 |
 |
Keeping the Debate Alive
October 20th 09:26:56 AM
The Social Security debate isn't dead yet, thanks to S4 activists like Ryan Lynch. He just got published in the Sacramento News and Review.
"Seth Sandronsky's article attacking Social Security privatization fails to address a rather important point: The program is going to fail. The author notes that benefits are secure until mid-century. What happens after that?
A variety of factors--including demographics and the lack of a 'trust fund'--contributes to Social Security's problems. But the biggest contributor to the program’s struggles consists of people who attack personal retirement accounts without advancing other reform. As former President Bill Clinton (who is in favor of personal accounts) said, 'You can’t just attack the other guy’s ideas unless you have something to say.'"
Posted by Chris Schrimpf
Comments
No the real problem here is that ya'll can't defend the corrupt, big government nightmare that is Socialist Insecurity equity fund proposals, not that your detractors have nothing substantive to say.
QUOTE:
Noid, your persistence is impressive.
I concede that there is, of course, the possibility that personal accounts will open up a new realm of government regulation, something you and I both abhor. I firmly believe, however, that the risk is very limited and is one worth taking considering the very imperfect position we find ourselves in.
What evidence, besides postulation, do you have that personal accounts will spark increased gov't regulation of the market? Over 30 countries have already created personal accounts - has any of these countries experienced the kind of regulation that concerns you? Has Chile's gov't imposed increasing strictures on financial markets? Quite the contrary: the institution of personal accounts has steadily liberalized the market. Chileans are offered a more liberal selection of investment options every year.
We all share your concern Noid, but simply repeating yourself is ineffectual. Show me some empirical evidence or tenable reasoning and we can make this a discussion, not a repitition contest.
Posted by: Fransisco d'Anconia at October 1, 2005 12:14 PM
Hey Noid,
Are you a virgin?
Jason Varitek
Posted by: Jason Varitek at October 3, 2005 02:29 AM
Funniest Post Ever!!!
Posted by: Adam Cahn at October 3, 2005 02:32 AM
Fransisco,
Read this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/draft-govinvest.cfm
There's lots of examples of corrupted "personal accounts"
Posted by: Noid at October 3, 2005 05:02 PM
Also, how long have these 30 countries had "personal accounts"? Do they invest largely in U.S. or other foreign companies? Perhaps their politicians haven't had enough time or enough stock to control to effectively screw their contituents. Or perhaps Chilean corruption isn't important enough to make the pages of the New York Times.
Are you including China as one of your 30 countries? According to http://english.chinamil.com.cn/english/pladaily/2004/09/08/20040908001017_TodayHeadlines.html
"In 2000, the Chinese Government decided to create a national social security fund. Its sources include: funds acquired from reducing state shareholding, stock ownership assets, funds from the central budget, funds raised by other means approved by the State Council, and investment returns. The national social security fund is administered by the National Social Security Fund Executive Council, and is operated on market principles in accordance with the procedures and requirements prescribed by the "Interim Measures for the Management of the Investment of the National Social Security Fund." The national social security fund provides an important financial reserve for the implementation of old-age insurance and other social security programs. By the end of 2003, it had accumulated over 130 billion yuan."
That sounds a lot like an "independently" managed
equity fund that ya'll seem to be advocating. Now if you know stuff about China, you'd know that their entire way of corporate life right now consists of kissing the govt's ass to become blessed and supported by the PLA so that you are invested in. I think it'd take awhile for the U.S. to get to *that* stage but the "personal" accounts that you advocate would pave the way.
If you think phasing SS out with nothing is politically unreasonable, why not support my suggestion of just phasing SS out by letting people opt for diverting their payroll taxes to FDIC insured bank CD's, municipal bonds, and U.S. treasuries of *the people's* choice. You wouldn't
be legally giving the feds any more power and the
investment would be safer than equity funds so they'd be an easier sell to those unreasonably afraid of the stock market.
Posted by Noid on October 20th 03:04:26 PM
Also, why exactly am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that Bill Clinton supported Socialist Insecurity equity funds? Are you familiar with the piece of ship health care proposal he offered? Let's set aside how unconstitutional his proposal was and how bad an idea it is to have the federal govt be in charge of 1/7th of our country's economy. Even if you thought having the feds ensure coverage for everyone, there's no way you'd do it Clinton's way, which included forcing every employer to buy managed care for every employeee. The reason hillary and he proposed that was to get the 5 biggest insurance providers on board with their plan since the regulations would favor the biggest insurers. And where else do we see such a corrupt bargain between a few big corporations and government programs?
1) Socialist InSecurity Equity Funds and favored public corporations and fund management companies
2) MediScare Prescription Drug Coverage for seniors and the pharmaceutical industry.
3) No Child Left Behind and the Pharmaceuticals
4) U.S. Farm Policy and Archer Daniels Midland et. al.
and I could go on and on.
You guys really ought to stop worrying about getting support from "both" political parties and start realizing that they're both two metaphorical butt cheeks between which is spewed a great deal of legislative crap.
Posted by Noid on October 20th 05:06:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
