Ok, who's going to dispute this statement from the DLC about privatizing Social Security?

I have posted several fairly convincing arguments that they intend to let private companies operate Social Security while calling it something else...that they did not truly intend the Universal Savings Accounts to be only in addition to Social Security.

This article from the New Dem Daily memo from 1999 speaks of "partial privatization" to maintain a "safety net" while "moving towards private savings accounts for individual pensions". I posted this months ago, and there were many denials.

However I think I was right then and am right now....I think they change the terms like IRAs and American Dream Accounts as a way to get the private companies in the door.

Idea of the Week: Retirement Savings for Low Income Americans



There is more about it.



I am one who thinks Social Security if not used for fighting wars in Iraq can be healthy for a long time. Maybe a change in the high end taxes could be a compromise.

Here is even more that to me shows their intention to give it private companies. They actually come out and say it.



What do they keep talking about the poor needing to save more? The poor get Social Security, and it has been a Godsend through the decades. It is hard for most people to save now. amd that argument about the poor just does not hold water. If they were deprived of Social Security it might be convincing, but it isn't right now.

Read up on the Heritage Foundation's history of wanting to change Social Security over to the private sector, and then ask yourself why are Democrats at the DLC/PPI are working with them to fix our finances. :shrug:

I asked myself and could not come up with an answer.

Why are our Democrats joining with right wing groups and Republicans on Social Security?

Ask yourself also why they are working with Lindsey Graham. Why not the Campaign for America's Future?

Why not the Center for American Progress?





Carper is quoting Reagan on Social Security? Now that scares the hell out of me.

Do you have anything from THIS century?

A rose by any name is still a rose.

And where are the working wage people going to get more money to save? FICA takes nearly 8% already. How much do they suggest a person making $20-30,000 a year save anyway? They're supposed to pay their own health insurance and wait for a tax credit a year down the road, they're supposed to save more for their retirement, they're supposed to put money into the 'baby bond' accounts, with the cost of living going out of control. Nobody is really looking out for the 50% who make less than $30,000 a year.

Here is why:

Social Security is pay-as-you-go. People who work now pay into Social Security, and the money they pay in is immediately distributed to those who receive Social Security. Since the baby boomers had far fewer children per person than their parents, the working population will have a hard time putting in enough money to cover the cost of the Social Security benefits for the baby boomer retirees.

What is often not mentioned is that the same discrepancy between the numbers of baby boomers and their children that threatens the solvency of Social Security also threatens the value of the baby boomers other savings and investments. Many baby boomers view their investments in their large, family homes as a part of their net worth or savings. But once baby boomers start trying to cash out the investments they have made in their houses to cover retirement expenses, once they try to move down into smaller houses, they likely will discover that they are not alone. A lot of other baby boomers will have the same idea and will try to sell their homes to obtain cash for retirement. The number of buyers for the big baby boomer houses is likely to be smaller than the number of sellers. The oversupply of big houses and the undersupply of buyers will push the value of the houses down. When it comes time to sell, the baby boomer is likely to discover that his or her house is not worth as much he or she has believed all these years.

The same principle applies to stock market investments. Stock has risen in value in recent years, not because the companies are paying higher dividends but, at least in part, because more and more baby boomers have been socking money away in pension investment plans or buying IRAs as a part of their retirement plans. When the baby boomers start selling these stocks in order to use the money for retirement, the value of the stocks will decline. And younger people will not be drawn to invest in a stock market that appears to be losing value. As baby boomers discover that they are not getting much from Social Security, that they can't sell their houses for good prices and that their stock market investments are losing value, they are likely to panic. That could result in a tragedy.

(True, most of the stock market investment is not made up of retirement funds, but enough of it is retirement funds to cause disruption when the baby boomers start selling.)

No matter how you try to shift things around, there is no easy solution.

In my view, the key is to avoid causing panic and the financial devastation that would follow panic. And the way to do that is to INCREASE, not DECREASE, the size of Social Security benefits and other government assistance to the elderly. I know that irks the free marketer Chicago school folks. But the free market is precisely what suffers the most when people panic. Reaffirming and securing the Social Security system, even increasing Social Security and Medicare benefits for the elderly combined with incentives to people to work longer and pay into the system longer and STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWS will help avoid a devastating financial crisis that could cost not only the lives of many elderly people, but wreck the economy of the country as a whole.

This is a problem that will require Americans to work together and sacrifice to support each other's needs. Right now the economy is kind of a house of cards. If that one card, which is the confidence of baby boomers in their retirement security, is somehow pulled out of the house, the whole thing will collapse. Social Security is the least of the problems. The security of the whole structure depends on whether the transition of the baby boomers into retirement is maneuvered without panic.