Social Security and other kinds of things...
First, thanks to Sarah for screwing our heads on straight with yesterday's topic. I knew they spoke a different language back in the day, but how believing ON something is correct is beyond me. Traditional or not, it doesnt make sense.
Anyways, moving on to today's topic. Social Security. Namely what becometh of it. I know that I try to stay away from politics on this blog because essentially if my reading audience is like the American public, there are, well... 2 of you who are in the red, and 2 in the blue. I dont want to alienate either group, but in this instance it simply must be done. I still love you blue people, but on this issue you are whacked. Its spreading to the red people as well, but I think mainly because they are afraid. And if you consider how poorly Republicans communicate their message, they should be.
The issue is whether to allow people to direct a portion of what they pay into Social Security into private investment accounts. The current Republican administration is pushing this idea. What is the Democrats plan, to counter?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
I dont know what their plan is either. Because like almost everything else, they dont appear to have one. Their only plan is to take the exact opposite stance that Bush takes. On everything.
The only thing they can come up with is that, well, maybe its not really a problem. Well, that and Bush is trying to scare us...
It would be like if Bush came up with an initiative to cure cancer in 5 years. The Democrats would simply come out and say - well, maybe cancer isnt such a problem afterall. Or, why do we have to deal with cancer now? Or, Bush is just trying to scare the public... cancer isnt really that bad.
There was a quote in the San Francisco Chronicle by Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., that I think sums up the Democrats plan very well:
Levin described the program's impending insolvency as "a challenge, not a crisis." The program has 40 years before it runs into difficulty, he insisted. Only then, when its trust fund runs out, will changes be required, he argued.
Wow. I guess we should wait until the train comes to a screaching hault to address it? And then what? Raise taxes to 20-25% of your paycheck?
It seems to me that a much better way to address the problem, now, would be to draw a cut off line, say 25 years out. Tell those people retiring in 25 years and beyond, much of Social Security is not going to be there so you best be planning for something else.
IMO, if you are 25 years out and you arent planning for something else other than Social Security, you have your head on crooked anyways. Certainly if you are in your 20s, and arent planning for retirement without Social Security, you're nuts.
If I could get my hands on 4% of what I pay into Social Security, that would be a windfall, when combined with everything else we are doing. And I dont even have to risk it by investing in the stock market, like the Democrats keep "scaring" us with. I already have money in the stock market with my 401k. There are numerous other options out there, like bonds, mutual funds, whatever.
It comes down to this: the Democrats just do not trust private individuals with their own money. Sorry, but its the truth. They want the government to care for everyone from cradle to grave. "Give us your money, we will decide what is best for you."
I dont agree with Bush all the time, but when he says, "hey, its your money, you be responsible for it," Im all for that. I know what is best for me, not some government slimeball who makes so much money anyways, they dont have to ever worry about whether the Social Security system will be there or not.
Like Rob Simmons, Republican Rep. from Connecticut, who so eloquently stated: "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."
Not a day too soon Rob...
peace nick
Anyways, moving on to today's topic. Social Security. Namely what becometh of it. I know that I try to stay away from politics on this blog because essentially if my reading audience is like the American public, there are, well... 2 of you who are in the red, and 2 in the blue. I dont want to alienate either group, but in this instance it simply must be done. I still love you blue people, but on this issue you are whacked. Its spreading to the red people as well, but I think mainly because they are afraid. And if you consider how poorly Republicans communicate their message, they should be.
The issue is whether to allow people to direct a portion of what they pay into Social Security into private investment accounts. The current Republican administration is pushing this idea. What is the Democrats plan, to counter?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
I dont know what their plan is either. Because like almost everything else, they dont appear to have one. Their only plan is to take the exact opposite stance that Bush takes. On everything.
The only thing they can come up with is that, well, maybe its not really a problem. Well, that and Bush is trying to scare us...
It would be like if Bush came up with an initiative to cure cancer in 5 years. The Democrats would simply come out and say - well, maybe cancer isnt such a problem afterall. Or, why do we have to deal with cancer now? Or, Bush is just trying to scare the public... cancer isnt really that bad.
There was a quote in the San Francisco Chronicle by Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., that I think sums up the Democrats plan very well:
Levin described the program's impending insolvency as "a challenge, not a crisis." The program has 40 years before it runs into difficulty, he insisted. Only then, when its trust fund runs out, will changes be required, he argued.
Wow. I guess we should wait until the train comes to a screaching hault to address it? And then what? Raise taxes to 20-25% of your paycheck?
It seems to me that a much better way to address the problem, now, would be to draw a cut off line, say 25 years out. Tell those people retiring in 25 years and beyond, much of Social Security is not going to be there so you best be planning for something else.
IMO, if you are 25 years out and you arent planning for something else other than Social Security, you have your head on crooked anyways. Certainly if you are in your 20s, and arent planning for retirement without Social Security, you're nuts.
If I could get my hands on 4% of what I pay into Social Security, that would be a windfall, when combined with everything else we are doing. And I dont even have to risk it by investing in the stock market, like the Democrats keep "scaring" us with. I already have money in the stock market with my 401k. There are numerous other options out there, like bonds, mutual funds, whatever.
It comes down to this: the Democrats just do not trust private individuals with their own money. Sorry, but its the truth. They want the government to care for everyone from cradle to grave. "Give us your money, we will decide what is best for you."
I dont agree with Bush all the time, but when he says, "hey, its your money, you be responsible for it," Im all for that. I know what is best for me, not some government slimeball who makes so much money anyways, they dont have to ever worry about whether the Social Security system will be there or not.
Like Rob Simmons, Republican Rep. from Connecticut, who so eloquently stated: "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."
Not a day too soon Rob...
peace nick
posted by Nick at
1:10 PM
5 Comments:
Methinks you may be teasing me! :oD Nay bother!
Well I know FAR more about the American welfare state than I did five minutes ago.
Though I'm a little confused as the only Bueller I know is Ferris Bueller!
I actually wasnt teasing :) But my Bueller reference is related to Ferris. If you've seen the movie, you remember the part where Ben Stein is taking attendance...
Bueller... Bueller...
Oh, and Social Security is not welfare. It is paid while you work, and paid back when you retire. When you have more people retiring than paying in, you have a problem, such is the case now.
Oh that's ok then... thought I'd missed a politician of the same name! Really MUST watch the film again. I loved it when I was a kid!
From what you say it sounds like British state pensions are in the same situation as those in the US. Too many pensioners, not enough workers! That's a good reason for working with young people; keep in with the people who'll be paying taxes to cover your pension when you're old!
Well I will not try to tell you that any one person has the answer, but what I am afraid of is the millions of Americans that are not as money savy as you are Nick. What will happen in 15-30 years when the system has been privatized and people that know nothing about saving money are penniless and living on welfare. Our tax dollars are going to wind up paying for them anyway. Once again, though, I do not believe that any one person has the answer.
1. No one is suggesting it be privatized completely.
2. There are a gazillion resources out there to help people save for retirement. The fact that people are unwilling to take advantage of them is their problem, not the governments.
3. Every possible reason to be against private accounts can be debunked with one simple solution. Make it voluntary. If you want to take your chances on a crappy system like Social Security, do nothing, pay in like you do, and get what you get when you retire. If you want to take the "risk" of taking responsibility for yourself, I think you should be able to do just that.
Thanks for stopping by.
nick
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home