Social Security
The problem about social secuirty nowadays is that it has become a way to redistribute wealth through society. As a republican, I believe in privatized social security. This means completely and totally putting an end to the distribution of social security and focusing on saving for individuals retirement.
Although putting an end to social security seems impossible and unable to accomplish within a short period of time because of the extensive crutch it gives to limit poverty, it can still slowly become possible so that the government can stop damaging retirement funds.
I will end on this note:
"Once you start diverting money from public social insurance into private accounts, privatization is occurring, to the detriment of the broader solvency of the program"
If people were to save for their own retirement then what would happen to the poor people that can barely afford to stay off the streets now? They won't be able to save a penny so what happens to them when they retire or are too old of age to work anymore? Now I do think that everyone should try to save some money and put it aside for later but that is to make their lives more comfortable while on social security which apparently does not supply adequate coverage of costs. And in most cases social security is not enough to live on when you are an elderly sick person who constantly needs medical supervision. But the medical part of that is not to blame on social security or any individual but it is to blame on the insurance companies for charging such high unafforable rates thats why so many people don't have medical insurance because its either have the insurance or have the tiny little apartment they are renting.
ReplyDeleteI know it seems as if I am some heartless advocate because of my desire to have issues privatized, but I do in fact agree with you when it comes to medical problems which people can not control. What I do not agree with is social secuirty that enables people to have medical supervision when their illness are caused by something such as drugs, or the lack of being able to take care of their body. T
ReplyDeleteI would ask that when one bandies about the phrase "redistribution of wealth" to consider that they just lived through possibly the greatest example of this in recorded history. From the period of about June 2007 to November 2008 total U.S. household retirement and savings/investment assets fell $4.8 TRILLION. Now if that is not a redistribution of wealth I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteFor your edification here is an excerpt from a speech given by a professor of history emeritus at the University of South Carolina:
"Apparently millions continue to harbor the strange delusion that the Republican party is the party of free enterprise, and, at least since the New Deal, the party of conservatism. In fact, the party is and always has been the party of state capitalism. That, along with the powers and perks it provides its leaders, is the whole reason for its creation and continued existence. By state capitalism I mean a regime of highly concentrated private ownership, subsidized and protected by government. The Republican party has never, ever opposed any government interference in the free market or any government expenditure except those that might favour labour unions or threaten Big Business. Consider that for a long time it was the party of high tariffs – when high tariffs benefited Northern big capital and oppressed the South and most of the population. Now it is the party of so-called "free trade" – because that is the policy that benefits Northern big capital, whatever it might cost the rest of us. In succession, Republicans presented opposite policies idealistically as good for America, while carefully avoiding discussion of exactly who it was good for."
I respect your opinion about privatizing social security benefits, however, I cannot agree. While it is true that both private and public industries have successes and failures, if we privatize healthcare then we are very likely to encounter a situation such as the healthcare system (prior to the Healthcare Reform). When we allow the private sector to manage services that are of special social importance, they tend to take advantage, for example, healthcare. Why such phenomenon? Well,the private sector is conducted by private citizens and corporations which in terms have one goal: maximize profits. I do not believe Blue-shield cares whether I am insured or not and I doubt the government cares too much either, however, I do know that it is in the interest of the government to care if they intend to have my vote. Well, social security is a similar scenario, it is in the interest of the government to ensure individuals have decent standard of living because if those people fall into poverty then they will soon become dependent on the government for financial assistance. In my opinion, privatizing public programs is a synonym to benefiting corporations at the expense of society. Do not get me wrong, business are great for society, the economy, and the government, but they must be regulated.
ReplyDelete