Will the U.S. Deficit effect you and your SL?

[Jacki Silverfall]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Jacki Silverfall wrote:

Alls I gotta say is they better not mess with the older folks. If my Momma has to go hungry because of greedy politicians there's gonna be hell to pay. AARP is already after them.:smileymad:

---

You said, "

they

better not mess with the older folks".  Who is "they"?

you ask who is they then mention politians in the next question?

Also, what do politicans have to do with your mother's acquisition of food? 

They are cutting SS

Who would this retribution of "hell to pay" fall upon?   And why? 

The voters will see that its paid

 

BTW this was a dumb if not mean response. Why? Because I'm scared for us, me my family. Maybe you'll be alright but some of wont. More power to ya. But every day I see a terrified 84 year old cry because her country that in her day was so proud. Fail her.

I'm freaking sorry I posted this question that essentially didn't get answered anyway.

I'm leaving with Dres.

 

 

---

 

[Jacki Silverfall]

I'm going with ya Dres.:smileyindifferent:

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

You are misidentifying the problem when it comes to credit.  Without all that borrowing the crisis would simply have happened sooner.  

 

 

---

because spending would have stopped sooner?

---

 

 

 

Yes

---

we were in the black in the 70's because we were a manufacturing country..

we got rid of our manufacturing  and the jobs that the spending  came from.. then made loans easier for people who suck with money management skills..people that wouldsay or do anything not even short of giving their left arm for that brand new 4x4 they felt they needed with the chrome bull testicals that hang from the tow ball in the back..

there was no place to go but down from there..

all the rest is the paper shuffle just making it worse..

lol i remember hearing people talking about how  cash is out of style and being shocked that someone didn't have a credit card..

i could just see how blind sided someone like that had to be when all the shart hit the fans LOL

 

 

 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Lynda Baran wrote in part:

 

 We need to start by remembering we are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC and not A SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY!!   The US was founded on the principles of INDIVIDUAL Rights and Liberties, Personal Responsibility and a very limited central government, NOT collective, Special Interest  or group rights.  Nor a bloated Federal Bureaucracy.  They work for ALL of us, not the unions, the Greenies, the lawyers or the other special interest, ALL of us.

 

---

That reminds me of something I came across a while ago:

 

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays the same standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

 

Personal responsibility is no longer enough in this day and age. Blame it on the unscrupulous corporations who ruined it for everyone, not on those who are trying to protect you from conscienceless vultures who value the green more than the lives of their fellow people.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Instead of raising the taxes on corporations, the USA could follow the example of Western European countries and force employers to pay higher wages as well as half of the social insurance fees of their employees, and give more paid vacation days to boot. That indirectly levies money from corporations and leaves the wage earning consumers more time and money to buy things they don't really need. Basically trickle up instead of trickle down economics

---

Yes, but you forgot to add that it creates high unemployment.  Which has plagued Western European countries for decades. Resulting in many more people on the dole, people being subsidized, and the smaller percentage that

are

working, being squeezed to keep everything afloat. 

---

I don't know about other Western European countries, but the unemployment rate in Germany is currently 7.4% (versus 9.2% in the USA). I have to admit that our numbers are a bit polished and don't include unemployed people who are participating in vocational training programs, but the real number is still below 10%.

I'm a libertarian too as far as social matters and the freedom of the individual are concerned. But when it comes to the market economy, there is no way around government regulation. I think part of the problem in the USA is this outright war of rigid political ideologies. There is no single ideology that could solve all problems. As society and the world market evolve and face new challenges, one has to look everywhere for solutions and can't be afraid to borrow ideas from other parts of the political spectrum.

[Ceka Cianci]

in the U.S those numbers only show the people that are on unemployment benefits..

it doesn't show the numbers of the ones that were kicked off and still hadn't found jobs yet..or the people that didn't qualify because they just got out of school and had only short amount of time on the job and not enough to get benefits..

it's higher than what they show for sure..

 

 

[hope Antonelli]

We already have the highest corporate taxe rates in the world. Wht do you think so many companies have closed up shop and moved manufacuturing to places like Mexico and India? These countries want our money and are more than happy to give lower taxes rates in exchange for something we have lost 500, 000 of the past two years...JOBS.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

The hell would be paid by the majority of voters that don't want to see their security net, which they've paid into all their lives, dismantled and turned over to corporate entities that are only concerned with making a profit instead of what's in the best interest of the people that can no longer look after themselves.

---

 

Dresden, the US social security system was only a backup...a supplement to someone's retirement.  It was never intended to be a sole provider.   Also, you have injected the notion of corporate entities taking over social security, I can tell you that if I had been had control and had been able to invest all the money that I had paid in to social security over the years...into private investments....I would have substantially more money set aside for retirement then I do currently.  

Social security funds are not invested on behalf of the taxpayer.   There is no SS fund with my name on it...that contains the money I have paid into social security.  On the contrary...the money goes into a black-hole of government spending.  The money flows into the general fund.   *poof* It's gone.  I cannot access the money, I cannot withdraw it...nor is it anywhere attached to me or my name.   SS can only speculate that if future generations pay into the system...then there *might* be some money to pay me in my old age.

Now, lets' compare that to a situation whereby a private corporation were managing the SS funds, and actually creating retirement accounts where the money is invested for a financial return.  We would each get statements like our other retirement accounts, we could switch the funds and around, we could increase the amounts, etc.   The money would be used to generate more money...which is the key to investing.   

What's in the best interests of the people, is to assist them to be financially stable and independent.   So, my private investment corporations have far exceeded that goal....and the US government has not even come close to achieving that.  Yet, you malign the private corporations and say they are *only* concerned with making a profit.  When that profit is tied to superior performance with my invested money, I welcome the private corporations to manage my investments. 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I don't know about other Western European countries, but the unemployment rate in Germany is currently 7.4% (versus 9.2% in the USA). I have to admit that our numbers are a bit polished and don't include unemployed people who are participating in vocational training programs, but the real number is still below 10%.

---

"Over the last 30 years, the unemployment rate has risen by more than 7 percentage points in the EU, and just by 1.3% in the US". 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1344723

Ishy, that researched document is from 2000, but at the point in time there had been three decades of increasing unemployment in the larger EU area.  This was directly tied to socialist economic policies.   Then, in the last decade, many EU countries tried to reverse the ever-increasing socialist-economics...and not surprisingly, the unemployment rate has dropped in the EU.  

Contrast that to the US, which has gone in the opposite direction with more socialist economic policies, and the US unemployment rate has risen dramatically.  So, historically, the US has had low unemployment, and higher prosperity.   But, as the US pursued an increasingly socialist-economics we have become plunged into the same squeeze that the EU countries are trying to dig themselves out of. 

Also, you mentioned that Germany's rate is "polished".  Here is an interesting bit of statistics which attempts to show the difference between the "officially" reported unemployment rates and the "polished" ones.  This data identifies:  "Unemployment rates in 2005 (people officially looking for work).   Explaining that the numbers for people actually looking for work, is not the same as the numbers of "unemployed" 

Interesting data on this link:    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?24192-Employment-vs-unemployment-rates-in-the-EU

 

 

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I'm a libertarian too as far as social matters and the freedom of the individual are concerned. But when it comes to the market economy, there is no way around government regulation. I think part of the problem in the USA is this outright war of rigid political ideologies. There is no single ideology that could solve all problems. As society and the world market evolve and face new challenges, one has to look everywhere for solutions and can't be afraid to borrow ideas from other parts of the political spectrum.

---

Unfortunately for those in the US, the economic polices that have been borrowed from the greater EU have worked to the detriment of the US economy.  

 

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Jacki Silverfall wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Jacki Silverfall wrote:

Alls I gotta say is they better not mess with the older folks. If my Momma has to go hungry because of greedy politicians there's gonna be hell to pay. AARP is already after them.:smileymad:

---

You said, "

they

better not mess with the older folks".  Who is "they"?

you ask who is they then mention politians in the next question?

Also, what do politicans have to do with your mother's acquisition of food? 

They are cutting SS

Who would this retribution of "hell to pay" fall upon?   And why? 

The voters will see that its paid

 BTW this was a dumb if not mean response. Why? Because I'm scared for us, me my family. Maybe you'll be alright but some of wont. More power to ya. But every day I see a terrified 84 year old cry because her country that in her day was so proud. Fail her.

I'm freaking sorry I posted this question that essentially didn't get answered anyway.

I'm leaving with Dres

---

---

 

So, call me both "dumb & mean" for asking questions?  

Hmmm, do you see the oxymoronic nature of your comment? 

Social security was never meant to be someone's sole retirement coverage.  That has been made clear to the US population for over 50 years.  Social Security is a supplement to add to whatever money and retirement funds that the population as acquired.   It has also been made clear and explained to the US population that social security is an upside-down pyramid..with more people drawing out then there are people paying in.  It is an unsustainable pyramid scheme.  

It is not the US government’s responsibility to fund your mother's retirement...the country has not "failed" her.   If you study history, you know that until very recently elderly people were taken care of by their own families.  So, if your mother is upset with her financial situation, then her family should be the ones to step in and help...not the US government.   Because, as this thread clearly illustrates...the US government does not actually have any money of it's own.  The ONLY money that the US government can acquire is acquire by taking it from the US working and producing population. 

So, I ask you... who is responsible for your mother?   Are *my* aging parents responsible for your mother's finances?  

[Storm Clarence]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I'm a libertarian too as far as social matters and the freedom of the individual are concerned. But when it comes to the market economy, there is no way around government regulation. I think part of the problem in the USA is this outright war of rigid political ideologies. There is no single ideology that could solve all problems. As society and the world market evolve and face new challenges, one has to look everywhere for solutions and can't be afraid to borrow ideas from other parts of the political spectrum.

---

The U.S. Constitution does not allow us to borrow ideas from other parts of the political spectrum.  We are a nation of laws; issues are debated--laws enacted.  Laws are debated--new laws enacted.   

[Anaiya Arnold]

The problem is wealth distribution.  America is much wealthier now than in the 1970s.

Since the 1980s, despite significant productivity gains, median incomes have not increased.  When you adjust for inflation, this means that the median wage has dropped while productivity has increased.  Productivity is wealth evidently. 

You hear a lot about "trickle down" theory, but this is only one side of the equation. It's true that if there is insufficient wealth concentration, there will be insufficient investment to grow the economy at a good pace.  However it is equally true that if there is insufficient wealth and income controlled and owned by the consumer-block (as opposed to the investment-block) that consumption and spending will fall below the rate necessary to render reliable and worthwhile returns on investments and to continue to support the investments already made.  In other words, without sufficient spending the economy fails.

If the spending had stopped earlier, then the economy would have crashed earlier. 

The problem is not the spending, but rather that the level of spending that is necessary to keep the economy growing at a rate that allows debt repayment has become unsustainable due to how wealth and income is distributed.  If the benefits of productivity had been shared more equally with the consumer-block, then they'd have been able to afford the necessary spending without going into unsustainable levels of debt.  That spending is a necessity for a functioning economy as much as investment.  It's not the spending that is the problem because the spending is an absolute necessity for economic health.  The necessary level of spending could not have happened over the last decade or so without the debt, so the debt is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. 

The US is richer than it was in the 1970s, but in the 1970s, wealth distribution was not so slanted in favour of such a vanishingly small minority.  Unless and until the consumer-block can afford to spend enough to fuel the economy without incurring unsustainable levels of debt, the economy is screwed either in the immediacy as we see now, or in the long run as we have building up to ever since the median income stalled in the 1980's despite significant productivity gains. 

So fixing the economy requires redistribution of wealth to the consumer-block and that is highly unlikely to happen.  The spending did not cause this and the debt simply forestalled it (rather than causing it).

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

hope Antonelli wrote:

 

Wht do you think so many companies have closed up shop and moved manufacuturing to places like Mexico and India?

Cheap labour.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I'm a libertarian too as far as social matters and the freedom of the individual are concerned. But when it comes to the market economy, there is no way around government regulation. I think part of the problem in the USA is this outright war of rigid political ideologies. There is no single ideology that could solve all problems. As society and the world market evolve and face new challenges, one has to look everywhere for solutions and can't be afraid to borrow ideas from other parts of the political spectrum.

---

The U.S. Constitution does not allow us to borrow ideas from other parts of the political spectrum.  We are a nation of laws; issues are debated--laws enacted.  Laws are debated--new laws enacted.   

---

Of course I don't mean from the extreme ends of the political spectrum. I just can't help but notice that there is a very limited number of very rigid political philosophies in the USA, which divide the political landscape and seem to make it impossible to reach a consensus on anything.

Both politicians and voters are either 100% liberal democrats (a position that would be called center-right in Germany), 100% (neo-)conservative (slightly more right), or 100% libertarian (all government is evil). And despite the different animal shapes of their lapel pins, every statesman and -woman is expected to closely adhere to the American way of life and thought and frequently ask themselves "what would our founding fathers do", as if a bunch of 18th century slaveholders could have foreseen any of the problems that the USA faces in this day and age.

If somebody comes up with a reasonable idea or a reform plan that is a little too far off the course laid out by the glorified founding fathers, it is decried as socialist, communist or fascist (usually all at the same time), entirely unAmerican, or something that the French might do. People break into chants about personal responsibility, big government, or the dangers of socialism, as if these buzz phrases and dogmas were productive problem solving strategies. They aren't. All they do is prevent reasonable and unbiased thought processes.

It should be possible to apply a dash of socialism over here, where middle class workers are being underpaid and ripped off by corporations, and a pinch of libertarianism over there, where gays and lesbians are struggling for equal rights. It is entirely unnecessary to pull out the political litmus paper in order to label each and every policy. People should be be able to judge an idea based on its own merit and not based on how neatly it fits into a political philosophy drawer, or how American it is.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

hope Antonelli wrote:

 

Wht do you think so many companies have closed up shop and moved manufacuturing to places like Mexico and India?

Cheap labour.

---

Yep. No matter how low the taxes, they will still be trying to maximize their profits in any way possible. It is the responsibility of the government to make sure that those who earn insane amounts of revenue in the USA give something back by creating jobs with reasonable wages and working conditions.

[Ceka Cianci]

i understand all this..i could have outlined ever decade and actually did but decided  to cut it down to what i posted..i was not jsut talking about the 70's..giving out loans to people that had no business getting them came later in the next decade..

in the 70's my grandfather had a house built  back in the 70's..a nice home ..a tri level with 4 bedrooms and  2 full baths ..a full basement and not even 3 years later had a huge addition put on..the initial cost of the home was 30,000 dollars..he had a manufacturing job back then making 30,000 a year..

you could buy a nice home for a years pay back then..

now it's so out of wack unbalanced..

right now that same position pays around 13,000 a year..if i were to buy the same exact house now in an area about the same it would cost me close to half a million dollars..

working the same position i would have to work 40 years to do what my grandfather could do in one year..to achieve the same thing..

i know how we got here and knew what was coming before it got here..

there is nobody that can tell me we are going to get back to what we were..and i don't see this train slowing down until it hits the station full speed..

pay keeps decreasing while cost of living keeps going up..

there is going to be a point when survival level kicks in if they don't start hitting the breaks..

 

 



 

 

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

hope Antonelli wrote:

 

Wht do you think so many companies have closed up shop and moved manufacuturing to places like Mexico and India?

Cheap labour.

---

Yep. No matter how low the taxes, they will still be trying to maximize their profits in any way possible. It is the responsibility of the government to make sure that those who earn insane amounts of revenue in the USA give something back by creating jobs with reasonable wages and working conditions.

---

Absolutely.

Corporations are morally and legally obliged to maximize profits no matter how destructive the means are to a country or society.  Governments are morally and pragmatically obliged to regulate this activity so that it benefits everyone and does not cause unnecessary, undesirable outcomes. 

No one else but governments can do this, and given the nature of corporations, if no one does it then corporations will inevitably become increasingly destructive in a myriad of unnecessary ways.

[Mayalily]

There is some hope for the U.S. even during these trying times.  The U.S. owns 60% of the world's gold and has a placed Fort Knox.

If Gold reaches $5,000 U.S. Dollars a troy ounce, as some are speculating, we could get fairly near to a balanced budget, or perhaps even sooner at $3,000.  Metals are still hot as people are frankly sick of paper assests and/or their currency being backed by nothing much. 

Whenever, a war starts, it seems best to start investing in gold.   That is something our President should have encouraged tho for main street to start investing in gold, or some type of war bonds, or something(?) to help pay back for the cost of the middle eastern wars and given us something to fall back on.  They spent a lot of money on these wars, but I saw a documentary that out of this America has created robotic fighting/killing machines.  We at least got something out it.  I see fighting robots as a plus, but it sure cost a lot.  I think the money should have gone for a higher bounty on bin Laden.  However, the wars are not all the probs, we have a great loss of jobs not only due to outsourcing but because machines are replacing many jobs, and also the terriorists keep spreading.  How to stop them... I don't know(?)  I don't know if the money spent was worth it.  I can't truly find a reason to say yes the money was worth it.  But, we got robotic fighting machines, anyhow. 

@ Celestrial, And yes, America should take care of it's sick and it's poor; those are principles we stand on. 

ETA:  About the robotic fighting machines.  They are amazing and look somewhat like four-legged spiders; there are all kinds of other types as well.  They have designed these many differing things to do many differing combat missions; some to even work like a suicide bomber to infiltrate a camp and blow them to bits and it's only an electronic machine; can see at night, walk at night, directly towards it target.  Americans did not take 9/11 lightly to say the least. 

Don't forget how much gold the U.S. owns.  Some say for the U.S. to sell it's gold now, but I say hold for a bit.  Let's wait. 

ETA again:  The U.S.A.'s current gold reserve is estimated at $440B U.S. Dollars.  I say we hold. 

[Ceka Cianci]

if gold reaches 5,000 we are screwed...our dollar value would more than likely be in the negative..because golds value never changes..it's cost is what changes..

High cost of gold means the dollar is in pretty bad shape..it's always been a good gague of how well or how bad the dollar was doing..

in 2004 gold was at around 250 an ounce...

say two people in 2004 walk into a grocery store and spend 250 each..one using cash and one using an ounce of gold..

to do the same thing now in 2011..a person walking in with an ounce of gold could get the same amount of groceries for an ounce of gold..

someone walking in with cash would have to spend what an ounce of gold would cost nowdays to get the same amount of groceries they had gotten back in 2004..

so if it hits 3k or 5 k we are pretty much screwed heheheh

[Mayalily]

No, we wouldn't be screwed; it's quite the opposite.  I don't know how you come up with that idea?  Based on what?  Gold has nothing to do with the dollar value.  Gold is a hedge against inflation but is now becoming a protection (which is also meant by hedge) against worthless paper assets.  Not to mention I already mentioned early on in this thread that the dollar will start strengthening no later than Christmas time of this year as it is said that will be the beginning of interest rate hikes but not the end.  Interest rate hikes to increase the worth of the dollar could happen sooner this year, but it is said Christmas time at the latest.  I'm sure a round of interest rate hikes will be coming over the next few years which will increase the dollar further, and also bring up more capital from the almost free money the U.S. is lending to having it had to be paid back at the higher interest rate.   Once the worth of the U.S. Dollar begins to strengthen, the value of that gold in U.S. Dollars will begin to go up even further.  I expect that gold value to go up a lot further.

Not to mention this trillion bazillion gazillion Dollar value of the technology we have now with these killing machines.  We don't need more military.  The U.S. can afford to cut there.  However, I'm quite sure we didn't make these machines all on our own.  A few countries I can think of who may have helped are Canada, Great Britain, and possibly Italy.  I doubt the U.S. made them all on our own.  Who else has this technology is PURE speculation of my part, but I sincerely doubt we are alone in this.  

So, terrorists go back into your caves, but these machines will still find you.  These machines are made to work over very rocky terrain, and there are all kinds of machines, not just one type.  The price of this technology could be unfathomable right now.  I can't even image what technology like that is worth.  Not to mention the lives it will save, of course, that should go without saying.

 

 

[Dogboat Taurog]

Ceka is right i think, the more gold is worth in Dollars the less the Dollar is worth.

look at inflation.

gold has a steady worldwide value, the dollar is subject to inflation and devaluation.

the dollar is a cheque, its part of the money trick.

[Venus Petrov]

---

Mayalily wrote:

They

spent a lot of money on these wars,

---

We...we pay for the wars.  

[Mayalily]

No.  But where is your or Ceka's counterpoint? I'd like to hear those 'cuz I'm laughing out loud here. 

In economics Gold is a hedge against inflation. (with a period in it's simplest explanation.) 

Gold is it's own commodity. 

@ Venus, I should have said they (meaning the government) spend our money.  That should go without saying. 

[Venus Petrov]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

The hell would be paid by the majority of voters that don't want to see their security net, which they've paid into all their lives, dismantled and turned over to corporate entities that are only concerned with making a profit instead of what's in the best interest of the people that can no longer look after themselves.

---

 

Dresden, the US social security system was only a backup...a supplement to someone's retirement.  It was never intended to be a sole provider.   Also, you have injected the notion of corporate entities taking over social security, I can tell you that if I had been had control and had been able to invest all the money that I had paid in to social security over the years...into private investments....I would have substantially

more money

set aside for retirement then I do currently.  

Social security funds are not invested

on behalf of the taxpayer

.   There is no SS fund with my name on it...that contains the money I have paid into social security.  On the contrary...the money goes into a black-hole of government spending.  The money flows into the general fund.   *poof* It's gone.  I cannot access the money, I cannot withdraw it...nor is it anywhere attached to me or my name.   SS can only speculate that if future generations pay into the system...then there *might* be some money to pay me in my old age.

Now, lets' compare that to a situation whereby a private corporation were managing the SS funds, and actually creating retirement accounts where the money is invested for a financial return.  We would each get statements like our other retirement accounts, we could switch the funds and around, we could increase the amounts, etc.   The money would be used to generate more money...which is the key to investing.   

What's in the best interests of the people, is to assist them to be financially stable and independent.   So, my private investment corporations have far exceeded that goal....and the US government has not even come close to achieving that.  Yet, you malign the private corporations and say they are *only* concerned with making a profit.  When that profit is tied to superior performance with my invested money, I welcome the private corporations to manage my investments. 

---

I agree with your statements regarding Social Security.  It is a supplement just as a purchased home is a place to live, not a retirement investment.  This is one of the reasons so many are suffering now.  If they were not in the category of buyer who should have never qualified to purchase a home, they are purchasers who viewed their home as cash cow which they milked over the years in equity loans to pay for vacations, the vacation home, the boat, college educations and now may be underwater for two loans:  the primary and equity.

I never viewed a home purchase as an investment.  It was a place to live, period.  And, no one should 'rely' on Social Security as anything more than potential supplement.  We are on our own.

[Venus Petrov]

Not to belabor the point (but I guess I will), we vote for those that represent us.  They take actions on our behalf.  We cannot separate ourselves from the actions.  'The government' is US.