Facebook destroys Republican myth of privatizing social security panacea

You are mistaken.

Social security funds diverted to privatized accounts would be used to purchase equities in tried and proven companies. They would not be used to purchase a newly-issued stock like Facebook which does not have a proven track record.

Nice try, but no cigar!

 

Are you gonna explain why Saverin isn't a messianic hero of conservatism or just whine and complain because I said he was ?

 

It's time for Norquist to fade away.

 

That is an easy question to answer.

Social security funds diverted to privatized accounts would apply to future wage earners; not to present wage earners.

 

How do you know where the funds will be spent? Perhaps they'll be spent on trash like the billions lost by State governments investing in substandard mortgages as few years back?

 

Total gibberish. What mythical "equities" are these that you would divert TRILLIONS into and still keep reasonable multiples.

 

It doesn't shed any light on anything because it's complete BS. I don't need peers, whether or not pointy-headed liberal cretins hiding in universities, to know that ME taking care of ME is how things should work. If only we had more I, I, me people to replace more of the some other guy people leeching off the system.

Nice try, but you've come up well short once again.

 

Or "invested" in GM and losing $11 billion and counting. Good point, we need to quit trusting government.

 

PF lib: desperate to try and save face, digs his heels in and pretends he didn't get caught red-handed making up a completely bogus assertion.

Film at 11.

 

Are you gonna make Saverin your own personal messiah now that he's been elevated to messiah by conservatism ... or just shuck 'n jive ?

LOL.

 

Delusional screed. You don't even want to touch the lil' problem of where you stuff TRILLIONS of dollars into an already overvalued stock market. When you are done with the mindless rants get back on topic and give us your wonderful right wing solution.

 

Good boy. OK, now sit. Roll over. Good boy!

LOL!

 

That doesn't even qualify an answer. Give up.

 

Most people would take offense if someone accused a tax-evader of being a conservative messiah ... doesn't seem to bother you though ... perhaps true ?

LOL.

 

You made the claim now back it up.

 

Could you support an opt out? What if it were an option to invest in S.S., or something else of your own choosing?

 

The problem I would have with it is the same problem I would have with a lot of libertarian ideas. Someone could opt out if they promised never to be a burden to anyone if their "investment" plan didn't work out. They would have to promise if they were penniless at 70 then they would curl up into a ball and die. They could not ask the government for help or start pestering already thinly stretched charities. They could not start hitting up their relatives who are utilizing the Social Security system.

It's just like the health care mandate. I don't have a problem if people opt out if they promise to never show up at an ER or spread their diseases to other people. If they just go out into a field and die I suppose that would be acceptable. The only problem is we used public money for their education so we made an investment. I guess their family could pay us back. Also if someone decides to opt out of social security and medicare/medicaid if they do die their widow and children cannot get survivors benefits or CHIP. If they too are destitute they will also need to curl up into a ball and die.

As you can see for the vast majority the opt out option is not really an option. People will talk a tough game when they are 27 but 40 years later we will have tens of millions of people "repenting" and begging for help.

 

The liberal logic and idiocy of the O.P. are stunning.

Just because 1 stock crashed and burned does not negate the cumulative results of private investment/retirement over the measly less than the rate of inflation return that Social Security offers. The City of Galveston, TX had a rare opportunity to opt out of Social Security in the 1970's and did. The result was retirements that exceeding those who took Social Security by a HUGE margin. The same is true for the entire country of Chile that privatized its retirement.

The funniest part of the O.P. is that one of the sources was a woman from Granite Bay, CA. I owned an enormous house there for some time. It is virtually the most expensive place to live in the whole Sacramento area. It is the rich area where people like Eddie Murphy own homes. My neighbor was a Sacramento King basketball player (Corliss Williamson - The Big Nasty - His Nickname).

How liberals make these enormous error in logic and then many other liberals fall in line like lemmings makes me question their collective intelligence.

 

Because the "socialist fascist communist Kenyan anticolonialist statists" believe that by restricting Mario, they are protecting the rest of society.

In other words, the people who can perform are limited by the non-performance of the rest.

Since 99-point something percent of the people in the United States can't balance their checkbook - much less invest their money with any intelligence - those of us who can, and are willing to opt-out of the system and take the risk of investment in order to obtain a brighter financial future, are prohibited from doing so.

Government doesn't work to encourage the best and brightest, it works to protect the stupidest from themselves.

 

You can't compare day traders to folks who consistently dollar-cost average. Moreover, even the most inept private investor will do better than the government. Mandating private 401K accounts will also put more money into the economy because folks will no longer have to give 6% to the SS black hole..

Your link does have a lot of good info however, I was not talking about timed investment. That's more like gambling and a risky business however, the reward is much higher than anchoring one's portfolio in solid, but less lucrative investment vehicles. However, even mundane investing using techniques such as dollar-cost-averaging will be significantly more profitable than letting the government take 6% of your paycheck and re-distribute it.

A private retirement fund has intrinsic value whereas, SS is a promissory 'note' with no compounded interest, returning you not even 1% of what you paid into it. Also SS is 100% controlled by the government. Last year they decided NOT to allow cost of living increases. They could just as well declare it broke and stop the checks.

 

I'd say social security is where the lesson was learned, you know back when it was a system that you paid into for your private account and the government up and decided to just spend your money.

 

Absolutely nothing. You know how this works. Left wing extremist reads something at left wing hack web site, has his opinion hand fed to him and spits it back out not realizing the comparison is absurd.

I made money on Marvel stock. Apparently that proves privatization works.

 

If anything you can say you profited off of superheros which, hey, that's something!

 

You, like all liberals don't believe people should keep anything that they earn. You believe they should work, and that the government should take the money, and tell them how they must use it, if they allow them to use it at all.

When you tax someone, you are essentially taking their life. When you work, you are paid a wage for what you do. The time spent working, is your life. When the government takes a piece of that, and you die before you can receive that money back, the government has in fact taken your freedom and part of your life.

 

You will never get a response or praise for that idea on the left. Why? Because then they lose control. This isn't about facebook, or 401k or SS. It is about control. Control over you and me. Just like Obamacare isn't about helping sick people who can't afford healthcare, its about control. Control over you and me.

This is the reason why congress voted so that they don't have to follow Obamacare themselves. Socialism isn't for the socialist, its for the people, the masses.