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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cirrus who wrote (36)	9/5/2006 5:14:26 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

"Every time someone tells me that social security should be privatized I tell them to ask former Enron employees how their private plan fared." Point well taken, cirrus. And, according to the news today, Delta Airlines' pilots may be in a similar condition. But I don't think that's a fair comparison -- privatization of SS wouldn't be controlled by a corporate entity, it would be controlled by individuals. A more apt comparison would be to the current SS system going broke some time in the future, just as Enron did and Delta is doing now. If people have money in their OWN accounts, controlled by themselves, similar to our IRAs now, that wouldn't happen. I'd much prefer to have my SS in an account that I own and control. If that account collapses because of my own management, it will be MY fault, not some amorphous corporate (or government) agency. I see two reasons that many don't like the idea of privatization of SS: One, some may be better investors than others, and that wouldn't be "fair" to those too lazy to learn to manage their money. And Two, it takes a lot of power away from those who want to use the SS network as their own private slush fund.

To: cirrus who wrote (36)	9/5/2006 7:59:50 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Corrupt corps are small in number while corruption endemic in the govt, albeit not on the enron scale. My idea is private accounts with mucho protection--see my posts. It beats the Gore lockbox lie that the dems live by as well as the joe six pack can become Warren Buffet view of the bushies. There is hope in the middle as long as dale baker doesnt get to define it.

To: cirrus who wrote (36)	9/6/2006 10:18:43 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

I think we need to look at all the options. Clearly the current system is broke, and may not be fixable.

To: cirrus who wrote (36)	9/6/2006 10:41:07 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

The main problem with the Enron plan was that a large percentage of the money was in Enron stock. As long as you make no requirements to put any money in a specific stock a private plan should be fine. SS OTOH simply doesn't have enough funds to pay out all the money its projected to have to pay out. We can either reduce the growth of that payout going forward, or we can wait for the automatic cuts that kick in when the "trust fund" runs out. If enough political force is mobilized to eliminate those automatic cuts then you need either additional tax revenue or borrowing to keep the payments going. Either solution would be very bad. The taxes required would be a major drag on the economy, and the borrowing required would also be a drag on the economy (crowding out private borrowing) while making today's deficits look small). Personal accounts would not directly solve the problem. They don't save money, or bring extra money in to the system. But they might make the reduction in growth of future payouts from the current system more acceptable, as people would have their own personal accounts to make up the difference and quite likely more than the difference.