It's long been obvious to anyone who looks at it that Social Security steals from our children in order to fund our retirement. FDR proposed that as a stopgap, with the idea that private annuities would be phased in over time.
Doing the right thing--the fiscally sound thing, the morally proper thing--by moving toward individually owned accounts IS the progressive stance. It would give every American at every level of income actual ownership, an actual piece of the pie.
It's a given that sooner or later we'll do the right thing and move Social Security toward individual ownership accounts. The only question in my mind is how long the anti-progressive, kneejerk reactionaries will be able to stave off the inevitable.
I agree with Dean'sa position. I take issue with the figure of 100 million to fund the programs suggested by the author. currently we spend nationally 550 billion per year so how are the numbers going to drop so dramatically?
Those of us who are lucky to live in an enlightened and prosperous society understand that everyone benefits by providing our oldest citizens with a modest stipend to comfort them in their final years.
It's the least we can do for those who built the world we live in.
And, in so doing, we are following the moral imperative to honor our fathers and our mothers.
Those of you who disagree with that, fine. But please be straightforward about it say that you disagree.
That said, I see that this debate is about keeping SS the way it is (with a few tweaks) versus replacing it with something completely new.
Given that choice, I'll always go with the status quo.
P.S. And by the way, regardless of what you believe FDR meant, the record is clear: Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" -- which differ significantly from private accounts -- to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits and never proposed replacing Social Security benefits with private accounts. Not even close.
Those of us who live in an enlightened and prosperous society understand that it's immoral and selfish to continue taking from our children and grandchildren to fund our own retirement when there is no longer any need to do such things.
Those of you who feel you are entitled to be a burden on your children even when there are better, less selfish alternatives, fine. But please be straightforward and just say outright that this is what you feel entitled to.
Those of you who will "always go with the status quo" should also stop lying and calling yourselves liberals or progressives; what you are is reactionary conservatives. Nothing wrong with that. Just admit it. In any case, though, stop lying: this isn't a choice between radically altering the program or keeping things the same, it's about modifying the program to be more in line with what was always intended: a system that started out entirely state-funded but would move toward voluntary annuities over time.
Actually, to be clear: self-supporting annuities in general are private, period.
It's very clear what was always intended: gradually reduce the Federal government's roles, rely on the states more and more to manage things, and manage them like normal pension funds are, with market annuities and a mix of compulsory and voluntary donations.
But I wouldn't expect the reactionary set to admit any of that. They aren't interested in being honest or in progressive ideas to make the world a better place. They're interested in selfishness, picking their children's pockets, and preserving the status quo at all costs.
The question we face is fundamentally moral: will those of us in Gen X and Y have the strength of character to do what is right? Or will we let the old-school reactionaries preserve the status quo in amber forever?
Because after all, it's perfectly self-evident: Democrats will ban the Bible and force you to marry homos if you don't support the President's plan to give the Social Security Trust Fund to Wall Street.
I have very mixed feelings over this and burdening my children never came to my mind. Then again, never did going on social security disability ever cross my mind. I am straight down in the middle of this in agreeing with Rosemary and Ara and that is HONEST.
To burden my children is harsh words. I can not think of anyone I know in their 50's that would have ever dreamed of that final outcome. My grandmother and mother upon retirement got a small check from social security and they were glad it was there. Both of them were sharp as tacs and invested over and above social secuity and in the end the stock market had both of them up and arms. When life sets in the status quo is really not a bad thing. FWIW.
Doing the right thing--the fiscally sound thing, the morally proper thing--by moving toward individually owned accounts IS the progressive stance. It would give every American at every level of income actual ownership, an actual piece of the pie.
It's a given that sooner or later we'll do the right thing and move Social Security toward individual ownership accounts. The only question in my mind is how long the anti-progressive, kneejerk reactionaries will be able to stave off the inevitable.
Those of us who are lucky to live in an enlightened and prosperous society understand that everyone benefits by providing our oldest citizens with a modest stipend to comfort them in their final years.
It's the least we can do for those who built the world we live in.
And, in so doing, we are following the moral imperative to honor our fathers and our mothers.
Those of you who disagree with that, fine. But please be straightforward about it say that you disagree.
That said, I see that this debate is about keeping SS the way it is (with a few tweaks) versus replacing it with something completely new.
Given that choice, I'll always go with the status quo.
P.S. And by the way, regardless of what you believe FDR meant, the record is clear: Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" -- which differ significantly from private accounts -- to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits and never proposed replacing Social Security benefits with private accounts. Not even close.
Those of you who feel you are entitled to be a burden on your children even when there are better, less selfish alternatives, fine. But please be straightforward and just say outright that this is what you feel entitled to.
Those of you who will "always go with the status quo" should also stop lying and calling yourselves liberals or progressives; what you are is reactionary conservatives. Nothing wrong with that. Just admit it. In any case, though, stop lying: this isn't a choice between radically altering the program or keeping things the same, it's about modifying the program to be more in line with what was always intended: a system that started out entirely state-funded but would move toward voluntary annuities over time.
And voluntary annuities ARE privately owned.
It's very clear what was always intended: gradually reduce the Federal government's roles, rely on the states more and more to manage things, and manage them like normal pension funds are, with market annuities and a mix of compulsory and voluntary donations.
But I wouldn't expect the reactionary set to admit any of that. They aren't interested in being honest or in progressive ideas to make the world a better place. They're interested in selfishness, picking their children's pockets, and preserving the status quo at all costs.
The question we face is fundamentally moral: will those of us in Gen X and Y have the strength of character to do what is right? Or will we let the old-school reactionaries preserve the status quo in amber forever?
The fact that I don't want my children to be burdened with supporting me means that I oppose gay marriage.
I mean, isn't that obvious?!?
(Someone needs to look up the term "non-sequitur.")
I have very mixed feelings over this and burdening my children never came to my mind. Then again, never did going on social security disability ever cross my mind. I am straight down in the middle of this in agreeing with Rosemary and Ara and that is HONEST.
To burden my children is harsh words. I can not think of anyone I know in their 50's that would have ever dreamed of that final outcome. My grandmother and mother upon retirement got a small check from social security and they were glad it was there. Both of them were sharp as tacs and invested over and above social secuity and in the end the stock market had both of them up and arms. When life sets in the status quo is really not a bad thing. FWIW.