Posted on 09/19/2011 2:41:36 PM PDT by jazusamo
If only Thomas Sowell could have been our first black President . . . .
He also has lived the historic African-American experience in the US, which BHO never experienced. BHO has lived the affirmative action experience. So sick.
Since I am not running for office, I can say that I DO advocate substantial cuts in Social Security for current recipients. Collectively they have voted in the most elections, and they are more responsible than anyone. If they did not realize that they were participating in a Ponzi scheme, it’s their own fault for not paying attention.
As a practical matter, it may be necessary to exempt current recipients, but there isn’t a moral case for doing so.
Say “Social Security” and most people stop thinking.
If Perry had the issue focus grouped, he’d probably find it helpful to the reception of his message to allude strongly to the fact that this warning isn’t at all original with him, though he may be the most prominent politician to date to dare raise this torch. Also he would do well to announce in his campaign appearances how he proposes the pickle to be gotten out of without concentrating the pain on a small segment of Americans.
Sure because 100% of them voted for the wrong person! Do you actually think before you type?
Yes, I do, sarcastic Freeper. Exempting current recipients from cuts just means that people like me who are decades from getting SS# will suffer bigger cuts. Why shouldn't current recipients bear some of the pain?
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
I would suggest the easiest first step of doing anything...is to simply rename it. Call it anything else you desire, except Social Security. Make it a simple 3-line bill which anyone could read. Once you get the name change accepted...then things start to become easier to modify bits and pieces from that point on out.
NOBOdy.... nobody has tried to PROVE SSA is NOT a Ponzi Scheme..
WHY?... because it is one.. everybody knows it is one.. trying to prove it isn’t.. is just SILLY..
SSA is a PURE Ponzi Scheme.. not to speak of PURE socialism..
Come to think of it.. SOCIALISM is itself a Ponzi Scheme..
The governments of England, France and Germany are Pure Ponzi Schemes..
Obama is a Ponzi artist..
Amen to that!
When the system began about 35% of the retired people in America lived below the poverty line. Now the number is about 9%. Taking benefits away from those who are receiving them should not be considered. It would upset many lives of senior citizens who have learned to live on their meager checks.
But, if something sensible isn't done younger folks like yourself are going to get the raw end of the deal, no doubt about it.
What we all need to work on is demanding that our next President and his (or her) congress commit themselves to making this work. There are ways to do it. #2 is to look at self determination and personal control over the accounts such as what was done in the early 80's in Galveston County, Texas.
In 1981, when Galveston County employees pulled out of the Social Security system, the program was projected to be insolvent by 2010.
In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.
First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively. The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard employees’ benefits against inflation and severe drops in market rates.
Employees can elect to put their portion of the contributions into riskier investments, like mutual funds and stocks, potentially to generate more interest.
At retirement, employees in the Alternate Plan can choose to take the money in a lump sum, take monthly benefits for a given time period or take a lifetime annuity, with slightly reduced benefits. Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes and therefore there is not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.
The short term fix should include a stringent review of who is receiving SSI as well as Disability, Medicaid and Medicare
The conventional wisdom is that illegals and other non-citizens who have never contributed are able to “sign up” and get the benefit of many generous social welfare programs
Disability is also rife with fraud and it seems that once one gets on the rolls no one ever checks to see if they are still eligible.
Too many “clients” and not enough productive citizens
You weren’t addressing me, but I’m going to answer.
If you are decades away from collecting SS, you still have time to do something about lowered expectations and vote to force the gov’t to allow you to keep some of what you put into SS. It’s too late for baby boomers.
Just like they've done with ACORN. They are funnelling tons of money into the rename subsidiaries of ACORN right now.
Your linked blog “Rumproast” does not contain your quote or “paraphrase.”
The video on that blog did not produce or have anything to do with creating the video.
Please produce and source the original published site of the quote, the original published site for the video and a direct link to all or don’t post them.
Thank you.
I don't think we need him as president and I think he would agree. His talents are academic, not executive. We need him as the economic advisor to a libertarian or Conservative freemarket oriented president. We need for Mr Sowell to totally staff all the economics positions throughout the government.
30 years ago or so Pinochet in Peru hired some U of Chicago economists to come down to Peru and redesign, among other things, the Peruvian Social Security system. It is now pretty much the system described by Thomas Sowell and it pays out much better retirements than American SS ever has and the recipient, owning his stake, has something to leave to his heirs. I believe the heirs can then incorporate it into their own SS plans and enhance them thereby. The freemarket changes in Peru were so effective that subsequent socialist governments that have come and gone and come again are loath to change them knowing that they will incur the instant enmity of the population as well as kill the goose that lays those auric ova.
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.