Up until now, many Libs have been resistant to the idea of privitizing Social Security, insisting that the stock market is not a safe place to be. Yet, they like to point to the speculative bubble years under Clinton as an acheivement, and insist that things will be better once Bush is gone. Let's assume that the world spins off it's axis and this actually occurs (must boil hands), why would the Libs fight against privitization instead of supporting higher taxes and longer retirement to prop up the system?
Anybody who is receiving SS now or who hopes to receive SS in the future should resist the Republicans' deceptive privatization schemes with every fiber of his/her being. In 2005 the SS budget surplus was $171.8 Billion, up from $156 Billion the year before. The SS trust fund now stands at over $2.0 trillion as a result of surpluses resulting from the Clinton-Gore economic miracle of the 1990's.
Republican propoganda for privatization is based upon extremely pessimistic projections of what might happen 40+ years from now. Over the past 10 years or so, only the optimistic projections by the SS trustees have been accurate. Given the Bush administration's consistent failure to predict budget deficits accurately even 1 year in advance, no voter should place any credibility in any SS privatization scheme concocted by BushCo.
The cost of administering SS is almost exactly 1.0% of the amount paid out. Mutual funds have expenses of 0.5% to 3% per year. Add on the administrative expense of maintaining private accounts, you will understand why any privatization scheme will be MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than our existing SS system.
SS has not missed paying a check in its entire existence. Why monkey around with SS when it has a perfect record? The stock market's record is less than perfect as exemplified by the downtturns of 2001-2004, 1987, 1929-1937, ad infinitum. What more information do you need to be convinced that the only threat to SS is the Republicans' screwball privatization schemes?
Thanks for the history lesson. How about the future? You know, when the baby boomers start collecting SS? When that happens the only way to pay for SS going forward will be with increased taxes. But that's OK with you libdem's, right? That's preferable to looking for a solution that avoids tax increases, right?
BTW, there is no cash in the SS trust fund...all IOU's. Try spending that "$2.0 trillion" without raising taxes.
Actually, asshole, if your ability to comprehend was beyond the fourth grade level, you would understand that I don't want ANY increases in ANY taxes to pay for the future SS shortfall. It needs fixed NOW!