Posted on 02/06/2005 10:20:10 AM PST by qam1
It's no accident I've hated Social Security for 40 years.
That's exactly how long the federal government has been skimming money from my paycheck and putting it into its Social Security "lockbox" for my retirement.
In 1964, the summer I made $547 as a stock boy in Eat 'n Park's warehouse, I heard Barry Goldwater boldly declare that Social Security should be voluntary.
I dug that message at age 17 and I still do, though at 57 I know I'll never live to see it happen.
In fact, I'd bet my 401(k) no one will ever live to see Social Security become truly voluntary, despite President Bush's brave call to privatize a portion of the government program Goldwater and many others exposed long ago as a socialist pyramid scheme.
The president's rhetoric was great in his State of the Union speech. He promised not to raise payroll taxes, though there's some question whether or not Social Security benefits will be reduced. And he called for young people to be allowed to put part of their payroll taxes into private retirement accounts that they, and not the government, will always own.
Excuse me, Mr. President. But if it really is "our money," why is Social Security still mandatory?
And why will there still be so many rules about what our young folk can do with the money they stash in their personal accounts?
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Is this fellow under the impression President Bush can issue a decree and change the Social Security structure with a stroke of the pen?
Instead of taking the President to task, why doesn't he join in the effort to make the changes he desires?
There's a new classification for those of us born from 1954 to 1965. We are now "GenJonesers" (I forgot why we're called that.) But I have embraced it. Please do not call me a baby boomer. I gladly throw off that label! :-)
It's the Democrats in congress that perpetuate this Ponzi scheme and call it a "safety net."
PING!
Materialistic as in "Keeping up with the Jonses?"
Please add me to this ping list.
Well, sneakers, a "Joneser" is someone who doesn't do anything to acquire things for themselves. They are always asking for a handout, and in many cases think they are entitled to it.
I have a better name for that: Generation Screwed.
"But I have embraced it. Please do not call me a baby boomer."
LOL, I embraced it too, but thanks to your post I now remember what the name is.
I have to agree with the writer. Let me out of this crazy Ponzi scheme. You can keep what I have payed in. I want out ... now.
If Social Security is so great then why has Congress exempted themselves.
If Social Security is so great why have the Teachers Union opted out.
If Social Security is so great then why have certain Federal Workers like the Post Office opted out.
If Social Security is so great then why did Rail Road workers want out.
I have a small IRA. It's what I can afford. I have much more faith in that than SS.
Listen up folks, cause here's the deal.
Social Security can never go "bankrupt". Because the government can never go "bankrupt".
They have the printing presses and a monopoly on the creation of money.
So what WILL happen is this: They will print all the dollars they need to keep the system going. As many as it takes, and probably a few more.
And all those dollars (we're talking TRILLIONS here, people) will have results: inflation for commodity pricing, declining dollar strength against foreign currencies, further erosion of American sovereignty to international cartels, to name a couple.
So now you know all you need to have a happy retirement.
Though if you opt out of the baby Boomers, That would mean the Baby Boomer Generation (1946-1953)is only seven years long. That doesn't make sense.
Being born in 1961 I have nothing in common with baby boomers. I have nothing in common with Xers. I have worked my arse off since I was 17. I have a bachelor's and a master's degree. I will get SS when I'm 67 (yeah right!) I'll be working til the day I die...I assume. Nothing ever comes easy to a Joneser! OTOH, my parents have been retired,living compfortably since they were 55. I don't have any children, so I plan on living so far in debt that the govt can kiss my hard working arse when I die!
Yeah and if we never had SS we wouldn't be in that kind of pickle would we? So, I say to you, we must sacrifice for the good of future generations that should not be shackled by the socialist lie called Social Security. Our retirements, as well as most of the rest of our lives, should be our responsiblity and not the governments. That is the impetous for the President's SS reform.
I for one am willing to sacrifice SS at this time even if it may have some negative economic effets. Because, right now the economy is steam rolling and I don't think the momentume would be affected overtly by creating an anemic and impotent SS program that in a couple of decades could be scrapped.
This war on socialism that the president is obviously wagging must direct it's attacks on every socialist policy and establishment currently in place. And yes, there will be much resistance and much sacrifice to do this. I for one am willing to support these efforts.
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.