Your analogy makes NO SENSE, CSB. I was teaching at a college in Texas that had ALSO opted out of SS when this happened. When I left, I had over $15K in this account–after 5 years of contributing–and used part of it to pay for the adoption of our daughter, which I WOULDN’T have had access to under SS.


Again Dave, you are looking at SS in micro terms. You cannot apply that success at the macro level and it have a positive effect on the economy overall.

Going back to my quote:

Under your privatization proposal, the government would reduce Social Security payments and the employees would put that money into the stock market.”

Steve: “Yes, about $100 per month, and only into approved, high quality stocks.”

Warren: “OK, and the US Treasury would have to issue and sell additional securities to cover the reduced revenues.”

Steve: “Yes, and it would also be reducing Social Security payments down the road.”

Warren: “Right. So to continue with my point, the employees buying the stock buy them from someone else, so all the stocks do is change hands. No new money goes into the economy.”

Steve: “Right”

Thus, privatization won’t add any new money to the economy, if someone benefits it’s because someone else loses. The losses will come in the form of increased deficits, something you claim is untenable.

Now if that’s what you want, then great, but not sure how that helps in the macro sense.


It suddenly becomes clear. YOU are one of those people who think that for anyone to prosper, someone else must suffer, which is ridiculous on its face. The world economy is NOT a finite “pie” in which when one person gains a larger slice, someone else loses part of theirs.


No Dave, that’s not what I believe, however, the pie can only increase at a given rate over a period of time.

Let’s say growth is equal to 3% over a given period.

The top 20% sees growth of 5% then using simply math we know that 2% of the 5% earned by the top had to come from the other 80% thus the bottom 80% would see negative growth of -2%.


Oh, BS. Where is it written that growth has ANY specific rate? Don’t you understand that the invention of the steam engine EXPLODED the world’s wealth? How about learning how to tan hides? How about the invention of the airplane or internal combustion engine? How about the discovery of human-generated fire, for that matter? Now we have the invention of the personal computer which has done the same thing. I daresay that the inventors prospered, but so did everyone else who USES one or has anything to do with finding and producing the materials from which computers are made, building the components that go into one, developing the software that they use or packaging and shipping them. My I-Phone has more computing power in something I carry in a pocket by several orders of magnitude than the original 11-ton Univac.


If the previous doom and gloom post is true, why did African-American and Hispanic unemployment reach record lows after Trump reduced regulations and lowered personal and corporate income taxes? These conditions provide support for overall increases wages from the natural forces of supply and demand. Artificial actions by government, like the $15 per hour minimum wage, reduce the opportunities for first job applicants, increased pressure to invest in job elimination devices and reduce the number of jobs offered overall.


I don’t know what a good solution is. Privatization proposals out there now may suck. I think any solution probably sucks. We’ve been propping up a house of cards. By the time I retire, your third bullet point will be the case as it stands now. And I won’t have invested any of that money in alternative stocks.

But your argument overall is that Social Security exists, and partial privatization is little different at the macro level. OK. It’s still failing. It’s still poorly structured. If it did not exist, I would have a lot more options and much better returns.

But that’s the crux of the problem. Those who paid into it all their lives rightly expect to get something back for it. That turns people like PappaDave into defenders of the system and react poorly to those of us who call it welfare. So, we gotta keep it around. Until we can’t, which is about the time I retire.

Well, OK. You’ve made a lot of claims around race, but the conversation has turned on very little. Which makes the raginess you’ve displayed about it kind of pointless – just raginess.


BS. There is simply no such thing as “systematic racism against black people in America,” unless, of course, you’re referring to the racism of diminished expectations demonstrated daily, weekly, yearly by the Democrats. According to them, black people are:

(1) Too inept or too stupid to get a picture ID proving who they are and where they live.
(2) Too ignorant to succeed in business and therefore FORCED to live in poverty because of their race.
(3) Unfairly targeted by the police, despite the fact that they, by FAR, commit most personal and property crimes given their small percentage of the total American population.
(4) MUST have Democrat “help” in order to survive.


Works in Chile; you just include a rule that “You are promised X amount by X date”

If market performance doesn’t give you that, the Government pays you the difference.

And yes, privatization is better. Not only is the load off the Government most years for paying out benefits, you’re allocating decisions back to the consumer. If people want to buy Government debt, they can, and if people want to instead by stocks, they can.

Privatization leads to better allocation at the level of the consumer. Small people who were forced to buy Government bonds before, no longer have to, but can now diversify their portfolio and become benefactors of its growth.

For small time consumers, you don’t need a lot of growth to see a big benefit, at their level.

Investors-class people who buy up more bonds to make up the difference, isn’t the same action. Not even at the macro level; because those people have always had diversified portfolios.


Remove the access to those who didn’t pay into it.


Phase it out altogether, along with a crapload of other government-controlled financial mismanagements. Especially Congressman salaries.


Certainly, but you have to pay out to every person who has contributed until they are “graveyarded” out.


That combined with your previous post (an unwillingness to stop providing this form of welfare) is why it can’t change and why CSB is probably correct about the privatization schemes in play.


You fail to understand his point: his point is that your money isn’t your money, it’s the governments money, and the government may occasionally generously allow you to use some of it’s money if you’re a good little slave…


Given what we’ve seen of voters, it doesn’t surprise me to see them cheering the government on with what amounts to a glorified ponzi scheme.


With as much as it’s been raided and as huge as the national debt is, I doubt this is even possible. What I imagine will happen is a status quo until the whole economic house of cards collapses, and everyone is out everything.


Bring it on, I need some company in that boat…


I hate submarines that are made from regular ships through the use of torpedoes…


Is that what happened? I thought the air seemed awfully thick…


The whole Democrat / Progressive agenda is nothing but a Ponzi scheme. Everybody gets all the free stuff they want or need, including free college and medical care. Nobody need do any work unless they feel like it, and all the goods and services we enjoy will magically appear, in environmentally friendly forms, of course. Not even Ponzi could make that happen for very long.