RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,387
Dixon Carter Lee said:If the point was to leave it up to the people ("because it's their money") then it wouldn't be taken out of their checks in the first place. The whole point is to FORCE people to save money for their retirement. If you allow people the option to gamble with the money (which is what the stock market is -- gambling), guess what will happen?
"It's their money" is always a spurious phrase. We are forced to pay taxes, forced to buy insurance, etc. I think it's okay to force people to pay into their retirement to save the State from bleeding its treasury to take care of you in your old age.
Agreed. The very best synopsis of this argument I ever read was a post by Sandia back in February. It got lost in a JazzManJim babblefest, but it's worth repeating:
Sandia said:Social security is a welfare program - and there's nothing wrong with that.
For example, if Lost Cause (God forbid) was unable to work - if he became disabled - he could apply for Social Security Disability.
It wouldn't be a lot of money, but it'd be enough for him to keep a roof over his head and the lights turned on.
What's wrong with that?
For that matter, Heretic, if you (God forbid) became disabled, and unable to work, you'd qualify for disability payments as well.
Again, there's nothing wrong with that.
The idea that Social Security is just a retirement program is just wrong.
It's not designed to be a good investment for rich people.
It's a safety net for those of us who are less fortunate, or become less fortunate at some time before they die.
It's incredibly frustrating to me that those of us who are more fortunate (some of us) look at Social Security and say, "Oh, that's not a good investment for me. Nothing bad is going to happen to me. And if something bad happened to you, well it's your own fault for having cable TV."
You know what I mean?