It should be allowed to collapse entirely then, than continue in a manner thats 'politically tenable'.
Why would a conservative advocate continuing it in a manner that even more closely resembles another entitlement program for the needy?
>It should be allowed to collapse entirely then, than continue in a manner thats ‘politically tenable’.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about in the event of such a collapse? We’re talking the collapse of the U.S. currency because I can guarantee the politicians will go for hyper inflation before they allow the system to collapse naturally.
That hyperinflation will destroy everyone’s savings and the economy on top of it. You better have an off the grid farmhouse in the middle of nowhere very well stocked in ammo and food if you are advocating allowing Social Security to go under. Otherwise you are suicidal.
>Why would a conservative advocate continuing it in a manner that even more closely resembles another entitlement program for the needy?
Because only by transforming it into what it really is (a welfare program) can it finally be shown to be a bad idea and killed. There is simply too much political and social inertia here for the program to just be stopped. It has to be slowed, and diverted first. Then eventually it might be able to be stopped.
We’ve already been screwed when the Left managed to demagogue away the option of privatization. In spite of the fact that Chile pulled off such a switch perfectly, it appears to be off the table here now.
That’s pretty sad that the supposed world leader in freedom and free markets got shown up and a small Latin American country.
A reasonable historian some time in the future is likely to lament Bush’s bravest act and greatest failure as being his attempt to privatize social security and failing. He spent a lot of political capital on that and the GOP congress got gutless and ran.