Sunday, February 06, 2005

Ownership, Shmownership

I have three RSS feeds as "Live Bookmarks" along the bookmark toolbar in Firefox: OSNews, Slashdot, and the Mises Economics Blog. Via the Mises Blog, I found this little gem on CBS Marketwatch:

The surprising thing about the private investment accounts proposed as a Social Security reform and considered a hallmark of an ownership society is that they'll likely leave account owners with little direct control.


BWAH-HA-HA-HA.

BWAH-HA-HA-HA.

BWAH-HA-HA-HA.

BWAH-HA-HA-HA.

BWAH-HA-HA-HA.

Ahem. Who in their right minds thought that Bush was doing anything productive with Social Security? Do you really think the Emperor is going to fix the problems when the government is the problem?

Wake up, people!

5 Comments:

At 3:21 PM, Blogger Jen said...

I heard that, too. Isn't that ridiculous?! As a lawyer, Geraldo Rivera read it and said that it's more complicated than social security.

 
At 4:35 PM, Blogger The Chainik Hocker said...

*gasps*

*falls out of chair in horror*

Ya mean something associated with government is overly complicated and covered in needless red tape?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tells ya!

So what, it's still a better deal than the Dems want to give you.

:P

The way I figure it, there will be absolutely NO money for me, Ipcha, The Kid, the Spousal Unit, and the LibYid when we want to retire, as our parents' generation will have eaten it all.

Way to go, rents. You gave us bell bottoms, disco, Vietnam, the Kennedys, and you took all our Social Security- thanks a lot. When you use up all my Social Security, I'm going to consider sticking you in a home.

Seriously, though, while I only give private accounts a small outside chance of succeding, the way things are going, there will be ABSOLUTELY NO money for us when we get to be 65, or 75, or 105, or whatever they raise the retirement age to. With private accounts, we at least get a fighting chance of having enough cash for a case of Depends and some enourmous pants.

Which is better than nothing, and nothing is what the Democrats want to do about the problem.

Ahh, you say, but the government has no business interfearing in retirement at all!

True, but face facts- anyone who says something like "The government should get out of the riterment business" has no chance of getting anyone but you, Jen, and some guys from Idaho with skinny sideburns and huge belt buckles to vote for them, as Badnarik discovered.

You can't govern if you don't win, lesser of two evils, and all that.

 
At 6:36 PM, Blogger Yid said...

"Seriously, though, while I only give private accounts a small outside chance of succeding, the way things are going, there will be ABSOLUTELY NO money for us when we get to be 65, or 75, or 105, or whatever they raise the retirement age to. With private accounts, we at least get a fighting chance of having enough cash for a case of Depends and some enourmous pants."

It has no chance of succeeding, specifically because it's NOT private! It's still socialism, and socialism always fails, CH!

Private accounts is me taking money out of my paycheck and putting it away for a rainy day. What Bush proposes is just shifting the current situation around, effectively accomplishing nothing except fooling people into thinking he's doing something good.

 
At 1:16 PM, Blogger JamesEJ said...

The one positive change is that personal accounts will provide account holders with a right to the account's contents. Today, Social Security "accounts" provide holders with no rights. It will be a small change for the better.

 
At 1:23 PM, Anonymous GUYK said...

Hi everyone. I run across this blog while surfing through some others. I would like to throw in my two cents for what it is worth and everyone knows two cents is not worth much!

Social security as we know it today is a ponzi scheme at best. I am 63 years old and statred to get a 'socialable' security check last year. I feel fortuante that there was any left for me to get!

I paid social security for some fifty years before I ever saw a dime in return. I may or may not live long enough to collect what I paid in, especially if one compares thee amount paid with what I could have had in cash if the money had been saved with even an average of two percent coumpound interest.

The program as set up was not all that bad. It was referred to as a social security insurance and as with all insurances it was a method of sharing risk-in this case for a retirement benifit. Those who paid in and croaked before being old enough to receive benifits help pay for the benifits of those who were fortunate enough not to croak to early in life!

The general shaft came when the social security fund excess becamee part of the general fund. Politcians just have this thing about money. If tthere is any way to get some to spend they do it. Worse than a kid with a dollar burning a hole in a pocket. Now we are in one hell of a shape. To continue this madness means either raising payroll taxes-which the politicians will spend, or when the notes come due reaininng income taxes to redeem them. Either way it is money out of your pocket.

I don't know if Bush and private accounts are the right idea or not. I am a small el libertarian and a conservative republican. I generally mistrust government on damn near anything it touches. This is no different. SOmething needs to be done and private accounts makes sense-but who will control them? What is the option for those who do not want privte accounts? Will there be (and maybe the question is should there be) any safty nets for those who are just to damn stupid to save or lose big time in their private accounts?

If I knew the answers I would run for office instead of hiding from my wife. Take care all and thanks for letting me spend my two cents.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home