Posted on 03/07/2005 5:58:47 PM PST by moutland
Social Security, the largest and most invasive Ponzi scheme the world has ever known , has done more to destroy the American ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility than any other single factor, and the fear and hysteria surrounding the President's suggestion of personal retirement accounts is proof.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanminuteman.com ...
Somehow, America managed to grow and prosper for 150 years without such massive personal interference, ultimately becoming the most successful industrial nation in history. During most of this time, the concept that each person was responsible for themselves was a given. Even private charity was conditioned upon true need, with those unable to work or without family support deemed "worthy", and those simply unwilling to work deemed "unworthy". Even when charity was given, the social pressures to quickly move from dependency to self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility, were great and ever-present. There was some formalized public aid, and a few official government-paid "pensions", but most relief was provided at the local level by churches and private organizations, where it should have been. People were expected to do whatever was necessary to provide for themselves, and not expect their fellow citizens to provide for them.
Invariably, the supporters of wealth-redistribution, which is truly at the core of Social Security, claim that evolutionary conditions, such as populations moving from an agrarian to an industrialized society, required a re-evaluation of government's role in retirement and poverty. Using the Great Depression of 1929 as a catalyst and excuse, socialistic influences in Franklin Roosevelt's administration, including FDR himself, used the panic of unemployment and uncertainty to fundamentally change a century and a half of precedent, and shift the burden of personal accountability away from the individual and to the government itself. By requiring productive workers to fund the retirement of others, and collecting and funneling the money through the government, these socialists devised an ingenious way to financially enslave millions of Americans and introduce billions of untapped private resources into the public treasury to fund even more big-government programs at the same time.
When the Depression was ripping the wealth out of the stock market, and an army of underemployed and unemployed workers were unsure of tomorrow's paycheck, Social Security must have seemed like a grand idea. However, the program had little effect on personal economics during that critical time, and regular retirement checks did not actually start reaching Americans until the early 1940's. By that time, it was World War II, and not Social Security, that actually ended the depression. But it was too late. The program was already in place.
Because of this, objections to "privatization", no matter how limited, are based on pure power politics, as usual. Foundationally, Democrats (both then and now) love everything big government, and there is no bigger social program than Social Security. With billions of dollars flowing into the federal coffers annually, Democratic politicians are naturally inclined to defend it, since most Americans are held hostage to this government con-job. That makes every participating American a member of the dependent constituency, the core of Democratic support. Coupled with the Democratic tendency to view themselves as morally superior protectors of the unwashed masses, who are too ignorant and weak minded to make wise and informed decisions, Social Security represents the pinnacle of liberal philosophy.
Ironically, Social Security does not even provide much of a retirement, taking into consideration the amount of money it confiscates from every worker. The typical check is just over $1000, but many are far less. This is hardly an amount that will lead to a comfortable retirement lifestyle by itself. Under the present system, after laboring for a lifetime and contributing nearly ten percent of gross earnings into Social Security, and enduring a passed-on pay cut of 8% to cover the employer's mandated contribution, the typical worker can look forward to functional poverty upon retirement. So much for compassion.
Most economists agree that given the same amount of Social Security deductions, placed into moderate risk, and even low risk stock and bond market investments, the typical investor would fare considerably better, beating Social Security by up to four times in return. But more importantly, the decisions would be made by the individual, and not the government, and would be paid for by private money, and not confiscatory taxation. In addition, where there is personal risk, there tends to be a greater degree of personal attention.
Today, with a rapidly growing stock market protected from much of the instability that contributed to the depression, and with numerous investment options available that safely yield far greater returns than Social Security's measly 2% even under the worst long-term conditions, this seems to be a program that has outlived any usefulness it may have had at one time. However, with most of America dependent on the federal government for the bulk of their retirement, and selfish-interest organizations like the American Association of Retired Persons simply front groups for the expansion of an expanding entitlement culture, there is really only one hope of beginning our recovery from the nanny state. Instead of looking for ways to prolong the death agony of an unsustainable program, Social Security should be dismantled completely. Sooner rather than later.
Of course, this would ultimately require workers to develop their own retirement plans, or for employers to offer several plans as a benefit of employment, from which a worker could choose. It would also require workers to educate themselves about these investment options, in order to make informed decisions about their own lives. Schools might need to take a few instructional hours in order to teach kids something that really matters: how to best provide for themselves through personal economic initiative and responsibility. President Bush calls this the "ownership society", but it is simply a return to the foundational principles of America that made our country productive beyond all others. That this concept could be attacked by a majority of Americans as unfeasible or unreasonable is an indication of how far liberal ideology has polluted our once strong and independent minds, and made many economic slaves of the state.
Safety nets and public largess should be reserved for those who are truly unable to care for themselves: the profoundly disabled, the seriously mentally ill, and those too young or too weak to pursue their own best interests. It should not be forced upon a strong working class because a few liberals think they are too stupid to take care of themselves, or because many people choose to make poor decisions, and then expect public money to clean up the mess. Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and programs such as Social Security immorally rob human beings of their most important God-given right.
Free will.
Thank you. I am always amazed to look around and see so many people who prefer security over freedom, and mediocrity over reaching for greater things.
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.