Posted on 02/08/2015 2:16:23 PM PST by Kaslin
Last month, I posted “the cartoon argument” for Social Security reform.
My main goal, as an American, is to achieve this important reform in the United States.
And I’ve tried to bolster the argument by citing lots of hard data, including the fact that “funded” accounts already exist in nations such as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
In this spirit, I wrote an article for the most recent issue of Cayman Financial Review, and I looked at the issue from a global perspective. I first explained thatdemographics are destiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
I think the idea of social security is good. The problem is that it devolved into too much and too extravagant, at least for a lot of people.
The original idea was started by Otto Von Bismarck. Probably it had something to do with thwarting Communism.
Winston Churchill visited Germany when he was a young man. He commented that every worker from the lowest paid to the highest had a little card which promised they would not be abandoned in their old age. Churchill thought it was a good idea and determined to try and have a similar program in the UK.
Because social security/Medicare is just a scam in the US, permitting congress to effectively double the income tax, as long as they meet the monthly payroll, the way to kill the monster in an orderly manner is to starve it.
This is, from a given date, social security will no longer enroll new victims. Instead they will have non-taxable retirement savings accounts. This also means that at no point will the government have their money to spend on other things. Their taxes will be halved.
Thanks Kaslin.
Politicians are thieves who need to get elected first.
If the private retirement accounts are mandatory, that would mean government controlled. How is that any different from social security? The gov’t will just allow themselves to spend the money just like they did with SS.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea if: 1) it were actually used by people who had a real need for it and was devoid of scam artists and lazy people who just don’t want to work for a living, 2) if the healthcare costs associated with Medicare weren’t so hyper-inflated due to fraud and greed, 3) politicians would sop stealing from the funds, 4) there were a larger portion of the population paying in that are required to but don’t because they work for lower wages tax free and send the money back south of the border to Mexico and Central America. We are probably one of the key components that keeps Mexico from going the way of a 3rd world country. Just sayin...
“somehow find $5 trillion” or “somehow find $30 trillion”
Look, everyone knows that “somehow find” more money means “print” more money. It’s what all politicians do because that way they can always tell the voters they can have their cake and eat it too. And it works ... for a while. And even better, the politicians who did all the printing have long ago socked away real assets and will be living like kings when the currency becomes worthless and the peasants are starving.
So, that said, if $30 trillion needs to be printed instead of $5 trillion, than that’s how much will be printed. Really, just not a big deal if you’re a politician.
Socialist security. Another scheme, not unlike the Unaffordable Uncaring Tax, from the National Socialists built on the backs of dead Americans. Death panels can fix both. Plunder and death…the calling cards of socialists/totalitarians brought to you by deceivers, placing burdens and forcing compliance on our children and grandchildren.
Examine the axiom “It would work if people were inherently good.” That’s what got us into this mess in the first place.
People are neither inherently good or bad, but from the point of view of the founding fathers, people are inherently weak.
Our constitution and laws have a very different complexion if you assume weakness. Just writing down the rules isn’t enough when confronted by weakness. What you need is a balance of groups of people with conflicting purposes.
Ideas need to go through a gauntlet, first among those who want different things, and then those who are opposed to those things. Few make it out unchanged or modified, compromised, neutralized, satisfactory for all only by being unsatisfactory for all.
Obamacare is terrible precisely because it was forced through the process blindly.
That is the greatest illusion of all.
Young Americans and foreign born naturalized citizens are not stupid.
They will solve our unsustainable debt problem the old fashioned way.
They will default.
For the last 30 years our public education system, the MSM, the Democrat Party, and popular culture have instructed Blacks and Hispanics to despise and ridicule white people.
Does anyone here seriously believe the emerging non-white majority is going to sacrifice its standard of living to support aging white Boomers?
Interesting analysis. BUMP!
Oddly enough, I have far more confidence in Hispanics, for an odd assortment of reasons.
1) At the turn of the 19th, and then the 20th Centuries, Mexico had some savage and bloody civil wars, where if people were “on the wrong side”, they would be slaughtered: men, women and children. This has caused cultural trauma and an aversion to monolithic politics. Thus there will always be political division among them.
2) Hispanics have odd views about segregation. At one point, Mexico had 80 different official racial groups, such as “Indian-Chinese-Black”. Yet Hispanics have almost no intermarriage between Hispanic countries. Hispanic communities in the US are very nation of origin oriented, so that, for example, there is no integration between Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans.
And Hispanics in the US have zero “cultural baggage” with black Americans, so have no tolerance for their bad behavior, and in places have even taken to driving them out of their neighborhoods.
3) Some Hispanics embrace the “Jesse Helms model” of the right, and are profoundly anti-communist and pro-US military. Mexico has long tolerated socialists, but not communists. And they are also seriously divided between atheist, strongly Catholic, and in recent years, strongly Protestant. There have even been Catholic-Protestant fights in southern Mexico.
The bottom line is that when Hispanics in the US are successful in business, they tend to support Republicans, unless the candidate comes across as anti-Hispanic. But if he offers a level playing field, where hard work increases prosperity, he will get a lot of Hispanic support.
Yet there are also a goodly number of Hispanic parasites and those who want perpetual welfare. So they are a mixed bag.
Re: “But if he [the Republican candidate] offers a level playing field, where hard work increases prosperity, he will get a lot of Hispanic support.”
Ted Cruz, Republican, got 35% of Hispanic votes in Texas in 2012.
Susana Martinez, Republican governor of New Mexico, a former Democrat with Mexican heritage on both sides of her family, got 39% of the Hispanic vote in 2010.
I can’t find an exit poll for Martinez for 2014.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.