Is there a legit argument for privatization of social security?

@MarkPaul @MarkPaul You talk like you are not older than 25! For many many years there were pensions for all workers. Now there isn't but there is 401K, and Roth IRAS, and retirement plans, and of course social security. Many like my own Mom, had millions in retirenment investments and lost it all 2008, so You can try to live for money and save and be a millionaire but you can lose it in a lawsuit, in a fire, in an accident, in the market crash etc. A good country that don't want homeless and high crime must take care of their young, the old, and the sick. At least that is the country I want to live in. And God will take care of us I believe if we love him he has promised ! But he also want us to care for those who can't take care of their own or themselves!

@MarkPaul As the nation became more industrial, there were pensions for plant workers and large corporate workers, that left the farmers, the mom and pop business owners, those with no corporate connection, with nothing if they stopped working. Spouses who had been housewives instead of in the work force. Social security was supposed to take care of those people.

As far as the corruption goes, the government takes money from everyone to return to those of a certain age and need. So, if the politicians have that money to protect it for future use but they spend it on other things, to me that seems pretty clear for a case of corruption. The people that were falling on hard times when social security started weren't necessarily lacking in discipline, they just never had an opportunity to invest and not enough to save for a retirement, that just wasn't the way things were done in that time.

Today, it might be a different story because there are so many immature people who expect the government to pick them up if they fall. Personal responsibility and a desire to make it on your own doesn't seem to be as prevalent as it used to be. I would much rather have the ability to invest the money that the government confiscates from me than to have them take it and spend it on pork barrel projects and then tell me there isn't anything left for me.

At some point personal responsibility has to become a part of life. People need to be held accountable for their actions. Everything that happens in our society today is "somebody else's fault". A kid bashes another kid, it was because he played video games or saw it on WWE Raw. Drug use, it is someone else's fault he got hooked on heroin, it is someone else's fault she got into prostitution. It is someone else's fault that someone would rather quit school and sit down on the avenue getting high than try to learn a trade or educate themselves to be a productive member of society. I am going to be able to retire at 60 because I worked my tail off and didn't count on the government to bail me out if life got too hard.

@Roadsterrider But, that's really my point. I am not railing against social security, the government, or corporations. "Many people" don't seem to have the discipline to save for the future, favouring to live in the moment exclusively instead.

Of course there are exceptions; people have setbacks through no fault of their own (medical emergencies, etc.), but it seems far more people spend all the money they do have today under the premise of living their lives to the fullest choosing not to realize acquiring more stuff, cruises, restaurant meals, etc. means diminishing their lives later. So, while the idea of privatizing social security seems attractive to those of us with self-discipline, at best it's a theoretical social experiment that can't work in practical terms unless we are willing to accept throngs of starving old people who claim they are victims, conveniently leaving out... victims through their own actions and poor choices.

@MarkPaul I am railing against the government. They have done a poor job, broken their word and stolen from every person who has ever contributed to social security.

Why don't people see a need for saving for retirement? Because "social security is there for me." They assume they can do nothing and when they get old, social security and medicare will be there for them. The government has assumed that responsibility.

Any change will be painful, in 2015, Mitt Romney said that 47% of the people in this country are receiving public assistance and were unreachable by conservatives. What happens when it is 51%, a conservative candidate won't be able to win an election at all, and sooner or later liberals run out of other peoples money. People who don't plan for their future are like baby birds. Some leap from the nest and soar, some leap from the nest and fall to the ground but with a little coaching they fly, and a few get caught by the cat. If we don't fix the welfare(government will provide) mentality, the cat will get us all except for the wealthier people who can leave the country and preserve what they have.

We have poor and homeless in this country, some because they had a health or financial crisis and fell on hard times, a great many have addictions and just aren't ready to get treatment. Some, just don't want to deal with the responsibility of a job and a house. I was doing volunteer work for a homeless shelter, there was a group of guys talking about how cold it was going to get, 20s and 30s mid winter. I asked why they weren't going in the shelter where they could have a warm bed for the night. They can't use or drink in the shelter so it was better to stay outside. I don't want to see anyone starve or freeze but if they won't help themselves, I don't know what to do about them. At some point they have to be responsible for themselves.

@Roadsterrider How is this the government's fault? As far as I can tell, social security is still paying out... as promised. You don't seem to want to acknowledge the role each individual has as well, using social security as a supplement as it was intended.

@MarkPaul The original idea was for social security to be maintained by itself, instead it was placed in the general fund and spent, that is mismanagement no matter how you cut it. If I take money from someone for a service and spend it on something else, it is a criminal action, but the government does it routinely. Social security wasn't a supplement to a pension, it was a pension administered by the government for people who didn't have a pension through their employer. Every election we hear how the program will soon run out of money unless they raise the amount taxed. It is always a crisis because they have spent what was there and have to blame something.

@Roadsterrider You are mixing up your emotional desire with factual data. Social security was NEVER EVER intended to be a pension for people without a pension through an employer. That was never even part of the program in design, intent, or practice. INSTEAD, it was intended to provide a base level of economic security for all Americans (including those who had company provided pensions). Over the decades, the program was expanded to cover more conditions that extended beyond the original intent, but it never was funded, treated, or presented as a pension program. That is historical fact.

Has the government used social security funds to pay for other government programs? Yes. In recent years, did the government reduce Social Security taxes, temporarily, in an attempt to minimize the after-effects of a economic recession? Yes, in both the Bush and Obama Administrations. And, that has all happened with the complicity of the majority of American taxpayers... which gets back to the lack of discipline most people have with planning for their futures.

@MarkPaul "The Social Security program was intended to be—and still is today—a social insurance program. It's a government-run program providing economic security to U.S. citizens. The 1935 Act provided for "old age," or retirement, benefits, aid to dependent children, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance."
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/social-security/social-security-basics/social-security-why-it-was-created-and-how-it-works.html


You can also read FDRs own words about a guaranteed source of income for the elderly, infirm and unemployed.

@Roadsterrider Well, that's [u]a lot[/u] different than what you originally posted:

[quote]Social security wasn't a supplement to a pension, it was a pension administered by the government for people who didn't have a pension through their employer. [/quote]

I'm glad to see you put in some amount of effort to do some research. Now, hopefully you will use the information you have gained in your arguments going forward.

@MarkPaul I look for information myself and ask my own questions, I am not a CNN or FOX sound bite guy. I don't consider this type of discussion an argument, it is my opinion based on the facts I have uncovered.

@Roadsterrider But, you gave misinformation and you were misinformed in your original post, as I noted for you.

@MarkPaul My original post was a question, the numbers are from my social security account and from my 401. The total contribution to my 401 is 6% from me and 6% from my employer, social security gets 7.5% from me and 7.5% from my employer, part of the 15% is for medicare but the total for social security is still greater than my 401 contribution. I will definitely fall into the category where my social security is taxable, and the rest is my opinion based on my circumstances. You will have to be a little more clear on what I was misinformed about.

@Roadsterrider I laid it all out for you in the prior post where I quoted (gray block) what you said. Just scroll up and the answer is within your reach.

@MarkPaul I don't think I am incorrect in calling it or comparing it to a pension, everyone from FDR to today called it a guaranteed income for retirees. That is a pension. You pay into a pension, you pay into social security. There may be a better word for it but pension is adequate.

@Roadsterrider Except it is NOT a pension. And, calling it one because you think that is an "adequate" thing to do is part of the problem. It would be like you calling water, food, and then complaining that water was not giving you the nutrients you expect to get from food.

Originally, you claimed social security was intended to be a pension for those who were not getting an employer-provided pension. NO! That's not what it is... or ever was.

If you are too lazy to understand the program in the first place, you don't really have an entitled right to discuss what you think is wrong with it.

@MarkPaul I am required to pay into it and receive a benefit when I retire. They may not call it a pension but that is the bill it fills.

As far as being lazy, you don't know the first thing about me, wouldn't recognize me if you saw me so your opinion of me personally is of no great value. This is still America where a different opinion is allowed, liberals are trying to change that but have not achieved that goal yet. If you must resort to name calling instead of an adult discussion I will consider that we disagree on the subject and it is closed.

@Roadsterrider Calm down, tough guy. When you don't take the time to research your feelings and instead, present your feelings as fact, that is laziness. You can choose to be insulted by that diagnosis, you can't rant and rave, and/or you can shut down, childishly. But, you can't make up your facts in a fantasy world of one and expect the rest of the world to follow along. You just can't.