Who has a better chance of winning with Obama?

[Sheilbh]

Republicans have been spineless when it comes to SS reform, and Dems pretend like there are no problems with it whatsoever.  Both have been equally annoying.

Not really.  The Republicans tried to reform it to personal accounts in 2005.  They couldn't, people don't want it and I imagine are now far more suspicious of the idea given the state of the stock market over the past few years.  Republicans would be better not fixating on that one idea but looking at other reform options.

So too would Democrats, of course.

[Valmy]

The Republicans tried to reform it to personal accounts in 2005.

What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

[Sheilbh]

What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

To be fair Tip O'Neill and Reagan made a deal on this in the 80s.  I think Reagan got tax reform - though it wasn't great - and O'Neill protected Social Security and then increase the full retirement age incrementally.  That age increase is still going on now I think.

It's worth remembering that I think most people still retire at the first point they can, even though it means they don't get the full benefits they would at full retirement age.  Similarly lots of people, especially those in blue collar jobs, still die at very much a below average age.  When we talk about pensions I think we're all relatively middle class doing the sorts of jobs we kind of enjoy and could do into our 70s and we're more or less all of the socio-economic background that will live longer.  It's easier for us to talk about working for several years more and have a private pension plan than it is for, say an African-America (far lower life-expectancy) working a low-paid job.

I think the French have made that worry central to their system.  I think they've got two social security systems one for blue collar workers who pay less (due to the ceilings being lower) and can retire earlier with a smaller pension and a scheme for 'management' who pay more, get a better pension but retire later.  Admittedly they're still too generous.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think the current political reality makes government as a whole more like a ponzi scheme that has reached its inevitable end. 

I might change "political" to "demographic" in that sentence--for the case of SSA anyway.

[KRonn]

I don't think that Soc Sec is too hard to keep solvent. As it is now it can continue until the 2030s. Though that may require more and more funds from the Federal Govt, which has been using Soc Sec funds for a long while now. I've seen figures of $3 trillion that the Feds owe Soc Sec. So it would be fine, I imagine, if the Feds hadn't been using the money. But it's a program that I feel does work, and everyone US here has been contributing a lot to it for a few years to several or more decades. Plus the current retirees who depend on it. So it isn't going to go away, or be let crash becuase for one I don't think it's in the trouble some claim, and secondly it's too important to most everyone. It needs adjustments/changes so that it can continue without straining the Federal budget in years to come.

[derspiess]

Not really.  The Republicans tried to reform it to personal accounts in 2005.  They couldn't, people don't want it and I imagine are now far more suspicious of the idea given the state of the stock market over the past few years.  Republicans would be better not fixating on that one idea but looking at other reform options.

The GOP made a very half-assed attempt, and then pussed out.  Few Republicans in Congress had the balls to support it, and Bush (who had championed the issue since his 2000 campaign) decided it wasn't worth the political capital to make any real push for it.

"Tried" is an overstatement.

[derspiess]

What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

IIRC, the proposal was a pilot program of sorts that allowed people to choose to put 1% into private account.  Anyway I'd put more faith in Wall Street than a bloated federal government & politicians to help me grow my retirement savings.  Some Lockean Liberal you are...

[Razgovory]

Not really.  The Republicans tried to reform it to personal accounts in 2005.  They couldn't, people don't want it and I imagine are now far more suspicious of the idea given the state of the stock market over the past few years.  Republicans would be better not fixating on that one idea but looking at other reform options.

The GOP made a very half-assed attempt, and then pussed out.  Few Republicans in Congress had the balls to support it, and Bush (who had championed the issue since his 2000 campaign) decided it wasn't worth the political capital to make any real push for it.

"Tried" is an overstatement.

Bush pushed it very hard, the problem was that the Congressional Republicans saw it was a really bad idea.  The gay married amendment is an example of a very half-assed attempt.

[Razgovory]

What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

IIRC, the proposal was a pilot program of sorts that allowed people to choose to put 1% into private account.  Anyway I'd put more faith in Wall Street than a bloated federal government & politicians to help me grow my retirement savings.  Some Lockean Liberal you are...

So did Madoff's victims.

[Admiral Yi]

So did Madoff's victims.

Good point.  Maybe as part of the privatization of Social Security we should pass a law that only high net worth indviduals can invest in hedge funds.  Like the one we already have.

The problem with privatization is not the moral hazard, which can be managed in a number of ways, but the funding hole it generates.

[Razgovory]

So did Madoff's victims.

Good point.  Maybe as part of the privatization of Social Security we should pass a law that only high net worth indviduals can invest in hedge funds.  Like the one we already have.

The problem with privatization is not the moral hazard, which can be managed in a number of ways, but the funding hole it generates.

What are the many ways we can avoid the moral hazard?

[Admiral Yi]

What are the many ways we can avoid the moral hazard?

Mandate a maximum level of risk in the portfolio.

Mandate a minimum amount or percentage going into an annuity.

A dedicated tax that finances a bare bones form of Social Security for people who crapped away all their savings in stupid day trades.

A finite list of pre-approved, diversified investment funds. Like a 401k.

Hell, you could require that 100% go into CDs and still come out ahead.

[Sheilbh]

The GOP made a very half-assed attempt, and then pussed out.  Few Republicans in Congress had the balls to support it, and Bush (who had championed the issue since his 2000 campaign) decided it wasn't worth the political capital to make any real push for it.

"Tried" is an overstatement.

It was the centrepiece of his State of the Union, he did ran around the country doing town halls on the subject, he even did a press conference on it.  Bush really, really pushed it.  The Republicans in Congress backed out, perhaps, because after his SOTU only 17% thought Social Security was in crisis and only 40% supported partial privatisation (with 55% opposed).  Congress may not have tried in a big way but Bush and he was beat and people don't want it.

[DGuller]

Good point.  Maybe as part of the privatization of Social Security we should pass a law that only high net worth indviduals can invest in hedge funds.  Like the one we already have.

The problem with privatization is not the moral hazard, which can be managed in a number of ways, but the funding hole it generates.

The problem with privatization is that it turns on its head the very idea of having SS in the first place.  The point of SS is to guarantee, in a way that only government can, some level of income in retirement for everyone.  It's supposed to be sn insurance policy, not a return-maximizing investment vehicle.  The point of insurance is to minimize the downside, not to maximize the upside.

[Valmy]

What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

IIRC, the proposal was a pilot program of sorts that allowed people to choose to put 1% into private account.  Anyway I'd put more faith in Wall Street than a bloated federal government & politicians to help me grow my retirement savings.  Some Lockean Liberal you are...

Um you would put faith in the federal government to control billions of dollars that could artificially control and swing markets and expect them to use it for the interests of the people and not for political purposes?  Oh and we would almost certainly have to bail out the losers?  Yeah that is real fucking Lockian.  Besides having massive government run investment schemes sounds more like socialism to me.  Public capital management?  Holy shit that would be a trainwreck.  And you think this is a free market solution?  LOL.

Besides look at how the stock market has gone the past few years, we would be lurching from political crisis to political crisis.

If the Government wants to run a pension scheme it needs to be run in the way governments run shit.  They fucking suck at running businesses and making investments and all that.  I mean they are unable to make even the most basic and commonsense reforms to sociall security because they are too scared of the political fallout.  Just think if capitol for important donors was at stake.

I also put more faith in business than government to generate wealth and I would recomend to anybody to invest in a pension fund and not rely on SS continuing to exist at all.  But that and wanting a disastrous reform are not the same thing.