Privatization vs. Personalization: What does it matter?

The biggest problem is that the government does not trust the people to make the right decision. If a person (25 years old) were to take the money they pay into SS now and invest half in secure bonds (Tax Free US Treasuries, municipal bonds etc) and half in the stock market 9assume a 3% growth) they would have more monthly income from the interest at 65 years of age then they would receive from SS and they would still have the principal to pass on. When the market goes up you investments are worth more but when the market goes down any money you invest is buying stocks at a low price and any dividends you reinvest are buying more of the stocks so that when the market goes up you value increase dramatically. For example if you were making $10 per hour and investing the same amount as SS you would have about $200 per month to invest. If you took that $200 and bought GE Stock when it was $7 per share, in 2009 you would buy 29 shares. Today those 29 shares would be worth $452.00 Privatized SS would probably be like a 401K or Roth IRA where you put the money in and buy and sell but you can't take it out except for certain things until you retire. With SS the money is used to pay the current retirees and to fund congress's pet projects (they give the SS Trust Fund an IOU). The question becomes who should manage you money for retirement you or the Government?

Maybe there's someone on myLot a far sight smarter than I am who could really get into the psychological reasons that many not only oppose privatization but at the same time push for exponentially more government involvement. To me, it just doesn't seem logical. You can get rid of private industry exceedingly faster than you can even get government to admit they need to change, much less make a change. If I had to guess, I would say the good folks at MSNBC are simply too invested in the idea of government being the solution to admit that there's any other possible solution. I remember Chris Matthews a few weeks ago having a grand old time at the GOP's expense, Ron Paul's specifically, as Matthews berated the doctor for his insistence that some things in America should not be in government's control. Matthews went on to "prove" his point by bringing up things like safety in the tuna we eat and airport security and the like. I'm not sure if guys like Matthews are that incredibly dense or just that heavily invested in progressive politics, but they act as if anything private is inherently inept and corrupt, as if government wasting literally hundreds of billions of dollars every year is somehow the only way to go about business in any business. At the heart of it all, some people just believe in government as the answer. I'm sure the learned and professional analysts at MSNBC do not approve of government waste. But a lot of it reminds me of religious arguments. If you admit to one factor that deviates from your belief, there's a threat that someone can unravel the entire belief system. So it's imperative to hold your ground at all costs. Good folks like our friends at MSNBC cannot have that happen. I rarely see them bring anyone in to offer an alternative either. One thing I do know for sure: Progressives make horrible businesspeople. They make horrible economic decisions. There might be exceptions to the rule, but no one wastes more time, energy and money than big-government progressives (call them any other name you'd like). And when the money goes bye-bye and the policies fall flat, their answer is always that they should have spent more to start, so they'll spend more from now on. The current system has long been unsustainable. But any call for even a slight deviation from the plan, like giving states more control over the system, is "throwing grandma off a cliff" to these fine folks. I tried hard to get through this without calling anyone a moron or a schmuck. But I didn't edit through it, so one may have slipped through. In short: I just don't think they know what they're doing or what they're talking about. They're so steadfastly intent on creating and fighting an enemy all in one go like some strange self-fulfilling prophecy that things like money and America's future are sacrificial lambs to the alter of ultimate government justice.

Latrivia, I do not think that you understand what really goes on here. You see, most government programs are meant to keep people dependent and thus make people easy to manipulate.

First off, the problem you've described with population of workers is already happening. When Social Security first started the ratio of workers to retirees was 16:1. Right now it's 3:1 and soon it will be 2:1. That's a dangerous trend and it's the reason why Social Security, as it is now, is not sustainable. Personally, I like privatization. I like that ability to control what I put in, where it goes, and who manages it. I have 3 retirement accounts right now on top of the pension I get through my current job. I enjoy having the ability to see how my ICMARC account is doing and make changes to how my money is invested. I also enjoy knowing that it is MY money. The money I'm putting into Social Security is being taken from me against my will, and given to current retirees. It's not mine when it's taken. It's not saved for me. It's not invested for me and I have no guarantee that I'll benefit from the program when I retire. I think privatize has become a dirty word as part of the class warfare mentality that is telling people businesses are evil and only care about profits. People dig up a few bad CEOs, a few sheisty insurance companies, and act like they are representative of any and all businesses. Personally I'm far more satisfied with ICMARC and Charles Schwabb than I am with the government right now.