« Envirokooks Kill Solar Plant in Desert Wasteland | Main | Tucson Schools to Impose Race-Based Discipline »

Dont worry they will just create more money out of thin air courtesy of the Federal Reserve.

Is this the part where I mention that if W HAD been allowed to privatize Social Security, there would be literally millions of people who lost it all?

Conservatives always say that they would 'do better with their money than the government', and privatizing SocSec would be better... but with the recent economic meltdown, hordes of people would have lost everything. Everything. In an incredibly compressed timeline, to boot.

To paraphrase David Cross, "Why not just take the entirety of our future ability to feed, clothe, and medicate ourselves, and bet it on a horse? C'mon Papa's Mustache in the 3rd!"

And that SS reform was going to cost us how much? And then end results were going to save us how much again?

Is this the part where I mention that if W HAD been allowed to privatize Social Security, there would be literally millions of people who lost it all?

You could say it, but it would be a lie. The Bush Plan would have given people who were still 20 years out from retirement the choice to put a portion of their social security confiscation into some other option.

In other words, no one would have lost anything.

Troll FAIL.

This part of the desert was part of a land trade some years ago when the Federal Government swapped a BIG CHUNK of BLM land for a little bit of old railroad property that an investor had title traded for tax credits. If memory still serves me, the SWAPPER was a gentleman who is still married to a former County of San Francisco Supervisor who now sits in the Senate of the United States for the State of California. Just can't remember why the Government did not see a conflict of interest in this transfer of wealth.

Posted by Just Sayin' at September 22, 2009 9:27 AM

Right. So what you're saying is that government interventionism in free-market economic autonomy that led to the current financial meltdown along with the coming collapse of SS, has proven to be superior to private investment into the free-market economy all along?

Conclusion: the problems government creates is made less worse by letting it continue to create more problems.

Bottom Line: neither you or I nor anyone in America are free to make our own decisions about SS.
That is the kind of thinking only a liberal could love.


The important question now is, how long can we presently go about business before the multitude of impending financial crises result in total ruin?

BO initiates protectionist tariffs which helped create a previous national depression.
A rush on gold; a previous gold rush panic helped create a previous national depression by eroding currency.
Meanwhile new currency is being printed at breakneck speed.
BO and the democrats want nationalized healthcare for reasons unrelated to healthcare; taxes and socialist programs prolonged the previous national depression.
The national debt is unmanageable and unfathomable.


Meanwhile, there are two simple and immediate solutions that a child could see: (1) Tax cuts and (2) Spending cuts---- both permanently off the table.
Lower Bottom Line: 535 legislators + one communist in the White House own this.

So the people who invested their SocSec w/ Maddoff (or in WorldCom, or in Citi, or in .... essentially anything) would have used (what, magic?) to avoid losing the same fortunes that everyone else lost?

That cash would be gone. And it wouldn't have been summer house money, or Ferrari money... it would have been prescription medication money, and rent money, and so forth.

The point of SocSec is to PREVENT such externalities as stock market crashes from creating a massive underclass of elderly Americans. It does that job well.

So it costs money. Who cares? The alternative is rampant poverty among the old folks. Which we had until the advent of SocSec. Elderlyt poverty dropped, what, like 70% after SS was instituted?

This is more of the delightful conservative "Well, it isn't me, so fuck 'em" mindset.

Misanthropic whiners content to watch people suffer... yeah, that sounds like the conservative movement to me.

Obammunsim is insane, until you realize, he intends the enslave America with debt so high it can never be repaid. Pay back to whitey.

Can I opt out of it now? Can they stop stealing the money from my paycheck now? Please?

Nope, Paul. You can't opt out, and the system will be bankrupt long before you or I can collect from it. We'll never get back the money that was taken from us. But our idiot leftist trolls think it's a great deal.

Yep, they never mention that the Bush would have limited private accounts to 20% and it would have been invested in approved mutual funds. Leaving the remaining 80% invested in worthless government bonds. Of course now 100% of our Social Security is invested in soon to be worthless government bonds. Demobots only like choice when it comes to killing babies, not where 20% of their social security money goes. In times when stocks are low, like now, that the time to start something like this.

How come Congress and federal employees are not part of Social Security if its so great. They can select from a menu of stock funds, bonds and money markets. The proles arent supposed to ask questions like that. Hint: Its the same reason Congress wouldnt be part of National Healthcare either.

In times when stocks are low, like now, that the time to start something like this.

Very true. But the only thing a dumb leftist knows about economics is "The Government should take money away from other people and give it to me."

For this deaf, blind and extraordinary dumb Anonymous liberal:

Private investment of social security tax under Bush was to be optional and partial. That is, you can cling to the government (non-existent) SS fund throughout your entire dependent adult ('working') life if you want.
But for individuals who want the freedom to invest at least part of their extorted taxes, in their own personally-picked funds, government would grant that freedom.

I would wager that anyone exercising the option of investing in the free market, would understand the risk, even before the forced-government-education program that would be sure to come.

Under Bush's SS privatization program, it possibly may have occurred that newly-energized investors may have discovered mutual funds, investment houses or instruments, commodities (gold) or markets that would have increased the value of their portfolios over the time that the hypothetical SS "fund" falters and dies. Or that a bulk of new investment in the market would have created new investment opportunities. Or that new investment may have encouraged new entrepreneurship. OR that new investment may have launched a tax revolution once dividends were realized (the REAL reason House democrats opposed it). Of course, we will never know the answers thanks to liberal fools.

Let me say explicitly what you're actually saying here, Foul-Mouth: Without your protection, low-minded Americans would gamble away their tax dollars in a fixed, back-alley dice game, 'cause "yassah...baby done need new pair o shoos."

Let me point out that once investors realized the potential for capital gains from newly restored investment funds, they would likely demand more freedom to invest. That was the liberal democrat's worse nightmare and with the media's help and the voter's head in the TV set, they managed to stop it cold.

And they stopped it cold by... what was it again? Oh yeah, fear and misinformation, that was it. Once again, when you want to see what the leftards are doing, just look at what they accuse us of.

The point of SocSec is to PREVENT such externalities as stock market crashes from creating a massive underclass of elderly Americans. It does that job well.

Apparently you've never heard of this thing called a bank, where you put your money and get a consistent yield. You're essentially saying that everyone would have taken that money (that got confiscated for SS) and put it in the stock market. Because of this, you are dumb, evidently.

Some would have invested but the smart people would have put that money into something that is stable, consistent, and yields predictable outcomes.

So it costs money. Who cares?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the liberal mindset better than anything I could ever write. Their entire philosophy of government in six words.

Social Security would've even be in trouble if the big government Congresses from the 1960s to the 1990s hadn't stolen all of the actual money in the trust fund. Isn't it terribly convenient that the moonbats always forget to qualify their bankruptcy fearmongering with this very obvious fact?

Anonymous at September 22, 2009 6:23 PM


Yes it is.
But teaching basic economic principles to liberals is like trying to explain particle physics to a sidewalk.