The Instigator
IFLYHIGH
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,418 times Debate No: 21759
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

IFLYHIGH

Pro

I will be arguing that we can successfully abolish and replace Social Security with R.E.I.A.G while Con will be arguing that my plan is load of rubbish. I have skipped the acceptance round so that Con gets a good idea of what he is arguing against. My plan IS changeable; meaning it can alter it to become workable again after being shown a flaw by con. The only things that are not changeable is

I)Everybody must be able to retire by 60

II)It must abolish Social Security and not become another form of it.

III) Everybody that is 18 must be able to enroll in it starting in 20__.


Introductory Paragraph

The U.S. spends nearly 725,000 dollars a year on social security, or around 20% of the federal budget. It is humungous pressure for the U.S. to continue this program and burns a huge hole in our deficit. Even so, nobody really wants to take this money away from the elderly, but nobody wants us to pay this huge sum of money. So genius me thought up of a plan that meets both of the above criteria and does much more. I have named the plan humbly after myself and call it R.E. Is A Genius (R.E.I.A.G). It works like this.

1.) Each individual who turns eighteen starting in 20__ will receive Government investment accounts with 12,000 dollars.Since there are approximately 540,000 people who will turn eighteen in 20__, then nearly 54 Billion dollars will be needed to fund all these accounts. Either the 12,000 will come from the Government or from taxes.

2.) The 54 billion dollars would all be invested in the U.S. stock markets and would be divided equally among stocks. The money would be controlled by massive hedge funds regulated by the Government.

3.) Every person that reaches the age of 60 will have a total of 711,000(inflation adjusted) dollars in their Government investment account. They will be paid 54,000 annually from then on until their death. Upon the person’s death, 711,000 dollars worth of stocks will be sold from the massive hedge funds and the money made will be given to the family or whoever the person dead designates to.


My math explained

I got 540,000 eighteen year olds from taking the total number of 18-24 year olds In the U.S. and dividing it by six. 27000000/6=4500000, 4500000*12000= 54 Billion dollars
Average stock growth per year is 10% (1)
Average dividend yield is 3% (2)
Average Inflation is 3.2% (3)
10%+3%-3.2%=9.76%. Every year, each Government investment account will grow by 9.76%. Over the course of 42 years, this will be equal to 711,000. The calculations can be made on the website in link (4), just put in 12,000 for the initial amount with a 9.76% interest rate for 42 years.


Conclusion

This will successfully abolish Social Security, strengthen the U.S. stock market, and essentially lower the wealth gap between the social classes.
Side note
Please do not take this debate if this you’re not willing to research or take time to do this debate. I’m looking to do a good debate, not to get trolled. So does anybody dare challenge me?


(1)http://www.usatoday.com...
(2) http://pages.stern.nyu.edu...
(3) http://inflationdata.com...
(4) http://www.daveramsey.com...
imabench

Con

Ill give this a shot, im not going to sh*t all over it Im just going to show where this plan as of right now has many dire flaws

"I) Everybody must be able to retire by 60"
What if they cant though? With the longevity here in the US being 78 years now retiring at age 60 is pretty hard to do, so what happens if you cannot retire at 60, do you get left out of this program completely and be left penniless out on the street? what if you can retire at 61 why isnt that good enough, why 60 of all ages to pick to retire? The problem here is that right from the get go those people who cannot retire at age 60 could potentially leave millions of people out of luck when the time comes.

"II) It must abolish Social Security and not become another form of it. "
It has to abolish Social Security immediately? well then what happens to everybody over 18 right now then? what will happen to those people living off of social security right now if this plan was used and it shut down social security tomorrow? If we kill SS right now millions and millions of seniors will be left without a pay check and people who are 30, 40, 50, 60 would also be left with no option. How would this plan take care of those who are already on Social Security? Also how could it not become another form of social security when it already is, your taking tax dollars to fund a program that gives it to the elderly once they reach a certain age, and Social Security is the same thing so isnt this plan already a little like social security?

"III) Everybody that is 18 must be able to enroll in it starting in 20__."
what do you mean by "able to enroll" thats all I have for this thing for right now

"1.) Each individual who turns eighteen starting in 20__ will receive Government investment accounts with 12,000 dollars.Since there are approximately 540,000 people who will turn eighteen in 20__, then nearly 54 Billion dollars will be needed to fund all these accounts. Either the 12,000 will come from the Government or from taxes."
You say approximately 540,000 people will turn 18, but for this program to work for everybody the government would have to know exactly how many people are turning 18 and who all of these people are, how would this system do that? Also how does this system account for immigration? A person who came to this country when he/she was 19 would not have qualified for this system even if they come when they are 19 and stay here for 40 more years, would they get paid? if so how would the government take into account these late entrants?

"2.) The 54 billion dollars would all be invested in the U.S. stock markets and would be divided equally among stocks. The money would be controlled by massive hedge funds regulated by the Government."
Ok now we got some problems here. What happens if the stock market suddenly hits the crapper like it did in 1929 or 2008? Billions of dollars could be lost in a matter of days how would the government respond to that? Also who controls which stocks the government pours all of this money into and do you actually think they will choose the right stocks to do it? When Obama made his new energy plan for America, it included giving 500 million to a solar panel company named Solyndra because it was the best company out of all the others. Weeks later Solyndra was completely bankerupt and it was discovered that there were signs it was going to go under. Who controls which stocks the US pours our futures into, and who is going to run all of this? Te FED? Congress? Millions of us would like to know which agency would control our financial future

"3.) Every person that reaches the age of 60 will have a total of 711,000(inflation adjusted) dollars in their Government investment account. They will be paid 54,000 annually from then on until their death. Upon the person's death, 711,000 dollars worth of stocks will be sold from the massive hedge funds and the money made will be given to the family or whoever the person dead designates to. "
Ok I see a big issue here. $54,000 annually from a $711,000 account would give only enough funds to last 13 years, since people receive these funds when they are 60, that means these accounts will be completely empty by the time they are 73, yet the lifespan of Americans is 78 and climbing for MEN, women are even higher. So what happens if people who are just being healthy are now suddenly not receiving ANY funds by the time they are 74 years old? Some people live to their 80's, 90's, even 100's so in your plan they ALL would not be getting paid under this system....

"I got 540,000 eighteen year olds from taking the total number of 18-24 year olds In the U.S. and dividing it by six. "
The age groups arent proportional though they may be slightly more 20 year olds than 18 year olds or slightly more 18 year olds than 20 year olds which may cause this system to be under funded for those in the system.

Average stock growth per year is 10% (1)
Average dividend yield is 3% (2)
Average Inflation is 3.2% (3)

Yes those are the averages, but those arent fixed rates and are subject to change, especially inflation. If these numbers change that would have a dire effect on the total funds in these accounts by the time the individuals in this system are 60..... All you need is a couple bad years of high inflation OR low dividends to cost individuals tens of thousands of dollars.....

"This will successfully abolish Social Security, strengthen the U.S. stock market, and essentially lower the wealth gap between the social classes. "
What happens to those already in Social security though? I brought up before how the rate of payment out of these accounts only lasts 13 years and after that everyone will be broke, so people 80 years and up would now be without ANY payments. That would raise the wealth gap not lower it..... Putting billions and billions of dollars into the stick market doesnt make the system stronger, it just means that the system now has much more money to lose. Take 2008, more money was in the stock market than ever before but it wasnt strong, despite all the money in it the stock market went down the tubes at a time when there was more money in it than ever.

" My plan IS changeable; meaning it can alter it to become workable again after being shown a flaw by con"
Why would a "genius" plan need to be changed if it werent "genius"? If I show the flaws in it and you change it does my name get to go into this system?

I will be keeping track of how many changes are made to this system and by round 3 I'll see how many flaws I will have exposed in this "genius" system. If the number of changes reaches a good amount then I would have met my burden of why Social Security shouldnt be replaced with a system designed by a 17 year old kid....
Debate Round No. 1
IFLYHIGH

Pro

Everybody must be able to retire

Con has completely misinterpreted what I mean when I say “everybody must be able to retire”. I do not mean that the plan is only suitable to those who are in a financial position to retire, but that the plan makes it financially suitable for people to retire by 60. 54,000 dollars annually is enough for anyone to retire on, the key word here is able. Con has essentially changed the sentence from “everybody must retire by 60” instead of “everybody must be ABLE to retire by 60.”

I never said we must abolish Social Security for those that need it; I said we must abolish social security for those that will be using Government investment accounts. For a good 42 years, we will need Social security for those that never got enrolled in the Government investment accounts, but after those 42 years, audios Social Security.

Everybody must be able to enroll in it by 18

The key word here is everybody. I mean that we cannot only be able to offer the Government investment accounts to a small population of our country in order to make it work. 100% of the nation that turns 18 by 20__ must be enrolled.

My plan defended

1)Con makes a useless point here. The number of 18 year olds in the U.S. does indeed fluctuate from year to year, but not drastically. Meaning there is not going to be 1,000,000 18 year olds next year if there are only 540,000 18 year olds this year. What does it matter if the Government has to invest 65 billion instead of 54 billion? Both can be done. As for the people over 18, Social security will still be available to them as I am only abolishing Social Security for all 18 year olds and thereafter starting in the year 20__

2) Con makes two valid points-

(A)That stock market's growth fluctuates. What I meant by average was the 42 year average, not a stock markets individual year growth. Even if the stock market only grew 2% one year, 12% the next year, and 21%, It would still equal the same number as if a number only grew 10% for three years.

Ex. 10*1.02=10.2. 10.2*1.07=10.914. 10.914*1.21=13.2

10*(1.10)^3=13.1.

As you can see, even a stock whose growth fluctuates has the same growth as a stock whose growth is constant. So even if we have a great recession like we are in now or the one seen in 1929, but also have a large periods of growth such as the rolling 20’s and the 80’s decade, it’ll all balance out to nice cozy 10%.

(B)How to choose which stocks to invest in. This is really only a dilemma for an individual investor who isn’t investing that much money. But 54 Billion dollars will buy thousands of stocks and therefore diversify the Government investment account portfolio. And Con is under the assumption that we will be buying out entire companies’ worth of stocks. But I said that we would divide the money EQUALLY amoung the stocks, meaning instead of buying 500 million dollars worth of solar panels, we will only buy 200 million dollars. The Government investment accounts will have the most diversified portfolio ever to be seen before. Individual stock holders can be hurt or even destroyed during a recession, but with such a large amount of money invested in the stock market and with such a highly diverse portfolio, the Government investment accounts are infallible.

3) You have made a huge mistake here. You have forgotten that the accounts are STILL growing at 9.76% a year. 711,000*.0976= 69,393 dollars. 69,393-54,000= 15393 dollars. So even if we do take 54,000 dollars out of the Government investment account, for that year, it’ll actually GROW by 15,393 dollars. Ever heard of living off of interest?

My math defended

I have shown above why fluctuations in population and stock market growth doesn’t matter, so no need to go any further here. And why does Con say that investing money into the stock market not make it stronger? We are not adding 54 billion dollars to the stock market; we are buying 54 billion dollars of the stock market that is already there. Anytime you buy something, you make the person or company you bought it from stronger. The entire reason we are still in a recession right now is because NOBODY is buying anything. It is just basic economics that spending spurs growth. And as for wealth distribution gap, again I have already shown how the money will NOT go away after 13 years. Also, this wealth has to be coming from somewhere, and it is obviously not coming from the lower and middle class as they are not making money from the stock market. So the only place that the wealth can come from is the wealthy.

My plan is still Genius

Con’s interpretation of a genius plan is a plan that is not changeable. But every plan that has been considered “genius” has changed. Democracy is a considered a “genius” plan, but it has changed to meet the requirements of a countries need. Capitalism is considered a genius plan, but it too has changed from its original form to become practical. Even genius ideas and theories, such as the theory of quantum physics has changed. This may be con’s interpretation of a genius plan, but my interpretation of a genius plan is a plan that works better than any other.

Conclusion

I have refuted every single one of con’s arguments and shown the various flaws in them as well. My plan is still workable, and that is without having to have changed anything. It is starting to look like my plan is still genius even to con’s narrow interpretation of genius. Also, would it make you feel better if I changed my age status to 35 so my plan seems more credible? Does it matter who presents the plan, as long as it works? I guess I’ll find out in the next round.

imabench

Con

The Pro clarified the meaning behind the opening statement about retirement age, however I still have a few concerns about this matter.
" For a good 42 years, we will need Social security for those that never got enrolled in the Government investment accounts, but after those 42 years, audios Social Security."
So this plan is supposed to eventually phase out socal security, not replace it all together. Doesnt that mean that for 40+ years taxpayers will have to fund both social security and this plan? You also say that after 42 years social security will end, but this isnt true because you yourself said that "I never said we must abolish Social Security for those that need it", yet those who would not qualify for this scheme of yours who would have to buy into social security will be around for well over 42 years.... A 20 year old would not qualify for the Pro's plan since he is too old, so he would have to rely on Social security, but in 42 years that same person will only be 62 at a time where the life expectancy would be well over 80. Doesnt this mean that Social security would still have to be around for more than 50 years in addition to this new system?

" The number of 18 year olds in the U.S. does indeed fluctuate from year to year, but not drastically"
Baby boom generation came at the close of WWII where the number of births skyrocketed. Those baby boomers hit 18 around the 1970's and the number of 18 year olds was far greater than any other time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
This graph shows the huge spike in births in the US following WWII, and that spike would shift through the age groups until finally, when that bulge started hitting 18, the number of 18 year olds in the country was massive to the time just 20 years earlier. The point is that populations do fluctuate, sometimes immensely, and the Pro simply ignores the potential this could have on the system.

" 54 Billion dollars will buy thousands of stocks and therefore diversify the Government investment account portfolio"
Yeah but what if the government just pours that money into companies they like such as big oil companies or their own treasury bonds, who is going to make them invest in everything to "diversify their portfolio"? Which stocks would be chosen because investing 200 million dollars in a bankrupt solar panel company instead of 500 isnt much better. Does the government have to blindly invest in everything or can they actually pick which ones are safe bets? Also what happens if the companies the government pours money into suddenly closes? We have many ner fortune 500 companies than we did 30 years ago meaning that if we invest a crapload of money in companies now, they might not be around 40 years later to pay us back....

"the Government investment accounts are infallible."
Unless everything goes to hell, correct?

" We are not adding 54 billion dollars to the stock market; we are buying 54 billion dollars of the stock market that is already there"
Which literally means adding billions to the stock market.....

"And as for wealth distribution gap, again I have already shown how the money will NOT go away after 13 years"
No you havent, you dropped this point completely.

"Also, this wealth has to be coming from somewhere..... So the only place that the wealth can come from is the wealthy."
And how exactly do you plan on taxing the wealthy to fund this multi billion dollar program without allowing them to work through a loophole like they do every time the government tries to make them pay for something?

Forfeited arguments
- 1 - The Pro has forfeited the meaning behind "everybody must be able to enroll"
- 2 - The Pro has forfeited that this system does not take into account immigration and people who come to this country after they are 18 years old
- 3 - The Pro has forfeited who exactly will control where all this money goes and how it is invested and managed
- 4 - The Pro forfeits that age groups arent proportional in the 16 to 24 category and that there may be more 18 years olds than the system expected
- 5 - The Pro forfeits that these accounts would be emptied in 13 years.
711,000 total / 54,000 annually = 13.17 years before the accounts are emptied and seniors are left on their own.
- 6 - The Pro forfeits that due to the ever increasing life expectancy some people may go years even decades without any sort of income with this new system in place.
- 7 - The Pro forfeits that his system not only depends on stock fluctuations, but also from % of inflation and the dividend yield

"I have refuted every single one of con’s arguments and shown the various flaws in them as well"
You ignored half of them....

Debate Round No. 2
IFLYHIGH

Pro

Thanks to imabench for a fun debate and the readers who have the patience to read my half-thought up concoction of a plan.


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...

imabench

Con

Solutions for Immigration given by the Con,
1) Take accounts of dead people and give them to immigrants
2) Create another underfunded program to try to deal with immigrants....

There are a lot of issues with Number 1, the biggest issue being that the accounts of those dead people cannot simply be confiscated by the government because those accounts belong to the family of the dead person. Since those accounts cant just be confiscated that leaves over 1 million immigrants every year being denied access to this "genius" program. 1 million immigrants over 42 years will lead to 50 million people living without any financial stability (assuming that immigration creeps upwards like it has done every year). The Pro then only offers 'another program" to take care of this but what kind of bullsh*t idea is that. Is this program going to be like social security for the immigrants or just a tax cut or what? who runs it, can all of them apply, what are the benefits, the Pro leaves ALL these important details out of it....

Now take into account this new probably overblown program for immigrants, add this new plan the Pro wants to implement, and on top of that add social security since thats going to be around for another 60 years at least, and this is going to be a large burden on the budget for a long time too....

Funding
The Pro dismisses this entire argument by saying "oh its just another 50 billion dollars a year, thats nothing to the government, we can just borrow some more or raise taxes or make cuts to some programs like the military"

All of those options would trigger massive lobbying in the government as all sides create a gridlock over where all this funding would come from (taxes, borrowing, cutting programs) all of which would trigger a huge gridlock over a single program while other issues would have to take a back seat until this ordeal is sorted out, IF it gets sorted out.

Who controls the investments
The Pro says that the Federal Reserve will control massive hedge funds to decide where all this funding goes to. Keep in mind though that the Federal Reserve aka the FED is argued to be unconstitutional, corrupt, and half the presidential candidates want to end the FED.

So at this point the Pro wants this entire billion dollar program to be controlled by an organization that is arguably corrupt, unconstitutional, and might not even be around in 10 years depending on who become president....

Now look at the "strategy" that the Pro wants to put all of this money into,
" 10% max for stock investment in car industry"...................... That 4 years ago swallowed up government bailouts almost recklessly
"10% max for stock investment in food industry"...................... Which the government subsidizes half of
other 80% is not defined...................... Not a good quality of a genius plan

Response to poor investments by the government
" 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"
Wo now the Pro believes that the government should not have to consider safe investments at all since there will always be money to be made elsewhere...... You know who else had that strategy? Millionaires who lost everything in the great depression when everything was lost.

" hedge funds have people perfectly capable of choosing good stocks"
But those hedge funds are being controlled by an organization questioned for being corrupt and unconstitutional.... That could surely compromise the safety of these investments.

"if everything goes the hell(and it hasn’t since the 200 years we started stocks)...... "
Great Depression
2008 depression
1976 recession
"then you will also be saying goodbye to Social Security and every other program America has to offer."
And this is positive because?

Population fluctuations of 18 years olds
Pro showed how if another baby boom took place the funding needed for his program would go from 54 billion to 68 billion, but the Pro just assumes that the government will see this coming and prepare for it, btu there is no evidence they will. When Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were established nobody even noticed that the baby boom generation was approaching and the bill flew through congressional approval and is now ravaging the national budget.

Expiring after 13 years
Pro just claims that the programs would not expire since these benefits generate interest, but these accounts dont come from banks or organizations that give interest to attract customers they come from the government. The government doesnt have to give interest rates to people and they probably wont since interest rates come out of pocket from the bank, or in this case the government. What his means is that we either have a program that expires after 13 years or a program that costs the government even more money as people live longer and live off of interest...

Dumping billions into the stock market
"We are not adding money to the stock market"

Here is how investing in the stock market works,
http://www.tradestocksamerica.com...
^ buying stocks channels money from investors into the companies they are investing in
http://studenomics.com...
^ When you decide to buy shares in a company you’re buying a piece of that company.
http://studenomics.com...
^ Buying stocks is interchangeable with buying shares.
http://www.abcstockinvesting.com...
^It's really just like any other marketplace - it facilitates the exchange of goods between interested parties and works to reduce distribution costs and set prices

We are indeed putting money into the stock market.... ALL OF IT

Here are the flaws in this "genius" plan
1) It completely leaves immigrants out of luck and depending on other programs that does not specify what benefits the immigrants will get, if any.
2) The way this program is funded is not specified and is left open to discussion, but like most things left open to discussion in politics it will become grid locked and the program might not even pass or be shut down
3) The ones controlling this massive program is an organization accused of being corrupt, illegal, unconstitutional, and might even be ended in 10 years
4) The plan does not specify how the program will be invested, it only states that it will be distributed into different industries, and the two the Pro named are ones that were on the verge of collapse 4 years ago and one that is heavily subsidized by the government themselves.
5) The plan does not have guidelines for how to avoid poor investments, in fact the plan doesnt even warn against it since the Pro says that what is lost in one place can be made up somewhere else.
6) The plan does not prepare for possible fluctuations in the number of people who would enter the program in any particular year
7) The plan would run out after 13 years since contrary to the pro's claim these accounts would not be paying out interest, and if they were then that would cost a hell of a lot more money to fund
8) The plan would be putting all of our futures recklessly into the stock market which has come close to collapsing many times and can be unhinged by any event.
9) This Program will cost a lot of money in addition to Social Security which will still be around for another 40 YEARS
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
neither**
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
or niether
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
A combo of both :p
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
everyone on here hates social security...
Posted by IFLYHIGH 4 years ago
IFLYHIGH
wow, one vote in two days. Is politics just not that interesting on DDO, or is Social Security a bore to read about?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
IFLYHIGHimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con points out the flaws present in Pros plan. Pro could not adequately defend against many of Cons attacks.