Kerry and Social Security

[tim_duncan2000]

I've heard Kerry say that he would never privatize Social Security. Is he just against it only because he is just a typical socialist liberal who thinks that the government knows better and some people might gamble with some stock (but most people would not be so stupid because of the importance of having money for retirement. And so what if a few people did do that. That shouldn't mean that other people shouldn't be able to invest in themselves), or is there something else I'm missing? It seems to me like it would be good if younger workers could invest it the way they want to, because it sounds like they won't get much of a return (if any) the way it is now.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've heard Kerry say that he would never privatize Social Security. Is he just against it only because he is just a typical socialist liberal who thinks that the government knows better and some people might gamble with some stock (but most people would not be so stupid because of the importance of having money for retirement. And so what if a few people did do that. That shouldn't mean that other people shouldn't be able to invest in themselves), or is there something else I'm missing? It seems to me like it would be good if younger workers could invest it the way they want to, because it sounds like they won't get much of a return (if any) the way it is now.

It boils down to who is going to control your money. You or the State.

Kerry is a socialist. Of course he thinks the State should manage your money. And just look at what a great job the State has done so far.

 

[Merlin1047]

I've heard Kerry say that he would never privatize Social Security. Is he just against it only because he is just a typical socialist liberal who thinks that the government knows better and some people might gamble with some stock (but most people would not be so stupid because of the importance of having money for retirement. And so what if a few people did do that. That shouldn't mean that other people shouldn't be able to invest in themselves), or is there something else I'm missing? It seems to me like it would be good if younger workers could invest it the way they want to, because it sounds like they won't get much of a return (if any) the way it is now.

Here is my view of social security - it is nothing more than old age welfare.

The reason I say that is the fact that most recipients collect far more than that justified by their contributions. Once a person has collected the principal paid in and the intereset which would have accrued, then if that person continues to collect social security, he or she is collecting welfare.

Social security is in dire need of being placed on a sound financial basis. Once there was a social security trust fund. Our elected representative could have managed that in a way that would have produced interest and investment income. The trust fund could have made social security not only self-sustaining, but could have eventually grown to the point that all Americans could collect while at the same time reducing social security taxes. But once again, the liberals couldn't stand to see all that money just sitting there. So they stole it. That's right - they stole it. There is no other way to describe what they did. They changed the law to allow them to access that money and then they frittered it away. Today those bastards have the gall to tell me that after a lifetime of paying at or near the maximum into social security, I may not be eligible to collect if they have their way.

But the real reason that social security will not be privatized by libs is that if that happens, then their hold on seniors is diminished. Libs use entitlement programs like a mafioso uses bribes. They buy votes from special interest groups with entitlements. And there is no way in hell any lib is going to allow this particular source of voter bribe money to slip through their fingers.