The Big Scary Social Security Monster
I read up some more on the Social Security proposals, and I’ve concluded that I don’t like them.
Bush’s idea is that privatizing part of Social Security gives people control of their own money, and therefore removes government more from people’s lives, a basic conservative tenet. Of course, conservatives have no problem involving themselves in people’s private lives when abortion or gay marriage is involved, but I digress. It gives people more control over their money, but is that a good thing?
In theory, yes, but many people do not know the first thing about investing. How many people would put much-needed Social Security money into aggressive and risky funds, hoping for a big payout but losing the money? Conservatives would respond that that’s their own fault. Perhaps, but people need brokers to invest, and often need investment advice, none of which is free. These fees would eat into more money that people might need. Who benefits the most? Investment and brokerage firms. Hmmm.
More money invested in the stock market sounds like a nod to Big Business and the fat cats that support Bush. That can't be right, either. Certainly, Bush has the interests of the American people at heart, no?
One reason Bush wants to semi-privatize is that he refuses to raise the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, people do not pay into Social Security for income over $90,000. Raising this cap would put more money into the program and help keep it solvent. But noooooo. Bush fears the wrath of God if he does anything but continuously lower taxes on the wealthy. Another alternative could be raising the age at which people would receive benefits. This is a tough call, and I haven’t heard many people bring it up.
Bush calls it a “crisis” and is trying to scare us into doing something we should not do. He has done it many times, and unfortunately, has succeeded many times. Let it end here.
Bush’s idea is that privatizing part of Social Security gives people control of their own money, and therefore removes government more from people’s lives, a basic conservative tenet. Of course, conservatives have no problem involving themselves in people’s private lives when abortion or gay marriage is involved, but I digress. It gives people more control over their money, but is that a good thing?
In theory, yes, but many people do not know the first thing about investing. How many people would put much-needed Social Security money into aggressive and risky funds, hoping for a big payout but losing the money? Conservatives would respond that that’s their own fault. Perhaps, but people need brokers to invest, and often need investment advice, none of which is free. These fees would eat into more money that people might need. Who benefits the most? Investment and brokerage firms. Hmmm.
More money invested in the stock market sounds like a nod to Big Business and the fat cats that support Bush. That can't be right, either. Certainly, Bush has the interests of the American people at heart, no?
One reason Bush wants to semi-privatize is that he refuses to raise the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, people do not pay into Social Security for income over $90,000. Raising this cap would put more money into the program and help keep it solvent. But noooooo. Bush fears the wrath of God if he does anything but continuously lower taxes on the wealthy. Another alternative could be raising the age at which people would receive benefits. This is a tough call, and I haven’t heard many people bring it up.
Bush calls it a “crisis” and is trying to scare us into doing something we should not do. He has done it many times, and unfortunately, has succeeded many times. Let it end here.
posted by Wounded Liberal at 10:22 AM
<< Home