Text 35920, 70 rader
Skriven 2009-09-10 16:49:04 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 35899 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
Ärende: Universal health insurance
==================================
Bob Ackley wrote to Lee Lofaso on Wednesday September 09 2009 at 06:54:

BA> Social Security is a government program designed to keep the old folks
BA> voting for any candidate that will support it.

Maybe nowadays, but not when it was introduced. The German example of what can
happen in case of massive social unrest was vivid at the time (1934).

BA> The benefits paid to Social Security recipients - including me - are
BA> too high.

Maybe - but just consider inflation and interest over a period of, say, 40
years and you may get a different pattern. I figure $100,000 nowadays would be
worth just about $10,000 at the time I was growing up in Texas (granted, that
was 50 years ago) - less if you count compounded interest in the meantime.
Trying to compare dollar to dollar _numbers_ over a longer period of time gives
you a completely skewed picture.

That's not to say the program pays for itself, since it depends on
contributions from the young paying the pensions of the elderly - and the
demographics are starting to make that a difficult proposition. However, the
contribution to benefit ratio isn't as skewed as you might think at first
sight.

As to excessive benefits - judge for yourself, not for others who may need the
money more than you do.

BA> Nobody has the right to the fruits of anybody else's labors.

That depends on the situation. Have you never had a dependent wife and
children? Or been in a situation where you couldn't support yourself (sick,
jobless, injured)? Human society is based on a certain amount of care for the
welfare of the group - if it weren't, we'd still be killing old people and
unwanted babies by setting them out and letting them die of exposure.

BA> One does not have the option of not 'investing' in Social Security.
BA> Many have pointed out that if individuals were allowed to put their
BA> Social Security "contributions" in an IRA instead of giving it to the
BA> government they'd be much better off.

Except, of course, if they happen to need the money _now_ and something like
the slump that began in late 2008 and is still going strong takes place.
Investing in stocks is great if you can wait for the money - not so great if
you need it to live on and must have it _now_. The whole purpose of something
like social security is to provide a _secure_ base income, something that
barring a total national collapse will be there regardless of recessions, wars
and riots. And regardless of the interest rates and how high the Dow Jones
climbs or how precipitously it falls.

BA>>> The fact that a government thug is extracting the money from
BA>>> taxpayers so another government thug can give it to those who are
BA>>> 'entitled' to it doesn' make it any less of a theft.

You know, I used to think this way when I was 16 and saw the deductions in my
pay slip. I don't anymore, and find the attitude surprising in a man of your
age.

BA> Government is about force, pure and simple. As George Washington noted
BA> it is a good servant and a fearful master. Thomas Jefferson pointed
BA> out that 'that government is best that governs least.'

You might note that both men lived in very different times, and very different
circumstances than today. The principles they espoused are doubtless timeless -
but should be understood in the context of the times we live in, not those past
times in which they lived.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)