Mary, I have to take a different slant on SS than a couple of the things you have just posted.
The idea of Social Security is to share the rewards of a prosperous society to ensure that everyone can grow old and die with some dignity.
Regardless of how altruistic this sounds, is smacks of socialism. The rewards you speak of to be shared, are the result of a portion of the population that works, builds, and invests, to accumulate the funds. There is no reason that they should be bound to share this with those that sat around on their butts and now want the producers to take care of those that fell behind by their own inaction.
This voodoo economics. If you have private accounts that you can manage and risk your own money, why then does the government have to get involved?
It's not "voodoo" economics because it is not economics at all. The government should not be involved, and let the chips fall where they may, but Eleanor Roosevelt was a bleeding heart liberal, and very near to being an all out socialist, and believed that the total product of a society should be shared, equally, by all of the citizens whether they earned a dime, or not. SS is burdened by taking care of all of the slackers, drunks, drug addicts, and any one else that has leeched on society their whole life, and that should not be what it is used for.
I'm not being high and mighty, because I was one of those drunks, but still worked hard enough to pay in the maximum of SS portion for 35 years. If that could have been put into a personal account, it would have tripled by avoiding the red tape of being handled by government employees. |
