Choice for Retirement Income

Privatizing Social Security has everybody turning into many different schemes.
The whole debate should be in only one direction: choice.
Not to forget choice with idiocy. The linked title shoudl provide some light into the facts and lies of who is in charge. Let's do it babe, it is all greed and money.
No government forced direction.
Privatizing the future of retirement is practically already accomplished by the elimination of employer sponsor pensions. The problem is the pater familias behavior from the government of the few, that continues to bail out all those failed plans with taxpayer money. What good is to bail out private pensions? The market should allow this to adjust by itself without government intervention, or make pensions plans 100% funded endeavors, you cannot have meargerly funded pension plans -today less than 10% of liabilities are in cash reserves for private pensions- and expect anything less than chapter 11. It is another way to tax in those who follow the rules.
The danger of the present form of privatizing craze is simply too great of a risk to the rest of society, no because of the privatization, but because it does not allow freedom to invest and increases government with a new agency, again a news tax increase. This republican majority is turning into a hide and seek tax dodger, with one hand they send a $600 check with teh otehr the ask for $5000.
Basically, the proposed plan is just another tax in the middle class in drag. They send a check in the mail, then, they rip you off in the rest of taxes and owerllian projects.
Democracy is based in simple principia: decisions from government should be made to improve the quality of life of citizens.
The present plan to privatize social Security does not address the most important issue, how this privatization will improve the rest of society. The fact points toward teh direction of "most likely will not improve pensions as it is presented."

We know today more than 60% of people coming into retirement in the next 20 years are going to need Social Security to provide 50% of more for their basic needs. Today, more than 35% of people under the protection of Social Security depend 100% on social security for income and the trend does not seem to change over time. Those are hard facts.

We know that England, Mexico, Chile and other countries directed their citizens to support a privatized retirement income systems, this year are screaming: wolf. Mildly put by some experts.

Privatizing can give us many results, in the present form it is just a worthless piece of advice. Freedom of choice is the solution.
It continues a pattern of undermining freeedom coming from the present Cabinet. The present retirement program as proposed by the Cabinet has some very interesting outcomes, as highly probable. We live in the US where the consumer society is all gods, in which personal savings rates are minimal and in many cases negative, in which around two million people go bankrupt every year. Talking this harsh reality into account, the first outcome will be something I call “Mexicanize.”
Basically, the present plan as present it, will develop itself into a very similar situation to what you encounter when you travel to Mexico City, or any other Mexican town. The elders in Mexico do not have enough savings into senior age, for a different reason than in the US but still no savings, the elder in Mexico are reduced to sell trinkets in the streets, and many will work regular jobs well into medical incapacity. It is not improvable that if in time we open our borders as is happening in Europe, and it is shaping up around the globe, it is not such far fetched probability, to see the situation of Mexicanizing our elder citizens, today our youngters, viewed as normal. I think Mexicanizing is the direction we are going if we continue to follow the present republican ideas.
The next alternative is the “Santiago Move.” The Santiago Move takes a different turn on reality. It turns the virtual-reality marketed by the administration upside down. Basically, the present results on Social Security privatization as took place in Chile. Chile it is hitting the hard wall of fees, poor stock and bond market performance, and people that were promised a better tomorrow. Chileans who choose to go private with their retirement savings, today, are living a worse than a nightmare reality. The reality is their open market pensions are worth less than the government secure assets. Chileans are screaming out loud and foul, they are asking for their money back. In this situation we must consider that eventually a broad social bail out will be need if individuals follow the advice provide it by Wall Street and Ken Lay’s future earnings guidance. This is sitution in which social unrest is highly provable.
The last and nearest experience in Social Darwinism is the royal experiment of privatization in England. I will call it the “Pub Effect.” In this case people get really drunk with ideas of exuberant results from the stock market returns. This occurred in England during the conservative era. England having a strong employer sponsored pension program decided to drink in cheers the pension offered by the royal funds, invest in “schemes” as they are called in England was teh magic trick. Any one could have told the English folks that a "scheme" is a "scheme" no matter how you shape it. Today, the scheme after privatizing the pension system is called a “bloody mess.”
Those are the nearest examples we have to draw information and conclusions.
We need to be aware that those systems were implemented with the support and advice of many supporters and advisors of the present plan, right now!
Because the risk and impact on individuals and society deceived from corporate leaders is so great. The choice to elect to have the future retirement payments at risk must come with insurance to the rest of society.
This insurance must be a fee as any other insurance for a mortgage offered from private insurers in reverse, and must cover the equivalent of the total amount of principal invested and the equivalent of government sponsor plan. This way there is an equal footing even for those no versed in the risky art of investing.
Choice must also have a full contribution from all citizens that includes anyone earning an income from employment.
“Give me choice and give me freedom, protect my neighbors from my good heart.”