Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (130208)	3/5/2001 11:17:02 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Nadine, Here are the examples of your arguments that don't make sense (to me at least). Keep in mind that I had asked you why you feel the public SHOULD NOT be offered the option of privatization. Your first point: "To alter it, even to maintain it, you need widespread political support. Privatization is being touted as a surefire way to improve the benefits; no one is mentioning the increased risk involved OR the transition costs" A good idea should get political support in my view. You seem to feel that "widespread political support" is needed before an idea should be considered. Horse before the cart so to speak. If the dems are going to say things like "grandpa will end up in the poorhouse" with nothing to back that up, how will it get this support that you say it needs? Your follow up point that "no one" is talking about the risks or costs is not a valid argument against privatization either imo. I gave you an opportunity to talk about it. What are the risks and costs? If those could be balanced against the benefits then people could make a decision. The repubs say it is a good idea, and the dems say "grandpa will end up in the poorhouse" (or something to that effect). Also, I haven't heard it described as a "surefire" way to improve benefits except in your statement. Next you said: "Since Social Security benefits are the main source of income for a majority of our elderly population, I was simply predicting what would happen if the program were largely privatized and the market suffered a downturn" That is your argument as to WHY grandpa would end in up in the poorhouse? If so, let's get specific. How long does the market have to be in a downturn for 2% of grandpa's SS program to wipe out the other 98%? Also, over the long run (SS is a long term vehicle btw), does it not have a better chance to actually improve grandpa's position in life? My question specifically was to this point. Why should YOU or the DEM party make that risk analysis for grandpa? If I was going to make the choice (I am not a grandpa yet) I would choose to put part of my SS in the private sector. Would you? If you "predict" that the future of private markets in America is so gloomy I hope you are not actually in the markets yourself. You also are basing your statements on the principal that SS will be "largely" privatized. 2% ain't large, and for it to get bigger (as you are assuming?) it would probably need to be working. If it doesn't work at the 2% level I don't think they will say "let's make it 50%". "That's one of the reasons I'm dubious about the idea" You say dubious I say "scared". Not really that far off is it? Your final "argument": "And of course the privatization idea will be most popular after the market has soared, and least popular in a bear market -- just the opposite of any rational planning" So what? That is a statement, not an argument. One of my problems with the dem position is that lots of statements are made, then their positions are justified by the statement. Problem is a statement that is not backed up by anything (like the grandpa statement) is not a basis for a sound argument. Your turn. Sorry I irritated you by not spelling out why I felt your arguments are weak. Just wanted an intelligent response from you as to why YOU and the DEM party should make the decision to NOT allow grandpa the opportunity to participate in the private market with a small percentage of their SS investment.