Dubya wanting to convert social security to the stock market?

[gopLMAO]

When it peaked at 14,000 in 2007 and now is around 8000 that would have doomed the social security system. Dubya was the worst President in my life time The Bush administration hopes that the media will keep people uninformed about the fact that massive Social Security surpluses (the trust fund) have (has) been used for years to finance the record (General Fund) deficits due to Bush's massive tax cuts for the super-rich and out-of-control spending on Iraq and GOP pet projects.
Privatization of Social Security would mean a steep drop in program efficiency and sharp increases in administrative fees, leading to significantly lower benefits. Privatization requires trillions of dollars in additional borrowing (in addition to benefit cuts) and speculative investment of individual's funds in the stock market - the makings of another Bush driven disaster. Privatization proponents often use highly inflated/exaggerated stock market return projections to push for privatization. It is quite likely that the underhanded objective of the Bush privatization proposal is the eventual phasing out of Social Security.

http://www.eriposte.com/policy/socialsecurity.htm

[PJ]

I agree. Bush was the worst president of my lifetime also. Privatizing SS would have been a big mistake.

[Grammar SS]

without SS, hundreds of thousands of people would have been wiped out in the past 6 months.

Retirees would have been roaming the streets like zombies.

[punytown959]

You are exactly correct.

Social Security is an insurance program to supplement private investments. If you eliminate the insurance program and rely solely on investments, you sink with everyone in the market.

The funniest thing was that, while he was president, Bush planned a tour of the U.S., speaking in favor of privatization. After each speech, public support for his position dropped. He inadvertently talked people out of the position he was supporting.

We may never know if Bush was an ignorant bumpkin or an evil manipulator. My guess: a little of both.

[shera_42]

Uh huh...that's right. Keep telling yourself that. The government can't handle money and that's pretty much why there will no longer be social security benefits for many people in not too many years to come even though they pay into it. Let's face it. The problem with spending our social security on other things started way before Bush but I'm sure you can blame him all day long and you will get a few people to agree with you just for the hell of it. You are seriously deluding yourself if you think Bush is the only President to use Social Security. My Lord you people are grasping. And as far as the media hiding anything from you about Bush, especially if it is negative, is downright stupid.

[Call Me Bwana]

No. He wanted to allow people, you know, us citizens, the Choice of how we got to invest our forced Social Security savings, and not even all of it, just some of it.

Because freedom and choice is a good thing for free citizens to have regarding their own money, no?

I'd much rather invest my money in the stock market, even today, than to have government take it and spend it, with no guarantee that I'd get any of it back, and that the government will simply pocket if I don't survive to collect it.

Social security is a bad deal. It sucks.

[kerfitz]

1. "Dubya" did not want to convert the entire system to the stock market, what he wanted was for individuals to be able to take part of the payments they make to SS and put them in SPECIFIC funds. Making it much more likely that those funds would gorw over the years and provide a more comfortable retirement for those individuals.

2. The SS fund has been used by the general fund since before Bush 2 (Clinton actually passed that act).

3. I would like to see the data on your assertation that privatization of funds would increase administration fees and decline efficiency.... Didn't think so, Privatization would require no additional funding, would actually cause a decrease in the liability of the government.

[william k]

I'd still be better off with private SS instead of the guaranteed ZERO PERCENT RETURN I'll get since it will be long gone before I ever retire!

[MikeGolf]

It sounds like you need to learn something before you express opinions.

For example - the Bush tax cuts were across the board. The reason that people claim that they were for the 'rich' is because any tax cut is going to provide porportionally more benefit to the people who are paying the most taxes. To put it simply - tax cuts benefit tax payers, not tax users!

Allowing people to 'opt out' of a portion of their social security will actually benefit the SS system by reducing future payments. In addition it will be beneficial to the entire US economy by making more money availible for investment. The money taken in by Social Security is in effect removed from the economy because it is spent instead of invested.

Besides - who is dumb enough to think that they will get even 50% of what they are paying into Social Security back?
.