Here is a good reason privatizing Social Security would be bad

[Green_Lantern]

Repubs say people should be able to take the money they put into SS and invest it as they see fit. Basically we'd be giving them a bundle of money and hoping they'll invest it.

We can predict what will happen by looking at people who suddenly win the lottery.

"One-third of lottery winners find themselves in serious financial trouble or bankrupt within five years" according to this article from the Eagle Tribune http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1876402353/Cash-windfall-can-lead-to-downfall

If people are allowed to take money out of SS I'm sure the majority would end up spending the money especially now in the recession. An after this is squandered then what? Are we going to let them starve or work full time until they're 95?

Repubs will argue that grown people need to take responsibility and invest wisely but this isn't about responsibility, it's about human nature which is to want to enjoy short term benefits without caring about the long term.

Forcing people to pay into SS forces them to prepare for the long term because it'd be a nightmare if govt. based policy on satisfying just short term desires.

[mrcheerful]

1. Look no farther then the 401 K scam to see proof of what happens when the average worker is

allowed to decide how he saves for retirement.

[Green_Lantern]

2. and that's if the money is even invested...I think many would

Spend the money or pay off credit debt.

[Blue Meany]

3. Interesting idea, let's see how that might play out...

As it is, most *private* retirement accounts are required by law to invest only in Wall-street products like mutual funds. If you have some control over it, it is only to determine what percentage goes into what kind of fund(s). You cannot invest, for example, in a specific business. And you have to pay hefty management fees for the funds' investment decisions, even if you are losing money. This is the nature of the bulk of tax-sheltered retirement funds that are provided by employers and which you may pay into. Supplemental IRAs may allow you to purchase stock in specific businesses, but only those that are big enough to be on the stock markets. You can set up a a self-directed IRA, but this this requires setting up your investment company and putting your money into it.

Of the three options listed above, which are the one's you would expect the Republicans to use for Social Security:
1) invest only in Wall-Street products 2) invest only in Wall-Street products and big businesses 3) invest wherever you want.
I'm guessing that they will go for options 1 or 2, as a way of keeping the buddies flush with other people's money to run their businesses. And I'm sure we will do really well with these investments <sarcasm>.

But wait, Social Security is not a retirement fund at all; it is an insurance program. Perhaps they will offer us a choice of "investing" our SS taxes in one of several privately owned insurance companies, who will manage the investments and distributions for us, the same way they manage our health care expenses. What could go wrong with that? After all, private companies can do anything the government can do faster, better, and cheaper and still make an enormous profit <sarcasm>.

[Green_Lantern]

4. it seems like most Tea party Republicans don't want the govt.

Taking money from them in the form of SS so I'm assuming they'd go with your option C.

I doubt they'd support a requirement for them to invest it.

[mrcheerful]

5. Because after all tea baggers are very well known for their math skills

just look at their numbers for any tea bag event, professionals tally the number of people by square foot come up with a figure of 80,000 tea baggers look at close up pictures of the same event and claim there was 80 million at their event. Yep, that type of math should help them very well on figuring out how much they have to retire on. Why in just 5 years they will be able to retire to their dream world and live like Bill Gates.