What a Jerk.
Whether or not he's a jerk, his analysis is spot-on in this column, IMO.
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.
I think he's correct in his analysis of old people in this country. I've even heard old people on the radio saying they don't give a damn whether their grandchildren have to pay 20-30-or even 40% of their pay to keep their grandparents in SS money. The funny thing is that these 75+ year olds never really contributed all of that much to the mysterious fund. Rates have pretty much stayed the same, but the income limits have risen dramatically in the last 20 years. I'm 55 years old and I've personally had over $200K taken out of may pay over the last 20 years for Social Security -- double that if you count the amount my employers have paid on my behalf. I would have been happy to have had the opportunity to invest that money in an account with my name on it.
I guess I'm in the minority with the 55 years and over crowd, because I believe that we should let younger (even older) people invest part of the funding in accounts for themselves. If it takes increasing my taxes for the next 10 years to enable this, then okay. Even if it reduces my SS some in the future, I still say okay. I've got grandchildren and I'd like them to reap some benefit from the SS money that is currently being pissed away on SS, SSI, and Medicare.
Regardless, the author of the article was dead-on accurate about the "Greatest Generation."
Your post proves his point.
Nope.
He's writing from frustration at the stupidity, at the selfishness, and at the ignorance and bias OF the current seniors.
All these errors and prejudices, of course, are being exploited and reinforced BY the democrats and the media (but I repeat myself!) to prevent Bush from fixing the SS problem.
What a Jerk.
He's a liberal, for sure, I read his column regularly in the SLC Tribune. He's pretty big on giving amnesty to illegals, but with his Latino background, I sort of expect that. But on occasion, he does see some truth, and is not afraid to write about it in his column.
I think he did us all a favor with this one, by telling of his own personal frustrations with the aging New Dealers. To them, the whole scheme has been a magic money machine, put in a very few bucks back in the 1940's, 50's, and 60's, when postwar prosperity was lifting this country to new heights, like the world had never seen, and reap COLA-adjusted bennies until you croak. They fail to realize that by the time the postwar prosperity was starting to peter out (about 1970, by my reckoning) what saved the Social Security system from collapse was all those baby boomers entering the workforce in massive numbers.
Now, the boomers are standing at the door, waiting for their handout, but there's not enough money coming in through the door to keep the pyramid going. I'm glad that Navarette sees this for what it is, we need more liberals who do not merely stick their heads up their butts.