We shall abolish Social Security and replace it with R.E.I.A.G

Rebuttals to Con's point list Point 1. Con has only copied half of my sentence, "everybody must be able to enroll". My entire sentence was “everybody that is 18 must be able to enroll by 20__”. Even if you’re an immigrant, as long as your 18 you will be enrolled. Con argues this failing to reliaze that social security has this exact same problem. Immigrants as old as 65 can move to America to get Social Security even though they have not payed for it like the rest of America. But if Con is so worried about the immigrants, then I have two solutions. I) We can just give the Government investment accounts of the deceased to the immigrants. Nearly 2.5 million Americans die each year but only 450,000 immigrants enter the country. (1)(6) We will match the immigrant’s age to that of the deceased American and just give him the account. The family will no longer receive the money, but oh well. II) We create Government programs to help out immigrants. Not nearly as glorious, but still doable. And before Con says that this is just replacing Social Security, I urge him to remember that Social Security needs 725 Billion dollars to operate while these immigrant programs would need FAR less. If he is still not satisfied, then we go with point I. Point 2. The only thing I can I rebuttal here is when Con says “So this plan is supposed to eventually phase out social security, not replace it all together. ” No. It’ll phase out Social, and then it it is going to replace it all together. It’ll still be around as long as we need it for the dying generation who still needs it. I have rebuttled Con’s arguments about immigration in Point 1, so need to go any further here. Funding Continuously adding 54 billion dollars in accounts every year is not a huge burden for the U. S. The U. S. borrows nearly 4.6 trillion dollars annually. What’s another 54 Billion? If we cannot borrow, then we could raise taxes. How much? Well since the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal taxes, then the bottom 99% pay 60% of all federal taxes. (4) 32 Billion/299 million= $109 dollars per person a year. That’s right, each person would be paying only $109 annually to retire with $711,000. And if borrowing or raising taxes temperaroly is just too much to ask, then some budget cuts are long overdue, especially in the military…. Point 3. I did skip this point on accident, so here it is now. Like I said in my original plan, massive hedge funds will control where the money is invested. As for who will regulate it, that will be the Federal Reserve. As for Con’s statement, “government just pours that money into companies they like such as big oil companies or their own treasury bonds” 1) Con does realize that the U. S. does not have money invested in oil. We have oil reserves, which is oil on federal land but that belongs to no company. 2. ) That buying their own treasury bonds is like giving money to themselves. Treasury bonds is money that the Government has borrowed, so buying them back is just giving money back to themselves. If con distrust these massive hedge funds so much, then I guess we can put a percentage cap on how much money goes in each industry. Ex. 10% max for stock investment in car industry, 10% max for stock investment in food industry, etc. As for Con’s statement “200 million dollars in a bankrupt solar panel company instead of 500 isnt much better. ”, this is repetitive to his earlier arguments that I have already rebuttaled. A single person has invested 200 million dollars in a solar panal company could be destroyed, but a 200 million dollar loss to the Government investment accounts who are making 5.5 BILLION dollars(54 billion*.097) a year is of no real consequence. This is what makes the Government investment accounts so safe, there is just too much money invested that is spread to evenly for it to go under. And we are not “blindly” investing; hedge funds have people perfectly capable of choosing good stocks. And as a side not, we are investing 54 billion dollars ANNUALLY, meaning in 10 years we will have 540 billion invested in the stock market instead of just 54 billion. To say that these Government investment accounts are prone to collapsing is to say as Con put it “Unless everything goes to hell, correct? ”. But here is the thing con, if everything goes the hell(and it hasn’t since the 200 years we started stocks) then you will also be saying goodbye to Social Security and every other program America has to offer. Point 4) Con uses the baby boom as an example of drastic population difference. But this is not drastic, the increase in birth rates was 23%(5) If we apply this to the current amount of births 4500000*1.23, you get 5,535,000 18 year olds. That is how many children we would have today if had a baby boom that affected this generation of 18 year olds. 5.35 million * 12,000= 68 Billion dollars. As I have shown in my funding argument, 68 billion dollars is still FAR from a problem for the U. S. Point 5) I refuted this in point three of the second round. Again, the accounts are STILL growing at 9.76%. At 711,000*.0976=$69,393, a person could live on INTEREST alone. Point 6) I have already stated that this plan is to gradually get rid of Social Security, we will still use it for those whose turned 18 before 20__. Point 7) Just in case con missed it in round 2(under point 2), here is my argument for fluctuations again Ex. 10*1.02=10.2. (A) 10.2*1.07=10.914. (B) 10.914*1.21=13.2(C) 10*(1.10)^3=13.1. (D) As shown above, it does not matter if the stocks only grow 2% one year, 7% the next year, and then, 21% the year after that or if the growth rate was a constant 10% for three years. The only number that matters is the 42 year average which is 10%. We are not adding money to the stock market If you put in 54 Billion dollars into the stock market, you will get exactly 54 Billion dollars worth of stocks back. Your not adding wealth, your exchanging wealth. Let me put it in terms of math where 54 Billion dollars= A and 54 Billion worth of stocks= B, where the left side of the equation represents the stock market and the right side represents the Government. B=A If we go by con’s logic and simply “add” A to B, then we get A+B=A. I hope con can see how this is clearly wrong now. So how do we actually do the equation? Subtract A from both sides. B-A=0. But were only halfway done, the U. S. clearly has not just given 54 Billion dollars to the stock market; we have bought 54 Billion dollars worth of stock. So the next step in the equation is -A=-B which equals A=B Again, no money added, just money exchanged for stocks. The last point made by Con is his misguided representation of what I meant by wealth distribution. I did not mean that we are increasing taxes on the rich, but rather how R. E. I. A. G redistributes the wealth. The wealthy make money from stocks and from companies which is divided into stocks. So if the Government buys stocks and gives the profits to the middle and lower class in the form of Government investment accounts, then the money is being redistributed. Conclusion I have meet my three requirement that I said I had to meet. Con's arguments dealt mostly with irrelavent points and never showed how things such as fluctions in stock or population matter. Even so, I am glad imabench took this debate regardless if his lessons in economics are a bit fuzzy. Just one last thing, if you want to retire at age 60 and receive 54,000 dollars annually, VOTE PRO. (1) . http://www.cdc.gov... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . http://howthehellshouldiknow-wallyworld.blogspot.com... (4) . http://blogs.wsj.com... (5) . http://geography.about.com... (6) . http://en.wikipedia.org...