Stephen Chapman on the TEA Party

HokieMSG said:
Agree George, but the congress will NEVER relinquish their hold over SS. EVER. Privatization appears to be the answer, but getting congress to let go of it is a whole different issue.
Click to expand...

HokieMsg

Privatization of SS is the absolute LAST thing we need. If we cannot trust the HMOs to manage our health, do we really want Wall Street to do the same with the pension system?

And it isn't just Congress that wants it to stay as it is, its the Public too. If we remember 2005 Bush was nearly publicly lynched for is privatization plan, and most of the complaints were from his own parties constituents. Could you imagine now what would have happened if we had (shutter) followed Bush advice in 2005, and the stock market market took the hit it did just 3 years later? Just what would have happened? The portfolio managers would have millions and Granny would be on the street.

As bad as the economy is, Every member of AARP is thanking their stars we DIDN'T make that mistake.

Or better still remember, remember ENRON? When ENRON sank it wiped out every single 401K plan the employees had. Those 401Ks were most peoples main retirement plan. People who had been putting aside for 25 years for retirement suddenly discovered they had ZERO saved. I know this because I currently work for ENRON main competitor, and we had several people who came from Enron after the collapse. They lost nearly everything they had invested.

And I haven't even brought up the ways the pension portfolio managers could cheat or skim from the system. Letting Wall Street or the Banks manage (which is exactly what they want) is akin to letting the foxes guard the chicken coop.

Like healthcare, SS is one of those vital services which is simply too lucrative and fragile to risk in the public sector.

And like I said SS is NOT the big worry, its Medicare. Lets not going try foxing things that really done need it, especially when its Wall Street that is suggesting it. When Wall street makes a suggestion you can count on two things:

1. There is an angle
2. That angle is NOT in the best interest of main street.

I think the GOP plan to raise retirement age 2 years is a far more sensible plan to offset the costs.
 
mmarsh. When I suggested privatization, I mean giving the choice to the consumer. Let people choose to stay under the current plan or allow them to deposit their contributions into a 401K plan of their own choosing. This U.S. Army (I think the entire militart uses this program)does this using a program called the Thrift Savings Plan. (www.tsp.gov). There are no matching funds but there are plenty of choices for the consumer.

The enron debacle was the fault of a lot of the senior leaders at the company. The employees bear some responsibility. They put too much of their retirement money into thier own 401K which was heavily weighted in enron stock. When it became clear that the government was closing in they (the principals in the investigation) cashed out sizable portions of their holdings and fired the fund manager. The rules the 401K operated under prevented people from doing anything with their money until another fund manager was selected. Enron stock tanked and people lost their shirts.

I agree that medicare is the pressing problem. Until a reasonable solution can be developed, I don't forsee the problem doing anything but getting worse. What a lot of people fail to realize is that the increased costs from the healthcare legislation will have zero net effect on the insurance companies bottom lines. They are going to pass the cost directly to the consumer. I wonder how this will be beneficial to everyone? This is yet another example of why I HATE insurance companies.
 
ENRON wasn't a privatly owned retirement account, it's corporate retirement account, lootable the same as SS &, have you seen the Union accounts? Huge debt, billions of $ that the Unions want Obama to fund with taxpayer(or Chinese) money. Liberal Media isn't saying much about it. Bush's plan was remarkably simular to the Clinton plan that the GOP controlled Congress also rejected. '05 might have been bad timing, but if you look @ history the People would have been far better of over the decades having money in the market. SS is returning 1% & dropping!
 
HokieMSG said:
mmarsh. When I suggested privatization, I mean giving the choice to the consumer. Let people choose to stay under the current plan or allow them to deposit their contributions into a 401K plan of their own choosing. This U.S. Army (I think the entire militart uses this program)does this using a program called the Thrift Savings Plan. (www.tsp.gov). There are no matching funds but there are plenty of choices for the consumer.

The enron debacle was the fault of a lot of the senior leaders at the company. The employees bear some responsibility. They put too much of their retirement money into thier own 401K which was heavily weighted in enron stock. When it became clear that the government was closing in they (the principals in the investigation) cashed out sizable portions of their holdings and fired the fund manager. The rules the 401K operated under prevented people from doing anything with their money until another fund manager was selected. Enron stock tanked and people lost their shirts.

I agree that medicare is the pressing problem. Until a reasonable solution can be developed, I don't forsee the problem doing anything but getting worse. What a lot of people fail to realize is that the increased costs from the healthcare legislation will have zero net effect on the insurance companies bottom lines. They are going to pass the cost directly to the consumer. I wonder how this will be beneficial to everyone? This is yet another example of why I HATE insurance companies.
Click to expand...

It wont stop there. Eventually the GOP will push for the entire system to be privatized. That is their ultimate goal, the GOP has always hated SS but its so popular they can only afford to politically chip away at it. The last president who tried to mess with it got castrated by the public.


1. People will take their retirement and put it into Wall Street. Because they are both greedy and stupid. And I do say stupid because as a head of family I don't consider the money I save toward my retirement money as funds I can take a risky gamble on, espicially when I start approaching 60 and dont have much time to recup any losses.

2. Wall Street get Billions managing these portfoilo, either way. Whether the portfolio itself gains or loses money, Wall Street will win either way.

3. And in a Bear Market, these stupid, greedy investors will start to lose their shirt, Once that happens, guess where they are going to go? Right back to Washington to demand aid, just like the Banks and car companies did.

4. And Washington, regardless whoever is in power will capitulate on this (make no mistake...they will) because the AARP is a very powerful lobby and the last thing the establishment wants are angry and broke seniors at the next election, and so they will get these stupid, greedy, people will get their bailout.

Why make so much trouble for ourselves? I say keep SS as it is, and restructure it so that it stays solvent. Remember ONLY the financial services industry are pushing for privatization...not the Public, that in of itself should speak volumes.
 
Point 1. You are being smart about managing your money. Too many people want to get rich quick and when they make bad decisions they look to the government to bail them out. Sorry, government should not be here to protect you from your own stupidity.

Point 3 has convinced me.

Until we can keep congress' hands off SS it will never be solvent.
 
Last edited:
That is a bit misleading as most laws are designed to protect protect people whether it be from someone else's stupidity or their own is moot therefore it could be said that the only role for government is to protect its citizens.
 
MontyB said:
That is a bit misleading as most laws are designed to protect protect people whether it be from someone else's stupidity or their own is moot therefore it could be said that the only role for government is to protect its citizens.
Click to expand...

MontyB, Here in America there is a general feeling that making bad decisions carries no consequences. In many cases the government is expected to swoop in and save the day. Most of the individuals who need/require government assistance have valid reasons for needing it. My problem is with those folks who through sheer stupidity or laziness, expect the government to take care of them regardless of the bad decisions that they make (repeatedly).

Ultimately, personal resposibility is dying a slow lingering death here in the states.
 
And because of those few people, we should scrap the whole system for ALLLLL those people who genuinely need it. Hell, we should get rid of Veterans Benefits because of those kids who are only using the military to pay for school!

By the way, before I'm crucified, I'm being sarcastic in this post.
 
I think the whole point of having laws in the first place is to prevent people from making stupid decisions that put other people at risk.

What they're for....

1) Laws on driving : Prevent unqualified people from driving and ensure that qualified drivers don't drink and drive or do other things that can get other people killed.

2) Laws regarding not beating each other to a pulp : Prevents citizens who get angry from time to time from beating other citizens to death.

3) Laws regarding food quality : Prevents shopkeepers and catering services from trying to make/save a buck or two by keeping food on the shelves longer than they should.

4) Laws regarding banks : Prevents banks and individuals from doing some seriously stupid things. Like they did last time.

Laws... the idea is to prevent stupidity.
If everyone were to make rational and responsible decisions more or less every time, we wouldn't need any laws now would we?
 
ACoM, Agree. I have always believed that every government program starts out as a good idea. The problem is that the government gets involved and tries to fit a square peg in a round hole. My point was that too many people who happen to be eligible for a particular program, but do not need help will still take advantage. If the individuals in question would stop doing this, we would all be better off. Since this is entirely subjective, it would be difficult to prove.
 
Rob Henderson said:
And because of those few people, we should scrap the whole system for ALLLLL those people who genuinely need it. Hell, we should get rid of Veterans Benefits because of those kids who are only using the military to pay for school!

By the way, before I'm crucified, I'm being sarcastic in this post.
Click to expand...

Well given that service is voluntary and you should be entering it in full knowledge of the risks you are perhaps right that veterans benefits should not be needed, you get paid for your service therefore you should be able to look after yourself should the need arise after all that is what is expected of other careers.

This is in fact the logical out come to any argument for less government control however the problem is that much like every argument people are not against the policies of government only the parts of the policies that do not suit their particular circumstances.

As far as laws being there to prevent stupid decisions I can not agree, murder and rape laws do not prevent murder and rape, traffic laws do not prevent traffic violations, laws only provide a guideline to the people who are smart enough to follow them and a method of prosecution for those that are stupid enough to get caught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top