Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Do you think the people that laughed at partial privatization of Social Security when it came up ...?

... during Bush's presidency might see one of the benefits of it now that Obama is saying they might not send out checks next month unless the budget gets settled? Didn't Obama know when he "stimulated" the economy that they would have to deal with the debt ceiling eventually? Shouldn't they have put a little aside for people that have been paying into the system all their lives?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Gov has been robbing the SS fund for decades. Nobody told them not to do it. Now it's on the brink of insolvency and the citizens continue to elect the same 2 parties that got us into this mess.

    I'm positive I could have saved the money that was deducted f/ my checks ... I never had the choice. Now gov spent it instead of paying us back w/ the investment. In the world of finance that is a crime called defalcation ... in gov it's called politics as usual.

  • 10 years ago

    If SS had been privatized by, say, Ronald Reagan, SS recipients would have missed their checks in 2006, when the stock market crashed. The whole idea of Social Security being a 'socialist' government program was to protect it against the iffy nature of the stock market.

    Bush's plan to privatize only 1/6 of SS was rejected by the Republicans themselves! Bush had Republican majorities in both houses of Congress for 6 of his 8 years, and if the Repubs had really wanted to, they could have privatized ALL of SS. But they knew, as Reagan did, that SS is just too popular the way it is. They still know that!

  • Bill
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Privatization of social security means you would tax workers and force them to give their earned money to private companies who could then lose it, steal it, or mismanage it. So no, I don't think that's a good idea.

    And any already promised money that the U.S. government doesn't pay as a result of the debt ceiling is entirely the fault of the people who refuse to raise it. Congress has already authorized the promised spending. They can't now refuse to pay what they promised to pay. If they do, Obama should (and probably would) spend it anyway.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Do you think your privatized investment account would send you money when you ask for it, even if it has decreased in value, and there is a tax on it, and a commission for the broker?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    if it was partially privatized they still would not have any money. it would have lost it all in their investments. at least this way sooner or later they will get it.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    No. I think that the Republicans are exposing themselves as the wolves they truly are.

  • 10 years ago

    I expect this one to backfire on him...especially if we fund the Cowboy Poetry Festival

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.