Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DannyTN
I think they need to keep social security. For the simple reason that it provides a retirement income to those who either fail to plan or have their retirement wiped out through hard luck, economic distress, medical bills, etc.

I think we need to get rid of SS for the simple reason that politicians will always flush the money down the crapper.

Folks who fail to plan, are planning to fail. Forcing me to give money to politicians now for these failures is wrong. When the SHTF for these folks, the lock box will be empty and I'll be asked to pony up yet again.

What you are suggesting is charity for the stupid and unfortunate. I'm ok with that. But that's not what happens when you give money to politicians now expecting it to be there when needed later.

You need to find another vehicle for your charitable impulses than the government.

8 posted on 01/05/2011 11:06:00 AM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: slowhandluke
"I think we need to get rid of SS for the simple reason that politicians will always flush the money down the crapper. "

You seem to think congress would borrow less if Social Security was investing elsewhere. They wouldn't. They would still borrow just from someone else.

If Social Security was privatized and completely out of the hands of the government, and if Social Security invested in the economy at large instead of US treasuries, the following would occur: Social Security would probably reap larger returns, but would also be more risky. Congress would still borrow and spend just as much as before, they'd just borrow from different lenders.

The problem isn't social security or even where social security invests. The problem isn't the Federal Reserve. The problem is Congress and a citizenry that is content to send shysters to Congress.

PS, You'd still be on the hook for disability and indigent care, so there would be a separate smaller tax. But if there were no Social Security, I believe it would be quite a bit bigger than it is now. More people would be in that category.

There is no such thing as a lockbox. The only thing more ridiculous than Al Gore claiming he would put the funds in a lock box was George Bush claiming he would do the same thing. Such a thing doesn't exist.

Oh, you could put dollar bills in a safe somewhere, but inflation would reduce their purchasing power.

You could buy commodities like gold, and put that in a safe. Of course Gold fell from $800 down to $100 in the 1980's. That's certainly not safe.

You can invest in the stock market, not safe. You can buy corporate bonds. But corporations spend the money as soon as they get it too. They don't just borrow money to sit on it. Again not safe.

The safest investment in the world is still considered to be U.S. treasuries. That's where Social Security invests.

A forced savings plan is not charity. Maybe it's not total freedom but it's not charity. And recognition that state responsibility for the indigent is a civil duty predates colonial times. So pick your poison... a higher tax for indigent care...or a forced savings plan that you benefit from and that keeps a lot of people from being on the indigent roles.

10 posted on 01/05/2011 11:29:29 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson