The Fly on Social Security
After the President's State of the Union address a few months ago, I was cordially invited over to the News Snipet Blog for a discussion of Social Security. I've intended to give my take on the issue here at TSTF for a couple of months now, and since I have a bit of time, I may as well do it now.
As most people know, President Bush has proposed an elective partial privatization of Social Security. What that means is that if people wish to do so, they can choose to have a small percentage of their Social Security payments diverted into private investments. If approved, anyone above the age of fifty-five would be completely unaffected, and people below the age of fifty-five who elected to participate would stand to gain more money for their retirement accounts than those who elected to use the old system.
Fact: Social Security is failing. It was engineered as a temporary emergency plan under 1930's economics, and it's now archaic. It will fail unless it's changed; the only question is "when". Even though the Democrats acknowledged it publically under President Clinton, they've gone mum on the subject under President Bush. They claim that Social Security will start going bankrupt later than Bush claims, but they can't deny that it will go bankrupt. Translation? Since it's a Republican administration, the Democrats are going to bury their heads in the sand and claim there's not a problem, thereby leaving it for my generation to worry about.
You'll forgive me if I call this what it is: irresponsible and counterproductive. It's unacceptable that a Democratic "leader" will say with a straight face that they're trying to make a better America for future generations while simultaneously ignoring problems, thereby passing them on, like some legislative hand-me-down.
Leadership? Yeah, right.
My take on Social Security? I'm sick of it. I don't want any part of it. I hate the growing nanny state in America, and I've seen first hand what a joke it is in Europe. Liberals would like us all to think that life is wonderful in countries with "free" socialist health care, government pensions, et cetera. It's all bullshit. Whether they know it or not, Americans are happier and have greater opportunities than any European nation can come close to offering. The nanny state is not the solution, it's a plague. It's a symptom of a people who are so indifferent that they can scarcely be bothered to vote, let alone take charge of their lives. Don't believe me? Ask Poosh or Sarah canuck; they've got even more experience with it than I do.
What's my solution? Well, I don't dislike President Bush's idea. Social Security is not some sacred cow that must be retained in its original form. Even so, I don't want it. So I propose this solution, and simultaneously test to see if anyone else has the balls to join me.
I say that we, "Generation X", whatever you want to call us, pay for our parents. My parents are both forty-seven, they've been paying into Social Security all their lives, and they deserve to get something out of it. I'm not yet twenty-three. I've been paying in for less than a decade. I'd be willing to pay into Social Security until I retire, and not claim a single dime out of it, even when I'm eligible. Unlike Ted Kennedy, or Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Boxer, or Harry Reid, I care more about my children than I do about myself or my politics.
So, how 'bout it America? Are you willing to take a risk on retirement in order to give your children a better future, with lower taxes and more motivation to succeed as the dividend?
As most people know, President Bush has proposed an elective partial privatization of Social Security. What that means is that if people wish to do so, they can choose to have a small percentage of their Social Security payments diverted into private investments. If approved, anyone above the age of fifty-five would be completely unaffected, and people below the age of fifty-five who elected to participate would stand to gain more money for their retirement accounts than those who elected to use the old system.
Fact: Social Security is failing. It was engineered as a temporary emergency plan under 1930's economics, and it's now archaic. It will fail unless it's changed; the only question is "when". Even though the Democrats acknowledged it publically under President Clinton, they've gone mum on the subject under President Bush. They claim that Social Security will start going bankrupt later than Bush claims, but they can't deny that it will go bankrupt. Translation? Since it's a Republican administration, the Democrats are going to bury their heads in the sand and claim there's not a problem, thereby leaving it for my generation to worry about.
You'll forgive me if I call this what it is: irresponsible and counterproductive. It's unacceptable that a Democratic "leader" will say with a straight face that they're trying to make a better America for future generations while simultaneously ignoring problems, thereby passing them on, like some legislative hand-me-down.
Leadership? Yeah, right.
My take on Social Security? I'm sick of it. I don't want any part of it. I hate the growing nanny state in America, and I've seen first hand what a joke it is in Europe. Liberals would like us all to think that life is wonderful in countries with "free" socialist health care, government pensions, et cetera. It's all bullshit. Whether they know it or not, Americans are happier and have greater opportunities than any European nation can come close to offering. The nanny state is not the solution, it's a plague. It's a symptom of a people who are so indifferent that they can scarcely be bothered to vote, let alone take charge of their lives. Don't believe me? Ask Poosh or Sarah canuck; they've got even more experience with it than I do.
What's my solution? Well, I don't dislike President Bush's idea. Social Security is not some sacred cow that must be retained in its original form. Even so, I don't want it. So I propose this solution, and simultaneously test to see if anyone else has the balls to join me.
I say that we, "Generation X", whatever you want to call us, pay for our parents. My parents are both forty-seven, they've been paying into Social Security all their lives, and they deserve to get something out of it. I'm not yet twenty-three. I've been paying in for less than a decade. I'd be willing to pay into Social Security until I retire, and not claim a single dime out of it, even when I'm eligible. Unlike Ted Kennedy, or Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Boxer, or Harry Reid, I care more about my children than I do about myself or my politics.
So, how 'bout it America? Are you willing to take a risk on retirement in order to give your children a better future, with lower taxes and more motivation to succeed as the dividend?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home