One of the main concerns I have, as a younger voter, is the Social Security wealth transfer program. Social Security exists to transfer wealth from the young to the old. I understand that the people receiving Social Security had some of their money stolen from them by old people when they were young, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that they are wronging my generation in the same way that their generation was wronged.
A few years ago, the current president proposed replacing Social Security with a forced stock investment program and the AARP threw a fit because their sacred big government program was being challenged. However, I don’t think that proposal was the best solution. How about making participation in Social Security voluntary instead and simply exempting those who opt-out from paying Social Security taxes? Social Security “benefits” could be funded by selling off those federal lands out west (for example, the Feds own over 80% of Nevada).
Why have the Republicans abandoned their opposition to the Democrat Party’s favorite wealth transfer program? Why did they brand the only presidential candidate who talked about this important issue (Ron Paul) a “liberal”? Do the Republicans want under 30 votes or not?
Related posts:
13 responses so far ↓
1 Mouse House Man // Oct 11, 2008
You get em sparky!
2 Ryan G // Oct 11, 2008
This frustrates me as well. This is one reason I joined the Boston Tea Party
3 relevant inquiry // Oct 11, 2008
I don’t think the stock market is where you want to see your Social Security funds right now. Social Security is an insurance system, not an investment system and it should stay that way.
Republicans had a losing proposal and they have correctly abandoned it.
4 Dave87gn // Oct 11, 2008
The republican pushed hard to privatize Social Security…hmmm , do you want the republicans to bring up the fact that they supported giving all this money to wall street?
if they had succeeded, the country would have collapsed
5 ruth // Oct 11, 2008
Probably because the people most affected are the least involved politically, due to the fact that we are raising families and running businesses (too busy).
Far be it for the boomers to look out for the interests of those after.
6 wolfs_bone // Oct 11, 2008
dude I agree with you on principal, Im 41 and Im not going to rely on SS its bankrupt already, but unfortunately once you create a program and a bureaucracy to control it, they become entrenched. It will take Many generations to get rid of it. if ever
7 Ken G // Oct 11, 2008
With today’s deficit? You can say goodbye to that topic and your social security. They just used it up in the $700 billion for the bail out. Where did you think the money came from since we are already in a deficit? Another check from the taxpayer. America’s credit card is wayyyy past it’s limit.
8 Rash Man // Oct 11, 2008
Our money takes care of the old, the sick, the downtrodden etc. Social Security was suppose to be there, Pres Johnson started taking money out to balance his budget and every prez since has done the same until they drained it. Around 1900 visitors to New York City had to step around all the orphans. They lived on the streets. The city started a tax for an orphanage. Taxes are usually a good thing. The pork people complain about is less than 1 percent of the budget.
9 know the facts people // Oct 11, 2008
They are rich and have no real use for it.
10 Me F. // Oct 11, 2008
dems haven’t talked about it either.
Im beginning to think there is too much crap for them to talk about and do justice to in a short amount of time.
Better come up with your own way to do things soon…
11 Dustin // Oct 11, 2008
I too dream of a world where I don’t have to pay SS taxes and our grandmothers eat cat food to survive
12 Warren T // Oct 11, 2008
The GOP have given up because it is currently a hopeless situation. There is not “trust fund.” The Social Security money has been spent before it is even collected. Some might try to say their is a balance in this supposed account but won’t tell you that it his been “leveraged” to the point of negative numbers. The tax base supporting this entitlement is dwindling and it’s only a matter of time before complete insolvency( the Tax base won’t be able to support it). This issue is considered toxic to the politicians, who hope that it happens under someone elses watch.
13 Joe in texas // Oct 11, 2008
Discussion of the social security mess has been completely absent during this election.. It has been ignored by both parties.
Social security was not envisioned as a wealth transfer program from the young to the rich. The government was to hold social security payments separately and invest them to cover future payouts. Unfortunately they used these funds as general revenue and spent the money on other things.
As for fixing the problem it seems that offering new problems just gets you more votes than fixing prior commitments.
The wall street bailout bill was an enormous transfer of wealth from the young to the old. We are spending our children’s money before they even earn it.
Leave a Comment