Thread: Clinton pledges caution on Social Security changes
View Single Post
Old 12-02-2007, 05:45 PM   #29 (permalink)
garysher
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,692
Country:
Points: 34,611, Level: 100
Points: 34,611, Level: 100 Points: 34,611, Level: 100 Points: 34,611, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski View Post
If any private company created a retirement system in which you paid money into it, returned a rate of under 2% on your contributions, and kept the money when you died, the American people would be outraged, and Congress would be demanding hearings and passing laws to prevent this from occuring. So, the question is:

IF WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO DO THIS TRAVESTY, WHY DO WE ALLOW GOVERNMENT TO DO IT??


dmk

Here's two possible reasons:

1) People know that the govt will never run out of money, go bankrupt, go into liquidation, be acquired or be at the mercy of stock market fluctuations. 2% may be a low return but it's better than many fund managers achieve over 30-40 year period when it's all averaged out.

If people were allowed to manage their own SS funds you can guarantee some of them will invest unwisely and blow the lot. And regardless of how you feel, those people will no be abandoned in the forest!

2) You can always vote politicians out of office, but in the private sector you have no say over who manages your money. other than moving it somewhere else. And if your fund manager already lost it that could be moot.
[IMG][/IMG]

Doggone it darn right you betcha bless your heart maverick