So then explain why the government has to get in the middle of that family matter in any way, shape or form and justify that with being a conservative
“So then explain why the government has to get in the middle of that family matter in any way, shape or form and justify that with being a conservative”
So there are two things here - is SS workable and a good plan; and should the government attempt to address old age poverty.
The first point is the one that I think is provable beyond any argument. SS has a 75 year history of working. Even under the most dire prediction, it slips to just 75% of promised benefit (hence the idea that it is a ponzi scheme is false, since it is not fraudulent, does not strand anyone with zero return, does not involve corruption, does not give anyone excessive profits, cannot go bankrupt, and so on). For all the hoopla, the fact is that everyone of us who reaches age 65 will collect SS checks, even the young ones. But please note - SS is a supplement. It costs a small part of our pay check, and it returns a small part of our retirement (if we are smart enough to use the other 93.8% wisely and get a lot of that into savings).
The second point is at the heart of the definition of conservative. You have the implied definition that a conservative is entirely self-reliant and that collective action using the government as tool is non-conservative. I think this image is exaggerated. To make a nation strong requires using the government for collective action. I know that statement will raise the ire of a Ron Paul supporter, but it is realistic and extremely important to acknowledge for the good of American strength. America will become weaker and less prosperous if we ignore this reality. And it is entirely unAmerican to insist on total self-reliance. We didn’t do that at any time in our history: in the settlement of the West, for example, the government gathered and distributed land with stipulations (you had to plant so many acres and build a suitable house within a year). The government heavily subsidized the transcontinental railroad, and paid for law enforcement, and subsidized the postal service. The government dug the Panama canal. The government later built our highway systems, which it still maintains. The govenment set industry standards for food and maufacturing and radio frequencies and electric power frequencies and a host of other things that make our nation prosperous.
When the founding fathers made our constitution, yes, they said things like the government that governs less, governs best. I like that. But less is not zero. At times and in addressing specific problems, the government is a tool of the people, by the people, working for the people.
The big need for SS is just this - we only afford our life style by having people who earn very low wages (like $8/hr at Walmart, etc.). It is a necessity. But those people cannot save money easily. In the past, this led to old age poverty that sapped our resources, and weakened us. In 1935, we figured out a way to end old age destitution. While you may not know many older poor people, the remarkable fact is that of the poorest quartile of seniors, SS payment makes up 83% of all income. For millions, it is 100% of income. That income allows those millions to buy food, pay rent, and contribute to the consumer economy. It helps us all.
I know it is purist to say “Government is bad,” but when it comes to a host of matters (roads, industry standards, airwave regulation, food inspection, disaster relief, and the end of old-age destitution), government can work. And it is not a bad thing to end poverty in this basically painless way.
(Aside: what is socialist and does offend me, is the idea of a government-sponsored “personal savings account.” SS is a simple uncorruptable system; when the government starts controlling our savings, that opens a host of corruption possibilities.)