Posted on 06/20/2011 1:08:08 PM PDT by jazusamo
|
|
One of my earliest memories of revulsion against war came from seeing a photograph from the First World War when I was a teenager. It was nothing gory. Just a picture of a military officer, in an impressive uniform, talking to a puzzled and forlorn-looking old peasant woman with a cloth wrapped around her head. He said simply: "Don't you understand, madam? The village is not there any more." To many such people of that era, the village was the only world they knew. And to say that it had been destroyed in the carnage of war was to say that there was no way for them to go back home, that their whole world was gone. Recently that image came back, in a wholly different context, while seeing pictures of American seniors carrying signs that read "Hands off my Social Security" and "Hands off my Medicare." They want their Social Security and their Medicare to stay the way they are and their anger is directed against those who want to change the financial arrangements that pay for these benefits. Their anger should be directed instead against those politicians who were irresponsible enough to set up these costly programs without putting aside enough money to pay for the promises that were made promises that now cannot be kept, regardless of which political party controls the government. Someone needs to say to those who want Social Security and Medicare to continue on unchanged: "Don't you understand? The money is not there any more." Many retired people remember the money that was taken out of their paychecks for years and feel that they are now entitled to receive Social Security benefits as a right. But the way Social Security was set up was so financially shaky that anyone who set up a similar retirement scheme in the private sector could be sent to federal prison for fraud. But you can't send a whole Congress to prison, however much they may deserve it. This is not some newly discovered problem. Innumerable economists and others pointed out decades ago that Social Security was unsustainable in the long run, including yours truly on "Meet the Press" in 1981. But the long run doesn't count for most politicians, since elections are held in the short run. Politicians' election prospects are enhanced, the more goodies they can promise and the less taxes they collect to pay for them. That is why welfare states in Europe as well as here are facing bitter public protests as the chickens come home to roost. It has been said innumerable times that nobody already on Social Security will lose their benefits. But it needs to be spelled out emphatically, so that political demagogues will not be able to scare retired seniors that they are going to have the rug pulled out from under them. Retired seniors have the least to fear from a reform of Social Security, since neither political party is about to take away what these retirees already have and are relying on. Despite irresponsible political ads showing an old lady in a wheel chair being dumped over a cliff, the people who are really in danger of being dumped over a cliff are the younger generation, who are paying into Social Security but are unlikely to get back anything like what they are paying in. The money that young workers are paying into Social Security today is not being put aside to pay for their retirement. It is being spent today, paying the pensions of the retired generation and it can't even cover that in the years ahead. What needs to be done is to allow younger workers a choice of staying out of a system that is simply running out of money. Nor can the system be saved by simply jacking up taxes on "the rich." Generations of experience have shown that high tax rates that "the rich" can easily avoid through tax shelters at home or by investing their money abroad do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that keep the money here and the jobs here. Since the law does not allow private pension plans to be set up in the financially irresponsible way Social Security is, that is where young people's money should be put, if they ever want to see that money again when they reach retirement age. |
I plan on working until I die. No point even considering ‘retirement’ the way things are. Even my house is basically a burden now, thanks to the game-playing.
But, that’s okay. I probably wouldn’t know what to do with myself if I wasn’t working, so, shrug.
“I plan on working until I die. No point even considering retirement the way things are.”
I’ve decided to do exactly the same!!!
The banks got it...they held up Congress and GW Bush at gunpoint...Sept 2008
remember when bob dope of kansas helped the
democrats spend the social security surplus?
Wanna save it???? stop giving taxpayer money to the non producers.....stop head start and other needless programs...defund the atf, department of education, epa, and politicians pensions.....these simple steps alone will save it for those of us that have been paying for 40 years...allow the youngsters to opt out, and in 2 generations it is gone...
Draft Sowell for President.
If you don’t vote for him, Bambi voters, you’re a racist.
I’m in the same boat.
The money was never there. It was simply spent every year by dumping the amount not immediately Ponzied out to retirees into the general fund. The banks had nothing to do with it.
That makes three of us. I do it to attempt to justify the SS I receive. Considering what I payed in and my taxes, I may be close to justifying.
Maybe it’ll be there and maybe it won’t. I’m supposed to get 2K a month if I work until I’m 70. My mortgage won’t be paid off until I’m 80, so that’s not a lot of help. Then again, I’ll probably have sold the place long before then, but even so, it’s not going to go far enough even if all I’m doing is paying ordinary bills.
So, I’ll work. And won’t worry about it. And won’t ever ever vote for a Democrat, no matter how ‘conservative’, ever ever again.
Yep. Politicians simply can’t keep their hands off free money when they see it.
Most would hock their mother’s if they knew they wouldn’t have to pay the money back in their lifetime.
The creeps in congress are moving money from Social Security to Disability... They don't want anyone looking too closely at what's really going on...
No one objects to people who are really disabled getting Social Security - but a fair portion of inner city neighborhoods are using disability as the 'new welfare'. The MSM isn't reporting on it because too many dem victim groups are on the take - gays, blacks, drug addicts, gangbangers, alcoholics, wastrel's ...
It's NOT fair to the seniors who put into the system or to the young people paying supporting it today.
Everybody says that the way to solve the Social Security problem is to raise the retirement age. This is lazy and simplistic. I say the way to save Social Security, (if it must be saved), is to throw people off who have never paid in or who paid in for only a few years. You can start with that diaper wearing guy.
You're absolutely right.
From what little I've read on this it's a widespread scam and amounts to legalized theft.
Let's hope your employer feels the same way.
yeah..well Congress will be “ponzying it out “ to the banks rather than to the baby boomers retirements.
And once the money was in the general fund it was used as part of the monies available to fund any program the politicians and bureaucrats wanted to spend it on.
I think that only happened about twenty five years ago and there was quite a tahoo about it. Do you recall?
I’m in an interesting position: as the controller, I am the only person in the company doing my job. It doesn’t actually require a true full-time person. If health-care funding has to be provided, then the gain would be to cut me to about 60%, saving 40% of my salary and having to pay 10% for new health-care costs. I would then have to look for work to make up the lost fraction. It could be done, but would be painful in the short-run.
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.