Burnt Orange Report

Are you bonkers?

The main beneficiaries of restructuring Social Security are the 20-somethings.

Please bring back the smart young folks who usually run this site.

To answer your question, no I am not a cartoon bobcat. I'm a realist if anything. $2 trillion dollars over ten years is a lot of money and I don't think there is anyway any Congress would sign off on borrowing that much. Bush has already promised to not raise payroll taxes. So where is the money going to come from? I think any bill that gets passed in both houses is going to call for benefit cuts for future and current retirees to help make up the shortfall. Even the possibility of that happening should have seniors on fixed incomes worried and have the AARP as an ally in fighting privatization.

I reiterate that the main beneficiary of gutting Social Security with private accounts are the people who would be managing the accounts. Millions of new investors and more than likely complicated system to limit risk means paying professionals to do it for you.

You're absolutely right, the ball needs to be rolling--should've been rolling. Now, are any bloggers out there willing to start a site to funnel money towards the cause, commercials, etc?

KC, I will do whatever I can (legally) with my site....but the traffic is very small!

The anonymous GOP poster who wrote about 20 somethings is either naïve or has a hidden agenda. People in their 20ies are not to be the beneficiaries of this plan, it is designed to put tax money into Wall Street.

There is no immediate crisis in this problem, and there is no need to rush into this idea. SSI will not even start to run into the red until 2030 or so, even if Bush is to believed- and he is not.

Even Republicans are quoting the year 2016 as the earliest the boomers will begin to deplete the program. Think about it- that’s 12 years- so why the rush? This is the exact strategy they used for the Iraq War, create a crisis and then manipulate the media.

First, the AARP is a powerful lobbying group that represents one of the richest groups in the nation.
Second, Benefits SHOULD be cut for high wage earners. They don't need the money, which should be given to those who are in the lower-income brackets. Despite Democrats claim to represent these types of people, they really just sell out to "groupthink" and will not favor any idea that would actually work. Status quo keeps their stranglehold on these groups they tow along.
Third, personal savings accounts as an OPTION should be our RIGHT as Americans! It's my money, damnit, and I don't want the Government having any more of it! If I squander it all, tough titties...thats my fault.
Being the loyal opposition does not mean obstruction in the process of reforming a flawed system. It means working on areas of common interest. How about raising the retirement age, gradually, and phasing in private accounts over time for younger workers to "opt" into? I doubt Nate has ANY "COMMON SENSE" on this matter...just towing the Democratic line.

One last thing...If the beneficiaries of privatization (besides younger workers) are investment firms...is that such a bad thing? Putting money into the pocket of hard-working employees is a BAD thing?? What kind of logic is that?

I'm not sure if I follow your logic Adam. To answer your last assertion first , yes and no. I'm not a communist, so I'm all in favor of investment firms attracting new customers and everybody making money. I think that's great.

If we're going to completely gut a safety net program just so there can be some new investment through an even more flawed system is just flat out immoral.

No one is talking about denying people the right to invest for their retirement. You can invest anytime you want. And if you should lose all of the money you invested, you can always live off of Social Security. It was never meant as a get-rich-quick scheme. Just something that would keep anybody off the street and comfortable in their retirement.

IF the system is flawed, more flawed than the existing system, then yes...I can see your point. I think "flawed" needs to be defined.
My point is that my money should be controlled by me, not the federal government. Its a priniciple that Democrats don't hold to, normally, so I can understand your hesitation to privatize the system.
And yes, the Social Security System is SUPPOSED to be a safety net, but it isn't. Why? People have become dependent on it! That is the nature of welfare programs. The beneficiaries grow dependent and a "safety net" that was concocted to help Depression-era retirees is now the de-facto retirement accounts for some of the richest segments of our society. Which is why means-testing, raising the retirement age, and a private account option for younger workers would better serve the purpose of a "safety net."