Why Bush's (un)Social (in)Security makes me nervous

Comments

6 comments posted
It's borrow more now so that

It's borrow more now so that you won't have to borrow less later - that's as good a deal as "the more you spend, the more you save!"

jenniebee's picture
Posted by jenniebee (not verified) on 4 February 2005 - 1:15am
Logic

See that had way too much logic to the stupidpublicans to understand. I am a Libertarian and understand it! Some things should not be touched.

Blue's picture
Posted by Blue (not verified) on 4 February 2005 - 9:20am
the entire system needs to be scapped.

The government is not your retirement plan. I have family member who have an extra condo because of there SOCIAL SECURITY check... to me that seems likea lot more than social security. Why make people pay into a system that is built on a socialist premise to begin with. I think the system should be dumped. Here in america its your own responsibility to take care of yourselves. This is all part of the progressive socialist agenda on the left... and they are now scared that someone is "taking the power from the big fat government"

808blogger's picture
Posted by 808blogger (not verified) on 4 February 2005 - 7:44pm
Your logic escapes me

You want to scrap a system because the rich folks are making out like bandits?

Maybe you never learned any history in school. Social Security was created during the Great Depression, after The Crash of the stock markets devastated people's savings and left them old and destitute.

If you don't give a shit about your fellow citizens, fine, you can always move to another country. I think the Congo is safely free of any and all social safety nets. But despite your cold heart, the fact is that America has defined itself around caring. That is what has made America great and the envy of the world, despite our wealth and power. We look out for each other.

Social Security system has been around for 70 years and it's the most successful government program -- so successful, in fact, that Congress routinely raids its surplus to finance more pork and bombs.

Now you want to toss people back to the wolves of the market? You want to cut benefits to the poor because you know someone who bought a condo? My guess is that this person can buy that condo because Republicans wanted the rich to make out more than anyone else, which is just like the rich, isnt it? Social Security was never meant to be the sole means for people in retirement -- and it sure as hell cannot do that now, unless you know some secret to living off of $1300 a month. But you know what? There are people who count on that money.

You know, one thing that seems to miss the notice of wingnuts is that the government is ours. The govoernment belongs to us, the citizens. It's not our enemy, it's our own tool. Government serves the people. With your attitude, I bet you'd cut off your foot if you got a hangnail.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 4 February 2005 - 8:09pm
I'm with 808blogger

...Yet I know it is not practical. Much too drastic, and perhaps a step backwards in the grand scheme of things. But the premise is sound--take responsibility for your own actions. Save for your own retirement. The government should neither prevent you from doing so, by imposing additional payroll taxes, nor redistribute your hard-earned wages to those who have made poor choices in life.

The rich you hate so much--are doing something right. As the saying goes, the rich keep doing what made them rich, the poor keep doing what made them poor. You seem to want to penalize "evil" people who have simply worked HARD and made a good life for themselves. THAT is what America is about, not about caring. Caring is a very noble and worthy attribute, but should have nothing to do with government. Caring should be voluntary. If it is mandatory, then you have a socialist system. Would you truly want to live in a socialist state?

the most successful government program -- so successful, in fact, that Congress routinely raids its surplus to finance more pork and bombs

If it were to be successful and sustainable, it would have been made proof against manipulation by lawmakers. As the program is now, and exactly for the reason you state above, it's not sustainable. Let's fix it.

Now you want to toss people back to the wolves of the market?

Ahem. WTF? Nobody is talking about even a mandatory change in the status quo, but simply the OPTION to do something more intelligent with your money. And if you think it's wiser to put your money into SS, and make a 1% return, or less the next time Congress decides to cut benefits, go for it. I would take the most I can, say 4% of my payroll, and put it into a private account and make a 8% return that is *my* money that the government cannot take away.

The govoernment belongs to us, the citizens. It's not our enemy, it's our own tool. Government serves the people.

Very true. I think we would all be best served if there were less of it.

Anyway...sorry to come in and troll. Nice site, came here by accident, but I respect anybody who can at least backup their opinions with thoughtful commentary.

hal's picture
Posted by hal (not verified) on 4 February 2005 - 8:45pm
It's not a savings account

Social Security is insurance, not a savings account. If you live to 120 years old, you still get your check. Try that with a savings account after you've drained it.

My response was a bit emotional, and I apologize for that. Not that I don't feel passionately about this, but I'm also dealing with a stalled computer repair that has left me very cross.

I'm all for expanding the system -- more IRAs or whatever. But I don't think SS should be scrapped. Yet unlike some others, I also don't believe we should refuse to talk about raising the retirement age. Bumping it up to 70 could make a huge difference in when the program starts to go into the red. (It's not in the red yet.)

We run away from the word "socialism" but a lot of our great institutions are at least somewhat socialist in nature. The fire department is socialism. The police. Health clinics for the poor. Schools. Student loans. Unemployment. The GI Bill. Fannie Mae. For all their supposed problems, these things have done alright by this country, in my view.

Ideological talk is fine and dandy, but real world examples of what you describe are rather Dickensian, don't you think? Or do you pine for the days of Scrooge and Les Miserables?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 4 February 2005 - 10:29pm