Friday, March 09, 2007
Social Insecurity
So I received my Social Security statement in the mail today. At least they're honest: "Unless action is taken soon to strengthen Social Security, in just 10 years we will begin paying more in benefits that we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2040 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted." So, do politicians not read their mail? How is this difficult to understand? We are like a patient with an infected wound who refuses to go see a doctor. We can either suck it up, go in for the treatment now and find a cure while there's still time, or we can wait it out until we're so sick the only option left will be to amputate. I hope you're all investing in your IRA's and 401(k)'s. You're definitely going to need it. It may be all you'll have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
This is what I've been saying for a long time :) Can't trust the government for retirement! Hopefully my parents can still be taken care of by what I put in. I've heard that because of all the abortions the work force is dwindling and less money goes into the pot. Plus the government does not have a very positive track record on investing money wisely and ending up with more than what they started with!
"I've heard that because of all the abortions the work force is dwindling and less money goes into the pot."
But of course. Why do you think Europe is dying a slow, slow death and needs to import thousands of middle easterners to make up for the lack of population?
There may be some impact there. According to one report, 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion in 2000 so there is a population growth restraint (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.pdf). However, I think it would be overstating the case to claim that the problems with Social Security are primarily caused by abortion. For one thing, a significant portion of abortions occur in low-income families which are not going to contribute strongly towards the SSTF. Secondly, as a matter of economic function, when the size of the workforce drops, then wages increase (supply and demand) so there is an economic offset. Social Security is a fundamentally flawed system because it did not adjust to changing demographics. I believe the average life expectancy when Social Security was instituted was 67. It is now something like 85. So you have more people, living longer, with increasing benefits being supported by a smaller workforce (even with no abortions the workforce would be smaller) and a trust fund that can not earn a return greater than Treasury securities.
Social security is a bad idea anyway you look at it. The function of a government is in no way and should be in no way linked to 'mothering' its citizens. 'Fathering'... yes! Making laws to improve quality of life... yes! But welfaring people who are lazy sacks of excrement. Social securitying people who can't figure out how to do a basic thing like tuck away a few dollars while you're making them for later years. This is ridiculous and a waste of Taxes. Social justice... I puke up the words. Could not be any more clearer example of social injustice than today's america.
So people on welfare are lazy sacks of excrement? Clearly spoken by someone who has never worked with someone who truly needs welfare.
I also don't think that everyone who fails to "tuck away a few dollars" are incapable of doing basic things. There are a multitude of people in this country who don't live above their means and yet barely earn enough money to support themselves and only wish they could save for a future.
I'm so sick of seeing insensitive, cruel garbage like that. God forbid we do something awful like "raise taxes" to help the less fortunate. It isn't hurting you. I drive on public roads. I make decent money. I don't care if the government takes part of what I earn to help a welfare mother, get us universal healthcare, or improve our jail system. People who think otherwise are, in my opinion, just plain selfish.
BTW, if that were me, I'd put my name on it.
My mother had to use food stamps for a time. I do not consider her, nor myself lazy sacks of excrement. The man who beat her up TWICE before being thrown in jail was the sack of excrement.
David makes an excellent point. If you're going to call people on welfare "sacks of excrement" put your freakin' name on it. At least acknowledge that you said the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on Steve's blog.
Oh and guys who beat up women, definitely sacks of excrement.
Oh and what kind of phrasing is "welfaring" and "securitying?"
Are we have some grammar incontinence issues?
I think whoever wrote that is actually a sack of excrement. For real, who says stuff like that? I think I'm more angry about that than I am that AC called JE a "faggot" and I presume that whoever wrote that is a private figure!!
having... it appears I'm having grammar incontinence issues as well.
Well, that's because you let your anger get the best of you ;) .
And, frankly, I don't need you jumping on the 'yeah, he's a sack of excrement!' bandwagon regarding the guy who beat my mother- that should be apparent without your repetition of my statement.
Thought I suppose that is neither here nor there, since I posted that publicly for you to comment on. I'm confusing myself @_@.
Dude, I'm confused now too. You commented on my past sufferings from depression on my blog. I assumed it was open season on one another's postings.
Yeah. I was in a funny mood when i posted that, sorry.
Post a Comment