OpinionTrending Commentary

The Real Reason Why Democrats Do Not Want To Privatize Social Security

What do Great Britain, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Russia and Chile have in common? They all have privatized their Social Security Systems. While the people in those countries enjoy a 9% – 12% return on their money, we in this country enjoy a 1% – 5% return on our money, who is better off? As a matter of fact, a total of more than 30 countries have gone the way of privatizing their retirement systems, also, the people of Chile have enjoyed an average of 12% over the past 15 years, so sign me up for that program.

So why can we not do that in this country? Because the Democrats have been fighting against privatizing Social Security for decades.  Social Security advocates have long fought their case for continuation of the program with phony claims that workers could count on safety and a decent return on their money. (Notice they say a decent return, not good or great, but decent.) Now that the truth is known, privatization ought to be a no-brainer, but who ever said politicians had brains anyway.

The Democrats say it is for the betterment of the American people. But the truth is that politicians have been using the Social Security System as their own ATM account for years. Money that was supposed to be in a “Lock Box” has been drained for years by greedy politicians. Whenever money is needed for whatever, they hit Social Security and just throw in an I.O.U., which we all know, will never be repaid, it is safe to assume that there are more I.O.U.’s than money in that “Lock Box.”

Taking away the Golden Goose is not what politicians want to see happen, so they will use the “We only want to protect the American people” speech, which we know is just a lot of crap. Protecting their money source is one of their main priorities. If politicians did not have money for their pork projects, just think of how much better off we would be. With all those countries having so much success with privatizing their funds, why are we not allowed to do that here, after all, it is supposed to be OUR MONEY, not the politicians.

During the presidential primaries, the Governor of Texas Rick Perry was criticized for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, but he was absolutely right. The people working today, are the ones paying for the retirees Social Security, that my friends is a Ponzi scheme. Now, where is the money that the retirees put in so many years ago? Who knows, you can call Washington, but I am sure they will not know either.

Of course, there are your doom and gloomers who say it is still too risky, that’s fine, for them. I’ll tell you this, if I was 20 years old, just starting out, I would choose to opt-out of Social Security. Choice is what we should have with our money, not be forced to hand it over to Washington, so that they can do with it what they see fit to do, which is waste it. The reason why Government cannot manage money is because they just do not care, it is not their money and they do not have to answer to anyone, so they just go on spending.

Social Security is only one of the many programs that need to be privatized, as far as I am concerned, the less the Government sticks it hands into things, the better off we will all be. Governments on every continent have sold off state-owned assets to private investors in recent decades. Airports, railroads, energy utilities, roads, bridges, prisons and many other assets have been privatized. The privatization revolution has overthrown the belief widely held that governments should own the most important industries in the economy. Privatization has generally led to reduced costs, higher-quality services, and increased innovation in formerly dying government industries. Just look at how well the Post Office is being run.

The government has shown itself to be a failure at providing efficiency and high quality in services such as air traffic control, T.S.A. These industries are too important to miss out on the innovations that private entrepreneurs could bring to them, just think how much safer we would be, plus we would be treated like persons instead of cattle, as we are now.

This is one man’s opinion.

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Related Articles


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

      1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

  2. “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. 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. 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?

Back to top button