Posted on 02/04/2005 1:39:21 PM PST by Graybeard58
The Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address gave most Americans their first good look at new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They had to come away unimpressed by his diatribe and annoyed by his shamelessness.
Sen. Reid pitched the same tired, government-centered, anti-business, anti-taxpayer, entitlement-laden Democratic platform that voters rejected anew in November. He spoke in code to Democratic special interests. He even invoked God to try to trick Americans into believing the party of secularists had found religion on religion.
But it was his demagoguery of Social Security reform that stood out: "(I)t's more like Social Security roulette.
"Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings, but that doesn't mean taking Social Security's guarantee and gambling with it. And that's coming from a senator who represents Las Vegas."
Gambling and investing are similar only in that people put up their money in hopes of making more money. But they present two distinctly different sets of risk. In casinos, people bet on games of chance in which the odds are stacked against them. They are largely the beneficiaries or victims of luck and in the long run are going to lose money because they can't control the cards they're dealt or the dice they roll.
People investing some of their Social Security taxes in stocks, bonds and mutual funds would be able to control their risk to a great extent and determine with some degree of certainty their rates of return over extended periods. Inexperienced investors could put their money in U.S. Treasury bonds, which pay guaranteed rates double or triple those offered by Social Security. People seeking better returns can put their money in mutual funds that invest in blue-chip companies. But highly speculative investments that might wipe out retirement savings would be prohibited.
The process is expected to be similar to the employee-directed 401(k) plans that are allowing tens of millions of Americans to build secure retirements independently of Social Security. And under the Bush reforms, should people under Social Security die prematurely, the money in their personal accounts would go to their heirs instead of the government.
Investing is not a sure thing, but it must be pretty darn close because in Sen. Reid's most recent financial-disclosure form, it took him 13 pages to account for all the securities and real-estate interests he held or traded in 2003. As a senator, he also is saving for his retirement through the Thrift Savings Plan, which offers only six options, including three mutual funds that invest in U.S. companies and a fourth that gambles on highly speculative foreign stocks.
Sen. Reid has become wealthy and is building a secure retirement through stocks, bonds and mutual funds, but he wants to saddle most Americans with the risky Ponzi scheme that is Social Security.
The real Social Security gamble is to do nothing, let the system go bankrupt and leave current and future retirees with nothing.
My plan for social security. ALL people who've been forced to particpate are paid out thier contrtibutions (including the employer match) with interest with compounding based on the T-bill rate in effect for each quarter. Current retirees have their proceeds deducted. Checks are sent, system is over. Next issue please. But then that would be actually ending socialism in America and we don't really want to do that. I stand by to be flamed.
Far be it from me to flame you. I agree with you in principle but I doubt that there's enough currency in circulation to pay it.
Of course the gov. could always just fire up the old printers and print some more.
(My last statement lacked seriousness)
You figure out a way to do it and not end the government up in debt and I'll vote for you. In fact, I'll even give you a hint on how to do it - the Feds own a LOT of property they could sell. How's that sound?
I believe part of the national debt IS the big IOU to the SSI trust fund. Its shameless that Senator Reid didn't come clean. LBJ was the first President to tap the money from the trust fund to "pay for the Vietnem war". Ever since then, the congress has used the trust fund money to spend on all their pork and social programs to the point that there is an empty trust. In return for their generosity with the people's money, politicians have had their pockets lined with speaking engagement money, shady book deals, promises for work after government service, lobbying fess and other such nonsense, not to mention re-election campaign funds to pay to relatives and friends.
Since the return on the money that was supposed to be in the trust fund, ends up being added to the amount of original debt, the return on SSI surplus money is purposefully held very low - between 2 and 3 percent. Hence, the money that was supposed to be in the trust fund growing, has been withering away, barely beating inflation.
So Senator Reid, which is more of a gamble? Give it to the congresscritters and guarentee the continued theft? Or let Joe Bagadoughnuts invest his own money in the market. The "Risky Scheme" is actually to continue handing over SSI contributions to Senator Spendalot to further his/her corrupt enrichment on the backs of the people.
I agree heartily with your sentiments. My only point is that the US Gov has assets - land specifically which it could (and IMO should) sell. Use the $ from the sale of land to pay for the SS problem. Its a twofer in my book. It increases the tax base and pays for the generation that spent all the SS surplus. I suspect it does so with a minimal negative effect (e.g. inflation) on the economy. The gov doesn't do their accounting right - the problem is no balance sheet. They manage income and expenses, but don't handle assets and liabilities well at all.
Actually all of Congress (as of Jan 1 1984) DO pay SS taxes just like everyone else. Before that, they did not. They do still have a pension plan though.
Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.