No reasoning with the elderly on issue of Social Security

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 5/24/05 | Ruben Navarrette

[qam1]

Xer Ping

Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-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.

[Dubya]

Ruben Navarrette

What a Jerk.

[1Old Pro]

The debate over whether to reform Social Security is full of idiosyncrasies.

No, it's full of idiots. Starting with the AARP and the media.

[dirtboy]

Whether or not he's a jerk, his analysis is spot-on in this column, IMO.

[thebaron512]

The AARP rag I just read found some moron who said the return on private accounts would not match the current system.

So government black hole of spending is better than money working in the economy?

[2banana]

The "Greatest Generation" turned into the "Greediest Generation"

[Brilliant]

They have nothing to lose if social security goes bust. They won't be here.

[Dubya]

I respect your right to have an opinion and post it. Have a nice day.

[xrp]

I take heart in Flemming vs Nestor (1960) where the US Supreme Court ruled that no American citizen has a right to collect Social Security.

All we Gen-X/Gen-Y have to do is wait until enough of the baby boomers are too senile to vote or are 6 feet under, then we can vote Social Security into oblivion and leave them hanging out to dry.

I'm not putting much faith in this, though, so I am working hard now to amass a small fortune, then stash it in Switzerland somewhere and move myself to Belize or Costa Rica.

[fooman]

Add me to your list.


We need to START with auto cuts in soc security NOW!


Our generation has our benes cut twice already.

With thier high ROI, it is the seniors turn to buck up.

[Trust but Verify]

The $$ has to be in your name or you can't count on it whether it's the governemnt or your employer-funded pension plan. that is the lesson I preach to my kids. Only if it's in your name can you count on it being there for your retirement. My husband and I bith have employer-funded pensions. We are only 5 years from having 30 years in. It will be tempting to retire and take the money while it's still there. Happily, we have the option of taking it in a lump sum.

[henkster]

Thanks to the Ponzi scheme we are tied to, we are today screwing ourselves and our children. Irrevocably.

It doesn't matter whether you save the money yourself outside Social Secuirty, and plan on financing your retirement with it. Where do you think the government is going to go when Socialistic Security starts to go bankrupt? They will confiscate private savings held in its various forms. This was an idea floated before early in the Clinton administration. It will not only wreck the economy, it will personally bankrupt each and every one of us.

And the greedy American public is too stupidly short-sighted to realize it.

[robowombat]

In general I have found people over 65 to be the most trusting of government as well as resistant to any change in social insecurity. The first part of the equation has to do with the perception that big government delivered the bacon by directing the victorious war against the Axis and then presiding over the unprecedented post war prosperity.For social insecurity it seems its more of the same politics of nostalgia similar to those New Yorkers who continued to write in Laguardia's name for mayor of NYC long after he was dead. They knew he was under the sod but continued to vote his name as a sort of pious commemoration of the most exciting epoch in their lives.

[music is math]

eh? that was a great article. particularly with rippers like this:

You know what else was disappointing? That many of the seniors were so openly contemptuous of the idea of letting poor and working people invest their own money in private retirement accounts. To listen to these seniors, the less well-off aren't smart enough to know what to invest where, and so need the government to provide them with a guaranteed benefit.

[rhombus]

As someone looking at 50 next year I'm not sure what all this will bring for me. Nonetheless, I do support private accounts for younger folks. People need to own the fruits of the labor. However it should be no surprise to any of us that so many are desperately addicted to the nanny state and that monthly check. They (as well as me) were told all our lives that the money that came out of our checks would go for us - of course it was a nanny-state lie. What I'd say to all you Gen-X'ers who are trying to find a way to pay for healthcare, be warry of signing on to nice-sounding universal health care plans for all. Nothing's free.

[ANGGAPO]

I suspect that most folks do not understand that any investment in in the stock option is just that, an option. You don't have to invest if you don't want to. I have noticed that the press fails to mention that, or if they do it is given the old Demotwist.

[Dubya]

LOL Thanks for pointing that out.

[henkster]

Take the lump sum, quickly. I did when I left after 18 years of employment.

But beware my previous post. When the financial catastrophe of social security really begins, the government will confiscate your money anyway. After all, you, with your private savings, will be the "ants" in the minority, and the "majority" of grasshoppers will vote themselves to your money.

[Alberta's Child]

So much for "The Greatest Generation," eh?