Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Aug 9, 2004.
These are the sorts of things we should be hearing about!
Of course Bush is not for privatizing SS either. BTW, privatizing and elliminating are the same when you are talking about a government program. Do not be fooled into thinking you can have a privatized government program.
I am not sure, but isn't our postal system privatized? How about the banking system? Just asking and too lazy to research.
postal system is private but federally protected. Banking system, private, partially protected.
Thanks; it's tough being old and lazy.
Not that anyone should use either of those two instances for justification of privatization of anything!
The proposed "privatizing" of the SS would simply be the option of those who are younger, and have a better chance at investing their 6.5% of payroll taxes (half of what is currently taken out), and having a mixture of investment options very similar to a 401K but without the company stock plan. There would be several mutual funds to choose from, and, voila! Instant privatization....no muss, no fuss! The other half would remain in the SS fund.....
(No one has answered to what Kerry's real intent is, yet! Aren't there any screaming socialists on this forum who would be supportive of Kerry's plan?)
Wouldn't the proposed legalization of gay marriages have a huge impact on the cost of Social Security, as well? Wouldn't there be more spouses getting payments that are not currently accounted for in the system?
(More stuff to think about when deciding which chad to leave hanging!)
government protected monopoly for the postal system.
tpahl, I don't argue your point, that if you pay in, you should get something back....but what about this new "class" of recipient that is being created, and not accounted for, in the planning, and the depletion of the fund.
Spouses get more benefits (even if they don't work) after the income earner dies....so the proprtion of what is paid out, increases, and now has to provide for 2 people, instead of 1.
Do you see how this could cause an expedited demise of the Social Security system, if gay marriages become the law of the land?
I agree that it would expedite the process. and I welcome the demise of social security. But even if you think SS is a good thing, it is unfair to argue against gay marriage on this basis. Gays are paying in like everyone else. They should be able to chose a benficiary to their 'share' of the pot, just as heterosecusal get to give it to their spouses. The fact that it makes a screwed up system even worse is not gay peoples fault and they should not be punished because of it.
Separate names with a comma.