......while they scream and decry "Big Business", "Big Pharma", and Wall Street "Greed" they would crawl across hot coals to give more control to Big Government.

It makes no sense.

Especially when it's the government that's truly screwing them... and us. Blame everyone else when the real problem slips right under their nose.

Richie: You know as well as I do there IS a 'trust fund' - just not one in the way you, me or anyone else normally thinks of it.

There IS a ledger out there with all the FICA taxes coming in and all the benefits going out. For decades, the excess was placed into T-Bills. Those T-Bills, the ones owned by the Social Security Administration, were (and are) the 'trust fund'. Now there's not enough FICA coming in to cover the benefits going out - we knew this was going to happen when the baby boomers started retiring and it's been aggravated by the increase in lifespans and different benefit programs.

Roosevelt specifically designed Social Security this way to make it more unassailable - he wanted a separate tax so that it would be far harder to play with. He wanted it completely separate form the Federal budget. It wasn't until LBJ, if memory serves, that the government started using FICA surpluses to mask the true size of the deficit (I want to say it was because of the increasing costs of the Vietnam War but my memory could be fuzzy on that).

Excellent points RichieLion!
PLUS...I was just pointing out that no one had a choice to pay into SS or not. It is and was a SCAM. The answer is NOT to call those who collect "socialists" NOR is the answer to cut their income. I have only about 7 years until retirement...I would be thrilled at this point to be able to opt out and invest on my own. No one likes me and cares enough about my future as much as I do! We can't even say "it was good while it lasted", but lets cut the loss and give the American youth back the freedom to decide their own future.

Katz, you said you have about 7 years until retirement. That would put you in your 50's - and you are a pretty savvy person as demonstrated by your writings.

Do you honestly feel as though the workers just starting out in the workforce would actually save on their own from each paycheck for a retirement account and manage it well enough to have a comfortable retirement?

Personallly, I believe that they would not save in a retirement account and would realize when they are in their late 40's or so that they had better start - and by retirement age would have very little saved for retirement income to last the rest of their lives. Of course, this is not 100% of the people but a good percentage - in my opinion.

At that time, without money to come in automatically each month, would you expect the Federal or State government to give you the money you need for shelter, food, clothing, etc or would you say it is your fault and accept living under a bridge in a refrigerator carton?

Under the privatizing plan that was introduced by President George W. Bush that was subsequently much maligned by knee-jerk liberals, a portion of an employees Social Security deduction could have been designated by said employee, if he chose to, to be invested in approved funds. This would have taken that money out of the hands of government and into the auspices of private investments. (Gee, I wonder why Democrats hated this idea)

(A worker who trusted the government more than private enterprise, like maybe you, could have opted to stay in the current system.)

The dedicated investment plan, if chosen, would have stayed the property of the worker to invest as he saw fit, within government guidelines, and with the added advantage of being able to be passed down to his heirs in the future.

That would have addressed your fears Buggy.

Richie, I know of Junior Bush's plan and I am kind of surprised you would support it since it was to allow only a portion of retirement to be invested in an approved fund within government guidelines.

What I meant in my post was an opportunity for the employee to opt completely out of any government retirement plan and do it 100% on their own - investing in whatever they wanted to to (legally, of course). This is the completely government out of my business approach that it seems most conservatives would like. The employee would be able amass whatever fortune their investments would pay.

Of course, the 100% opt out would not let them back in at a later date and would not offer any government remedy if they did not have anything to live on when they got old (except maybe the refrigerator carton).

Do you think that is a good idea or not - and would you recommend that for your children?

Experiencing your own knee jerk liberalism come hell or high water, I would be willing to bet that you were virulently opposed to the Bush plan and undoubtedly were of the opinion that people were too ignorant to invest even a portion of their Social Security deduction on their own.

I know of no one advocating a 100% opt out at this point. In this failing economy and with many people scarcely able to keep their roofs over their heads and pay their bills and the ever escalating taxes and fees associated with daily living, I think it's probably a bad time to discuss savings accounts and investments.

George W. Bush's plan is still a great idea. Miss him yet?

(Taxpayers for Barack Obama are like chickens for Colonel Sanders)

Buggyone~ I think that living in a free society, everyone should be free to decide their future...sort of a "Freedom of Choice" thing if you will. I happen to know numerous "janitors" who are now millionares due to the meager amount they have socked away each week for years. Would these be the type of uneducated people that aren't smart enough to plan for their futures that you are referring to?

Katz, no where did I say uneducated people in my posts.

I asked a question if you would go along with employees taking care of their own retirement 100%. If that did not prove to be enough to live on after retirement - it is no one's problem but that person's own problem and there would be no government assistance at all.

You answered the question.

Thank you.

Buggyone~ I wrongly assumed that if a person wasn't going to look to the future that you meant they weren't educated enough to know better. Sorry.
As far as those who live without preparing for the future...I also know of those who probably wouldn't. But I think that without the government so easily available to bail everyone out, that people would learn to be more accountable to take care of themselves. Family and friends would also be counseling those people to do what was needed. Then there are always going to be poor amongst us. It is my opinion that the church has alot of answering to do for how they are taken care of. Monies spent on mega-churches and other unecessary fluff would/should be better spent to help the poor. Not a catholic myself, but I have a great deal of respect for the Cathollic church for helping the poor and downtrodden as commanded by Christ.

READ A BOOK
More importantly, the spinners should read the books, papers and public comments of their very own liberal architects of Obamacare. I wouldn't expect them to read anything that might offer balance and a more intellectually honest analysis of the issues in medical care.

Take for example Tom Daschle, Obama's first choice for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Benevolently, lets say his candidacy ran into some legal issues and he dropped out. He wrote a book entitled, Critical:What We Can Do About the Health Crisis. Daschle models his Federal Health Board, some call it a "death panel", on Britain's NICE agency. You should really read up on that one. it warrants its own thread. Anyway, the would be architect of Obamacare spells out a policy that evaluates treatments for....drum roll please.....clinical and cost effectiveness. It's that "cost effectiveness" thingy that raises more questions then answers. If the spinners would just pick up the book written by one of theirs, perhaps we wouldn't get the cheap, talking point hip shots. Where's the bug spray?

Critiques, sometimes you have to hear the other side, say that indeed cost effectiveness comparisons would save taxpayer dollars.......at the expense of limiting patients access to medical treatments. Folks, this just scratches the surface. The real impact is in the "rationing" implications. Spinners.....read the book.

Then there's your.....I mean Obama's one of 39 CZARs, Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I think they stole the title from Moscow. Of course he's out of Chicago Law School. Spinners, you have just got to read this guy's papers....then come back and try to spin. His end of life/health care policies are evident throughout Obamacare. He holds that:

Human life varies in value.......really?

He advocates that health benefit calculations will likely result in lower benefit calculations for elderly people.....you know, those pesky seniors who live in The Villages, and higher benefits for those who are younger and more productive. Honest.....that is what he believes.

Spin this....Sunstein believes and advocates for "presumed consent". Sounds harmless enough on the surface. It means that the government has a right to "presume" you have consented to have your organs transplanted. In other words, the government owns your organs and can use them as they see necessary unless you legally opt out.

Sunstein is one of the architects of Obamacare and a cost/benefit advocate.

Then there is the other Emanuel and architect of Obamacare, also out of Chicago, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Ezekiel echoes Sunstein on the necessity to limit and ration health care options for seniors. He is an advocate of "liberal communitarianism". Spinners, you really need to research this one yourself.

Emanuel quite openly advocates healthcare rationing by age and disability. He must be a real hoot in nursing homes and cancer centers who work so hard to give quality life to survivors.

Of course any response I can offer to the spinners in this forum is substantially restricted. My intent clearly is to provoke those who like to respond to posters who possess inquiring minds with worn out party line snippets and sound bites that neither inform or contribute to an intellectual exchange of ideas. Where's the bug spray?

I've made an attempt, over a period of time, to read about Obamacare and its architects. I admit posting some of the more provocative aspects to annoy, arouse, excite and evoke responses from its intransigent supporters. I oppose rationing of healthcare in any form but realize there are compelling arguments to the contrary. Maybe one or two will enlighten this forum.

Thank you for your post, Cabo.

Well written, well researched and well done CABO

Here is the problem...you are asking folks that take their lead from bias locations...have no time or inclination to do any of their own research and simply spout party lines.

This health care bill is going to put the noose around everyones neck....a bill conceived with blackmail and in back rooms

Do not expect any response to this other than the normal little cute remarks but no substance because they wont even read your references.

GREAT POST

To Cabo and Bucco,

No amount of denial or claims you make about others who don't do research, don't present anything of substance, etc, etc., will change the facts:

Among a number of positive, sensible provisions of the new health care laws are the requirements for hospitals to treat their patients with respect and provide very professional care, at the risk of losing Medicare funding. It's in there. Just read it. Clearly spelled out requirements like these trump the tons of rhetoric, surmising and theorizing about things like your 'death panels'.