Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

15 thoughts on “The Real Reason Why Democrats Do Not Want To Privatize Social Security

  1. janbrown

    “Risk”? We take a ‘risk’ at almost every turn we make. However, allowing social security to remain as it is does guarantee it will go broke! If a road leads off a cliff, shall we stay on it?
    G.W. Bush had plans to consider privatizing social security when interrupted by 9/11 & Katrina.It was acknowelged that there is not a ‘one size fits all’ & options of participation levels would be available.
    Bona fide investement advisors have ‘no risk’ plans.

    Those that are willing to take responsibility for their own future will at least consider this, those that depend on government won’t.

    1. Chris Vaca

      I agree Jan, History has shown that the stock market is the best place for long term growth. Yes it has it’s ups and downs but for the long term investor there is no better place.

    2. janbrown

      To be dependent or Independent are the choices as I see it. Frankly I’d rather my free will guide ‘my’ future than leaving it to others. In discussions I am rather taken back by those that argue against privatizing & yet endorse 401K’s that are obstensivly mutual funds. I won’t let people just reach in my purse when they ruyn out of cash…so why let Congress?

  2. Jay

    If the privatized social security system is so good in those countries, then why has the GFC destroyeed the pensions of people living in those countries?

    1. Chris Vaca Post author

      Chile privatized their system over 30 years ago and things are working out very well. You can’t argue with success.

      1. Jerry Peters

        Chris, I have been in favor of privatizing S.S. for years it just makes sense to me. We need to keep government away from our money.

      2. Jay

        The Chilean pension system lost an estimated $21 billion due to the GFC in 2008 – nearly 1/3 of its total.

        The Australian pension system, in comparison, lost an estimated $430 billion due to the GFC.

        You can’t argue with success, but you can show how a market indexed privatized pension scheme loses money for individuals whenever the market crashes.

        1. Chris Vaca

          Jay we are obviously reading different facts. Chile has had a 15 year run of an average of 12% growth. You are obviously a person who is afraid to handle your own money and think the government can do a better job. I say let me be in charge of my money. I work for it ,I earn it, I should be in charge of it.

          1. Jay

            To use an average as a methodology is just that, average. The average caloric intake per person in the world shows that nobody is starving either. It’s a very superficial way of looking at any statistics.

            “Chile has had a 15 year run of an average of 12% growth.”

            Qualify your statement. 12% growth is good for GDP, bad for waistlines, and astonishing for crops. Though if your facts state that there has been a 15 year run of an average of 12% growth verbatim, then yes, we are indeed reading different facts and for that I am glad.

            “You are obviously a person who is afraid to handle your own money and think the government can do a better job.”

            I obviously hit a nerve here to elicit a the double-barrel personal attack and strawman fallacy here.

            I’m saying that your ideal is not quite as pretty once you look beneath the surface – though it takes more than mere ideology to look at the economics behind it. If an opinion that differs from your own is too difficult for you to read without starting a personal attack then you may have an anger management problem.

        2. Chris Vaca

          You obviously have a very low definition of anger, there was no anger in anything I said. If you are the type of person that would rather have Government haldle your money, you should not be ashamed of that, there are plenty of people like that. There are also people like myself that would rather handle our own. To each there own.

          1. Jay

            I said that if you can’t respond to a differing opinion without making a personal attack you may have an anger management problem. I didn’t say your reply had an angry tone. I didn’t accuse you of being angry. I just noted that a defensive attitude to such things may indicate an anger management problem.

            “If you are the type of person that would rather have Government haldle your money, you should not be ashamed of that, there are plenty of people like that.”

            This is not what is being discussed. I have made no statement on my personal values regarding this issue at all.
            If you are the type of person who cannot keep on a topic, you should not try to personalize issues and make accusatory statements in order to avoid addressing the issues which have been raised, you should simply avoid public discussions.

            Now would you care to reply to any of the issues raised in my previous comments, or would you prefer to keep on misrepresenting my words and avoid making a meaningful response?

        3. Chris Vaca

          Jay, my facts tell me that privatizing retirement accts.have been nothing but a benefit for all that participate in them. Many of them have a government minimum guarantee of a certain % say 4%. All in all the biggest benefit I see with privatizing S.S. here is getting governments hands off our money.

          1. Jay

            Care to share your facts?

            The problem with “getting government hands off our money” is that when it is invested in the stock market it is an inherently political act as it will favor specific companies over others.

            If the largest companies who consistently post profit (say, the fortune 500 companies…) are getting a large percent of financial support from this investment they will have more lobbying power and more influence over politics in general.

            Consider that if some of these companies lobbied enough, they may be able to influence whether or not legislation is passed. When a bill like the Senate Bill s510 becomes law, it will benefit companies such as Monsanto and Wal-Mart as people will not be allowed to grow any of their own food without breaking the law. The money that was invested in these companies through privatized SS money still influences politics and may be more dangerous to our liberties than if the government had to have a stream of income tax being directed to SS.

        4. Chris Vaca

          Jay, Bill s510 is a perfect example of how government has grown way to big.I have read stories of people being arrested for having a garden in their yards. I am 100% for small government. it controls too much of our lives. A choice between big government and big business, I will take big business any day of the week.

Comments are closed.