Bloodless Coup

My question is this: What does it hurt you to give me the option to invest a portion of my money the way I see fit, especially when it doesnt hurt you in any way, shape, or form? You arent forced to do anything if you dont want to participate, but if I want to, I should be allowed to.

Democrats have no suggestions for fixing SS outside of raising taxes and raising the retirement age. Neither option allows you to make up for that lost money. Bush's plan does. That's why it is so enticing for me. The Republican Party at least offers ideas on how to fix situations.

Another Democratic "idea" is to cut wages. Man are they stupid or what? Bush's plan allows you to make up for that money lost and make more money on your return in the process.

and it'll only cost $2 trillion dollars. what a bargain!!!

As to this Democratic "idea" - What on Earth are you talking about?

And as to the president's plan, private accounts don't do a thing to fix the coming budget shortfall.

And while it's conceivable that you could make more money - it's also entirely possible that you could lose money in the process. I don't like the idea of thousands of grannies starving themselves to buy pills at 79 because they invested in Enron.

There is no Democratic plan at the moment on this - but from what I hear there may well be one coming out later this year. Honestly, and here you are going to disagree and that's just how it's going to be between us on this, I don't think they should do that. Why? Is it because I don't care about those approaching middle age and what will happen to them when they retire? No. It's simply that I think this is the wrong thing to prioritize at the moment. Is the coming shortfall a problem. Yeah - but not a huge one in the grand scheme of things. Relative to Medicare this is a puny problem with a relatively easy fixes. Medicare will "go bankrupt" decades before Social Security does; the new budget slices $35 billion out of Medicaid; and don't forget we are running $400 billion deficits every year RIGHT NOW. It would be good to fix that, don't you think?

Will Social Security need to be addressed? Yeah. But these other things are, to me, much more pressing matters. A lot of what ills Social Security can be fixed with relatively minor steps (don't forget that the president is using very fuzzy math on this - using different economic assumptions when he's calculating when the trust fund will "go bankrupt" versus the amount that private accounts will pay off). And anyway, what he is suggesting at the moment falls into the benefits cut/raising taxes area, it's not just the Democrats whose solutions are like that.

The problems with Medicare and especially Medicaid require will necessitate much more severe reforms (doubtless one reason why the president doesn't want to touch that) and will reach a crisis point much, much sooner (Medicaid is close to there, if not there already). If he's a problem solver - it strikes me thats should be the nation's priority.

Btw, have ya'll looked at the budget? Yikes. We've got money (actually no given the deficits we don't REALLY have the money) for the Paris Hilton tax cut, but we are slicing Medicaid to shreds. Are we really happy with a system that allows Paris to buy more Versace while poor blind kids lose health care?

Sorry - the Medicaid cut was only $10 billion apparently. But if we can afford our deficits and the inheritance tax cut I don't see why we can't afford to provide health care for the poor.

"option to invest a portion of my money the way I see fit"

You can do this already. It's called pensions, IRAs, mutual funds, and the stock market.

Social security has never been about "you" controlling "your money." It's a system of taxation and redistribution (the government's money) that is designed to stave off poverty among the elderly.

Come with me back in time, before the horrible tide of the twentieth century brought modernization, godless communism (FDR, that is) and safe meat. Old people who had to depend on the Christian charity of their family and friends lived in destitution. They were too old or infirm to work, or maybe even had never been able to fully support themselves. Perhaps they had been wealthy and thought they wisely invested their money in various stocks, but lost it all in a big crash (see: Great Depression, including suicides resulting from bankruptcy). The almighty private sector (business, church, family) left a sizable portion of grannies in misery. The state created an ANTI-POVERTY program call Social Security to provide a basic level of support so that elders would not have to live in destitution.

Those of us who have good jobs and foresight can plan ahead and invest our own money. If we do it early, often and carefully, we should be fine. But if we work a lifetime at a low-paying job and barely get by, feeding a large family, and don't have a nest egg, social security is there to make sure we don't starve. And if we invest in Enron and lose it all, social security is there to make sure we don't eat cat food, or worse, choose between eating cat food and buying medicine. Just as our taxes buy roads we will never drive on, and missles we will never launch, and subsidize Sam Donaldson's chinchillas we will never wear, they buy basic security for old people.

And just to be bitchy, because I haven't had any coffee yet today, I would be curious about whether big country has ever known anyone who lived only on social security. It's not the lap of luxury because it's not that much money. The GOP had better luck with insinuating the idea of "welfare queens" in people's heads. I think even Rove doesn't dare to paint an image of Granny trying to game the system. That's because most people support social security, especially people who vote in large numbers.

I'd quote "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce," but...