Posted on 11/08/2004 5:39:17 AM PST by beaureguard
Of all the reforms proposed by George Bush during has second term, nothing seems to cause Democrats to hyperventilate quite so much as his plans for Social Security. If you truly understand the collectivist and anti-individualistic mentality of the left this will come as no surprise.
Just what is Bush proposing? Is it truly as hideous and ugly as the Democrats portray it? Will it be the end of our country; the end of life as we know it in America. Hardly. Bush simply plans to allow "younger workers" (however that may be defined) to take some of the money that the government confiscates as Social Security payroll taxes and put that money in a private account. This account would be owned by the individual. Government can't take it away. If the individual dies before retirement the account goes to his family, not to the government. He earned that money. It's his. It remains his. What, pray tell, is so horrible about this idea?
For Democrats, the issue is control. There is a huge segment of our society that is or will be almost totally dependent on Social Security benefits when they reach retirement age. These people would be shocked to learn that they have absolutely no irrevocable right to any benefits at all. You get those benefits if the politicians want you to get those benefits. Politicians can, without any legal recourse on your part, decide to delay your retirement age. This idea is floated often as a solution to the coming Social Security economic crunch. The motive here is to delay the retirement age so that more old Americans will actually die before they can get any of their money back, or so that they'll collect benefits for a shorter period of time before they go Tango Uniform. That money, you see, isn't yours. Oh yeah ... you worked for it. But before you could even get your hands on it the government snatched it away. And, no again. That money is not resting safely in any Social Security account or trust fund.
When the politicians got their hands on that money they call a Social Security "contribution" they used a part of it to cover the checks there were writing that particular month to Social Security recipients. The rest of it? Gone. Spent. Every single penny of it has been spent. Not invested as a private pension plan would do. They spent it all. Squandered might be a better word.
You will hear Democrats say that we can't partially privatize Social Security because it would be too expensive. What they mean is that if the person who paid the money is actually allowed to put that money into a private account, that money won't be there for the government to spend on its various vote-buying programs. If our politicians had been doing what basic decency mandated all along .... taking Social Security tax and actually setting them aside in the names of future recipients ... there would be no problem with partial privatization today. But nooooooo. That money had to be spent. There were votes to buy and citizens to be made dependent on government handouts! You can't invest in the future of our retirees when there are elections to be won.
Here's an interesting little factoid you might enjoy. Virtually every State has some sort of law that regulates insurance companies. If some private entrepreneur moved to any State in the union and started marketing a retirement and disability plan modeled after Social Security he would be arrested and jailed. No state government would allow such a scheme to exist. It does exist though. It exists as Social Security and it exists because the Imperial Federal Government exercises a monopoly on the use of force. The money is seized from the working man by force, and benefits will be granted, increased, decreased, denied or delayed as the federal government -- or as the politicians see fit.
What in the world can possibly be wrong with allowing a person to actually own a part of their Social Security account? How does this hurt Democrats so badly? In general, Democrats and liberals are hurt whenever a citizen becomes financially independent. Democratic political power is built on a foundation of dependency on government. This dependency is then used as a weapon when elections roll around. Think back as far as you like, and you won't be able to remember one presidential election where Democrats didn't tell the voters that their opponents, the evil Republicans, were going to "destroy" Social Security. Now just how in the world are the Democrats going to be able to convince voters that the evil Republicans are going to take away their private accounts? Truth is, they can't? No more than they could convince voters that Republicans were going to take their checking accounts.
Individuality and independence are poison to collectivist politics. The Democrats must do all they can to prevent those who will depend on Social Security from ever enjoying a sense of independence.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
--Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."
-- C.S Lewis
Fear if losing the Govt. teat.
They hate Bush
My opinion for what it's worth! I believe I understand the issues but the President needs to give an address to the Nation to really dispel much of the fearmongering that is going on. I would be willing to wager that 60% of the public do not know the dire situation SS is in or what is being proposed.
Because they're Socialists?
The less people need government, the less they need Democrats!
THis is a rhetorical question, right?
Leftists fear Soc Sec privatization because it is a direct government hand out to senior citizens. Senior citizens are the biggest voting bloc in every election. It is the single biggest vote buying scheme in US history and the Dems don't want to lose it from their arsenal of dirty tricks.
No bet! You're right; President Bush and his allies need to get out there, around the so-called "mainstream" media, and inform the people of exactly what the problem is and his plan to solve it - deny the liberals the chcnce to demagogue the issue.
I remember reading a Congressional Research Services paper about 8 years ago which covered how the UK, Mexico, and either Brazil or China had already made this transition. Somehow the Dimogogues think we're too stupid to do what these other countries already have.
Generally, people are afraid of anything that gives them more responsibility. But Dems in particular are afraid that when the people see that less government is better government, their house of cards will topple forever unless they become more centrist in their views. The extreme left will fight to the death over this.
Never mess with an entitlement. It puts it at risk. Typical Demo attitude.
algore 3.0 was saying the SAME THING that John Kerry was saying. It's their playbook and it's a "bread-and-butter" play for the demoKOOKs. In fact, one of my family members (elderly) voted for Kerry and when it was inquired as to why, it was said, "Because Bush is going to take away my social security".
[mattdono shakes head]. demoSCUM. Scaring seniors for 50 years.
Dems love "entitlement" programs, because they use them as carrots to dangle in front of voters during an election. They convince folks that if they don't vote Dem that the carrots will all go away. They need to keep citizens "needy" and dependent upon the government. They are like crack dealers.
How this incredibly complicated concept is going to be implemented is beyond me. The devil will be in the details.
If social security is privatized, people who don't currently invest in stocks or bonds will begin to understand the way our economy works and how the policies of the left affect it. Then they would vote for the candidates that want America's economy to flourish.
Dingdingding! We have a winner!
Plus, of course, loss of control over the money...
What a softball!
Because, dear friends, these people do not understand Ponzi Scheme, nor do they want to.
La lalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!
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.