Where is the outrage? (Page 2)

scoobysdad - 2012-08-02 12:29 PM Right. Because the government has done such a great job of safeguarding our SS contributions. In fact, the government's failure to do so should be the leading argument FOR privatized Social Security.

gearboy - 2012-08-02 6:59 PM

Do you keep your money in a bank? Are your deposits FDIC insured? Would you prefer to use a bank that does NOT insure your money in case of bank failure?

It seems to me that the only way the a "privatized Social Security" would work would be if your money were to be insured against loss (like the recent financial meltdowns and economic crisis). Which would come from the government (who can bail out banks and businesses deemed "too big to fail"). Which comes once again from our money. As much as people hate inefficiency and redundancy in government, having your money go to some sort of private SS firm, that is then backed up by essentially the same system that is in place now (except without the funding that is in place) makes zero sense.

It reminds me of a breakdown I saw on the Daily Show about one of Romney's recent speeches against Obamacare, where he basically said under his plan, you can keep all the things you like (kids stay on parents insurance till 26, no refusal for preexisting conditions, can't be dumped by the insurance because you get sick, etc) but there is no mandate, which means the funding for the whole thing goes away.

gearboy - 2012-08-02 6:59 PM

Do you keep your money in a bank? Are your deposits FDIC insured? Would you prefer to use a bank that does NOT insure your money in case of bank failure?

It seems to me that the only way the a "privatized Social Security" would work would be if your money were to be insured against loss (like the recent financial meltdowns and economic crisis). Which would come from the government (who can bail out banks and businesses deemed "too big to fail"). Which comes once again from our money. As much as people hate inefficiency and redundancy in government, having your money go to some sort of private SS firm, that is then backed up by essentially the same system that is in place now (except without the funding that is in place) makes zero sense.

It reminds me of a breakdown I saw on the Daily Show about one of Romney's recent speeches against Obamacare, where he basically said under his plan, you can keep all the things you like (kids stay on parents insurance till 26, no refusal for preexisting conditions, can't be dumped by the insurance because you get sick, etc) but there is no mandate, which means the funding for the whole thing goes away.