me is this: the right is using a projection of almost zero growth to show that social security will fail "soon" but using a wildly optimistic projection of growth for their plan which would need a strong market to work.

So I'm going to be up front about the fact that I do not think the president is an evil bastard who giggles with glee at the destruction of our country or the world at large. I think this Social Security plan is a fairly reasonable plan to address an actual problem in the form of a drastic pendulum swing away from the classic New Deal socialism. I don't think it has a prayer of being passed in its current state and only a slim chance even when it's been watered down to make everybody else happy. I do think the plan is in principle a good one.

Why? I don't think the government can do a better job of managing my money than I can, even if I have to give up a thin slice to pay a broker. I'm a firm believer in the goverment sticking to things like maintaining critical infrastructure (like roads, the power grid, etc.), a good police force, and a healthy military. I find it odd that, in many cases, I run into people who can simultaneously rail against the goverment and then want it to be responsible for damn near every facet of their life. It has always struck me as responding to a terrible meal at a restaurant by asking for more food. I'm not a fan of the goverment and think any moves to shrink its interaction with my life is probably a good one on paper.

Plans like this are intrinsically sexy to people like me who pay a lot of taxes to fund programs from which they will never draw any direct benefit. Privatizing this says "hey, you're just paying to support yourself not the obviously able-bodied 25 year old dipshit with the nose ring and no desire to work playing guitar in front of Tower Records and asking for spare change". Yeah, that sounds good. Really though, this sort of thing depends a lot on the actual implementation - the numbers and percentages involved - but the simple premise that people are drawing benefits for far, far longer than they did forty years ago. No one seems to feel like raising the retirement age is a good idea (except me) so we're gonna have to fix it somehow.

Ah, well, whatever.

Dan

but the simple premise that people are drawing benefits for far, far longer than they did forty years ago

actually forty years ago when someone reached the age of 65 the life expectancy was the same as it is today. less people made it to 65 but once they did just as many lived to be 85. since more people make it to 65 now we need more in the system, luckily more people are in the country on the whole (naturally) so more are paying in. i have trouble buying the idea that a system that even by liberal (in this case meaning social security won't lasat long) estimates the system is solvent for 37 years, since it's been running a surplus for a while, is on the verge of collapse.

My father is a union electrician. The average life expectancy of a union electrician is 67 years old. The average retirement age is 65 years old.

Bush is simply looking to raise that retirement age...

danmohr wrote:I do think the plan is in principle a good one.

Fuck that noise.

I.


[quote] NEW DETAILS INDICATE ADMINISTRATION SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN
WOULD ENTAIL SEVERAL TRILLION DOLLARS IN BORROWING
Administration Declines to Propose Steps to Restore Solvency
By Jason Furman and Robert Greenstein
PDF of full report


This analysis is based on the briefing on the Administration’s Social Security plan that was provided to reporters on February 2 by a “senior Administration official.â€

danmohr wrote:I don't think the government can do a better job of managing my money than I can

You aren't going to be managing your money under the new system. You'll have a little bit of a choice as to how it's managed, but let's not get carried away. Also, if individuals were better at managing their money than the government, we wouldn't have needed Social Security in the first place. I don't know why people today think they're so much more responsible than people 80 years ago, before Social Security came along and drastically reduced poverty among the elderly. Last I checked, the average savings rate for an American was around -1%. And the average credit card debt was around $9000. Americans can't/don't/won't save money. Anyway, this new plan doesn't ask them to. It asks them to believe that the stock market will continue to grow, not just over the long term, but all the time. The stock market takes big dips every once in a while. It'd be a real shame if the government forced you to put your retirement money into the stock market, and then you retired, and the stock market took a big dip, and then you decided that maybe you wanted to eat that month. I predict strong sales of cat food recipe books.

I find it odd that, in many cases, I run into people who can simultaneously rail against the goverment and then want it to be responsible for damn near every facet of their life.

Agree.

Privatizing this says "hey, you're just paying to support yourself not the obviously able-bodied 25 year old dipshit with the nose ring and no desire to work playing guitar in front of Tower Records and asking for spare change".

Well, that guy's not drawing Social Security, so you aren't paying to support him anyway. This makes it sound like you're actually for Welfare reform, but I'm guessing that dude's not getting Welfare checks either. I think the only way you can complain about having to support that dipshit is if you're his dad.