Supposed Libertarian Rand Paul is advocating increasing the age of eligibility to receive SS benefits (article follows below). In other words, screw over (again) the younger generation that has been paying (and will continue to pay) the highest SS taxes, for the benefit of the old febes drawing SS today – the febes who typically paid very little into the system relative to the benefits they draw. Keep in mind that SS taxes were very low until the 1980s; today, the total tax is almost 15 percent – on top of federal and other taxes. People in their 40s and younger today will pay enormous sums into the system and are assured of not even getting back what they paid in (given inflation, what they might have done with the money had it not been taken from them; the fact that they will likely die long before recouping a fraction of what they paid in).
Paul – the supposed Libertarian – said nothing about letting the younger generation opt out of SS – which many of us would love to do, even to the extent of agreeing to forgo all future benefits in return for not having to “contribute” any more from here on out.
Just pay more – and get less.
Screw Rand Paul.
He’s turning out to be another Republican. “Privatize” everything – so the shyster class can make a buck. Do nothing about ending (or even challenging) the system of intergenerational parasitism we suffer under.
Here’s the AP story:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul said Sunday the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare may need to be raised for future recipients.
But Paul, speaking during the first televised debate of the general election season with Democratic opponent Jack Conway, said he doesn’t want to change those benefits for older people already receiving them. The debate was aired on “Fox News Sunday.”
“But we do have to admit that we have the baby boom generation getting ready to retire, and we’re going to double the amount of retirees,” Paul said. “And to put our head in the sand and just say we’re just going to keep borrowing more money is not going to work. There will have to be changes for the younger generation.”
Major issues of the race thus far have been spending, taxes and the size of government.
Paul is a favorite of the tea party with his positions for smaller government and a balanced budget. Conway, the state’s attorney general, has also appealed to conservatives, describing himself as a fiscally responsible Democrat who understands why voters are frustrated about rising federal spending.
Paul and Republican leaders have tried to paint Conway as a clone of the Obama administration.
Conway said Sunday that he would have supported “some” of President Barack Obama’s initiatives, including the health care overhaul. He said he would have voted against a $700 billion bailout program for troubled financial institutions that was started under President George W. Bush, a Republican.
“There was not enough accountability in them,” he said. “We had people getting bonuses after getting the bailouts.”
Sounds like a good idea to me..
We’re all flexible right?
We can all touch our toes!
My opinion: Each one of us is responsible for our own retirement (and health care). Morally, we should also feel obligated to help family members in need, such as elderly parents (assuming they’re not Maggots and “did for us” when we were young, etc.). But no one should be forced – literally, at gunpoint – to give money they earned and which ought to provide for their own financial security and the financial security of their family – for the support of total strangers, to whom they own nothing except goodwill.
That’s what a Libertarian would say. Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t seem to be one.
If they want to privatize it for the future, or allow an opt out that’s fine but I have paid into that system for 37 years and they dam* well better give me back what I paid into for all those years with some kind of interest.
Well, here’s the thing:
All the money taken from you (and me) and every other person who paid in is gone; current benefits are paid by taxes on current workers. Social Security is not a system in which your money went to an account from which your benefits are paid. Your money was simply given away to others. To pay you money today, money must be taken from current workers; in brief, it is intergenerational theft.
I understand your anger; I share it. But the fact is you have no more right to steal from today’s workers (getting the government to do the dirty work) than yesterday’s retirees had a right to steal from you.
The moral issue is simple.
Let me put it another way. You have just been robbed at gunpoint; your wallet and all its contents taken. This is a crime and you are a victim. But does the fact that you have just been robbed give you the moral right to mug the next guy who comes along to make up for your loss?
Social Security is exactly the same only it’s been made to appear less directly violent by the “process” of withholding. But make no mistake: The money is taken by force (or the threat thereof) and it is not put into an annuity or insurance of any sort. It is spent – immediately. Gone. In order for you to get your check, new victims are necessary.
That’s the system you are supporting.
You could be even more direct and tell them that they will get what they “dam* well paid for” and not a penny more. Then after the money runs out in two years of SS checks *they* will wish they had invested it in something that earned interest.
Or even require the government NOT to pay to people that never paid into the system, that seems fair, but when you are running a Ponzi scheme you want as many fellow victims as possible.