Typical. You’ve skirted the issue brilliantly. You didn’t bother to address one point the OP has stated. The OP is right on target with every point made. I think your rebuttal has just sharpened the “point” in “pointless”. 
- Jinx
The ‘one point the OP has stated’ is batshit-lunacy. I would pay as much heed to some nut with a ‘The End is Near!’ sign walking around as I would to someone who honestly believes what the OP is pushing.
What the heck do you guys want? A hug? Some hot cocoa and maybe storytime? If you are afraid, then you will need to take a swig of get-the-hell-over-it, because the GOP is not going change course to suit the lunatic Left.
Kerry didn’t hit the domestic issues hard enough. The night of the 2nd debate, the DoL had just released the latest figures on the job front. I wanted to Bush tell us how being lame is good enough. Also, what about doing away with OT? Hello? Is n’t thata wake-up call to how the GOP values hard working Americans?
I mean, Bush & Co. are flat-out saying “you really don’t matter”, and we just all swallow this like it’s nothing?
I don’t get the GOP at all. Are you saying we should be proud to work for free?
The trouble is that the GOP thinks every member of “Corporate America” is a living, breathing citizen whose rights must always come first - OVER & ABOVE - the People of the USA.
The GOP conveniently forgets about the fundamental need to pay people what they’re worth. What happens when you take away their incentive to succeed? And, then, what happens to American productivity? - Jinx
If you want people to take you seriously, you need to stop fabricating things:
and creating strawmen:
and attributing stances to the GOP that can equally be attributed to the Democrats:
And then you wonder why many people don’t take seriosly those who are “absolutely terrified” of Bush?
Well, since the Republicans won, I don’t think the burden is on them to change the way they do things.
The problem with the Democrats is that they do try to be all things to all people. Every liberal on this board has a different opinion of what is the most significant problem the Democrats should address.
If we are talking about fear, my fear is that with the Democrats, my taxes will increase in order to pay for a bunch of high-minded social experiments which in the end will only be marginally effective. My concern is that in their attempts to please everyone, they will be unable to ever make a tough decision. And my biggest fear is their attitude that the richest country in the world has the ability to cover everyones expenses, be it health care, education or whatnot.
Has anyone ever suggested that Social Security be completely transitioned into an invest-for-yourself plan? As you are so fond of pointing out to me that comparing a free market with a completely controlled one is unfair to modern socialists and certainly to modern Democrats, may I point out that comparing the current system to on in which no one gets any benifits whatsoever without having saved for them himself is a bit unfair.
As I understand it, the current proposal (and no, I don’t know a great deal of the details) is to allow some people (mostly the young who will not need SS for many years) to invest up to something like 2% of the money they put into SS instead into a private investment fund. No one has ever suggested that those currently retired, those who are retiring, or even those who will retire in the near (10-20 years) future will have to make due with no safety net at all. Additionally, I don’t think anyone has suggested that even the very young should have to do without a safety net either. They are simply suggesting that there might be a better way to structure Social Security besides the way it is now.
Having said that, let me address your questions.
The overhead costs of SS are quite a bit larger than you think. You have not factored in the fact that all of the “interest” earned on SS money is basically an overhead cost. It comes straight from the general fund derived from taxes. Meanwhile, private investments can in many cases pay their own overhead funds from the profits earned through the investments.
Allow me to reiterate that no on has proposed to completely replace the social safety net with recomendations for private savings. Also, I’d like to note that the private portion of an individual’s SS contribution can be passed on to their decendants. That is, your father’s contributions, which he could not use, could have benifited you. Or perhaps even your children.
The current Social Security system has a significant long term problem. In a very few years the overage we now collect from the Social Security taxes will become a deficit. Specifically this means that we will have to begin paying back all of the SS payments we have borowed over the last several decades with interest from other revenue sources. Primarily that means higher income taxes, or a lowering of benifits. The only alternative to these is some sort of fundamental change to the current social security system. Personally, I don’t know if allowing some small private investments will accomplish this. I do believe, however, that it is at least an alternative.
I agree with you that if anyone were to propose reniging on current retirees benifits, allowing those over 25 or so to worry that no benifits would be available, or even to propose replacing completely the social safety net, even for the very young, this would represent a palpable danger. But unless I am much mistaken, these are simply political rhetoric and not at all true proposals.