Yes, it's been apparent that though social security needs some tweaking to remain solvent...things would be different if politicians from BOTH parties would quit dipping their fingers into the fund. When slick willie left the whitehouse, social security had a comfey surplus. It's long gone now and we are still borrowing against social security. No wonder we're in such shape. Also, conservatives have had it as their goals since the 1930's to roll back ALL of the New Deal reforms...especially social security. Now, with his self perceived mandate and majorities in both houses, the conservatives have it as their aim to ram this down the american people's throats. Also, CRR...I imagine that your dad paid in or your mom is considered disabled. and if she never paid anything in, I imagine her benifits aren't much to "write home" about.
Also, CRR, you are correct that Bush didn't take office until 1-20-01...but the fact remains that he STILL has a Negative Job creation record. I don't care how you slice it...he's the only president since Herbert Hoover to not creat a single job in his first term. The numbers just don't lie.
I think what most forget in the US is that SS was brought in as a solution to all the elderly residing in poorhouses. So what's more irredeemable, elderly collecting a crappy SS check or the masses of elderly people ending up homeless?
That's a false dichotomy. In reality, the question should be, who has the right to the money? Those who earned it or those who did not?
czarofmischief:
Tariffs on imported goods would help - but the Euroweenies cried when we did it to foreign steel.
Could there be anything more antithetical to the American ideal than protectionism?
That's a false dichotomy. In reality, the question should be, who has the right to the money? Those who earned it or those who did not?
It isn't a matter of who earned it. At one time in this country, the husband was usually the sole supporter of his wife and family. If the husband paid SS then his wife has a right to collect it. Let's say she earned by being the family accountant, house keeper, mother, nursemaid and loving spouse.
When I was growing up, I had a friend who's father died in a boating accident. Thanks to SS, his children had a little more money to spend on necessities. They also received government assistance for trade school. Thanks to SS, these children are now productive members of society who are paying into the system.
Also, CRR, you are correct that Bush didn't take office until 1-20-01...but the fact remains that he STILL has a Negative Job creation record. I don't care how you slice it...he's the only president since Herbert Hoover to not creat a single job in his first term. The numbers just don't lie.
Ern
Please explain to me what exactly Clinton did that created jobs and what Bush has / has not done to create jobs?
Bush takes office while there's a recession and then 911 happens yet we still have 3 - 4 % growth of the economy? I find that pretty amazing, esp. considering how badly much of Europe and Japan are doing.
At one time in this country, the husband was usually the sole supporter of his wife and family. If the husband paid SS then his wife has a right to collect it.
By virtue of being his wife. That's the primary purpose of marriage, the transfer of property rights.
Let's say she earned by being the family accountant, house keeper, mother, nursemaid and loving spouse.
In reality, she has a right to collect money he earned because he agreed to it. Of course, part of the reason he made this agreement is her role as "family accountant, house keeper, mother, nursemaid and loving spouse".
When I was growing up, I had a friend who's father died in a boating accident. Thanks to SS, his children had a little more money to spend on necessities. They also received government assistance for trade school. Thanks to SS, these children are now productive members of society who are paying into the system.
So everybody should be forced to pay into a system that will probably only benefit other people? What if your friend's father had purchased life assurance instead. That way, he would be certain that his family would be provided for. Similarly, rather than relying on a corrupt government to distribute your money in whatever way they see fit, wouldn't you prefer to have the choice over what to do with the money you earned?
So everybody should be forced to pay into a system that will probably only benefit other people? What if your friend's father had purchased life assurance instead. That way, he would be certain that his family would be provided for.
Why do you think that he didn't have life insurance? He did. His children were in grade school when he died. Do you really think that the life insurance policy he left was enough?
Similarly, rather than relying on a corrupt government to distribute your money in whatever way they see fit, wouldn't you prefer to have the choice over what to do with the money you earned?
I'm not saying that there aren't problems with SS. But Bush's reform plan isn't the answer. It's a good partial answer though.
BTW, I have never begrudged my taxes going to support others who are not as fortunate.
Why do you think that he didn't have life insurance? He did. His children were in grade school when he died. Do you really think that the life insurance policy he left was enough?
It could have been. It's possible to get a policy that provides for the needs of a family. The only difference between a life assurance policy and Social Security is that the latter is not voluntary.
BTW, I have never begrudged my taxes going to support others who are not as fortunate.
