Sunday, February 27, 2005

Why is America so slow to reform Social Security?

Social Security has to be reformed. There are no other options except reform. The status quo will lead to a full collapse of the system. I'm surprised (not really) at how vehement Democrats (and even some Republicans) get about the possibility of change to the system. Their only "solution" is Gore's, leave the money in a lock box. If that's the solution, why haven't they done it before now? Because they know that should a pet project come up that will make them look good to to their constituents they will be the first to grab the money "saved" for retirement. For a political party made up of the baby boomers who spent their youth squawking about how the government can't be trusted, how can they then, with a straight face, tell us that placing our social security tax into a general fund that can be raided by the government is the best thing for us? Do they think we're stupid? Who really thinks the government knows best about how to INVEST or SAVE for retirement? Given the choice of putting my money into a personal retirement account that is mine alone and that I can then pass onto my children OR putting it into a pool of money that the government then uses for other pet projects and says I can't will to my next of kin if I die before retirement, why would I EVER want to choose option two, complete government control of my retirement fund? When is the government more efficient than the free market ESPECIALLY when it comes to investing? Not only that, but America is BEHIND the rest of the world on this. I read the following at the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Currently, some 80 million workers in 20 countries have access to personal retirement accounts. These countries include Chile, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, Uruguay, Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Poland, Latvia, Sweden, Hong Kong, El Salvador and Croatia (roughly in the order in which they adopted the plans).
Macedonia, the Dominican Republic, Kosovo and even China have passed reform laws, which they are now in the process of implementing. Other countries are moving in that direction. Interestingly, the United States is not yet on this list.

Exactly. The US is not on the list. Why are we behind BOLIVIA in getting PRA's?

If the liberals really want us to keep Social Security the way it is, then they need to reverse themselves on the abortion issue. You can't advocate for the current social security system, but then allow women to kill the generations needed to keep the system afloat.

Social Security was supposedly to help people have money for their retirement. It was a reaction against the depression. Now that we've entered the 21st Century, let's all admit that we've come a long, long way in understanding investing since the reign of FDR. The government will screw all us future retirees for the short term benefits OUR money will give them with their constituents. MY money will not be there for me if I have to retire on social security. The government isn't accountable for all the money they've taken so far through social security taxes. Who do I complain to and demand satisfaction from when I reach 65 or 70 and want to retire, but can't 'cause I've been robbed blind by Big Daddy Govmint who supposedly had my best interests at heart. Social Security is a big slap in the face to any reasonably sane and responsible person since it assumes we're too stupid to know how to save for our own retirements. Why not hand over all major life responsiblities that require vision and planning to the government? Why stop at retirement? I'm sure the government knows me better than I know myself. That sounds like government thinks its God. Oh wait, that's exactly what the lefty liberals DO think about government. They love playing God and that's their crack.

No comments: