Friday, March 11, 2005
Social Security
Jay Wagner of Stone Mountain, in his recent letter regarding social security (More debate needed on Social Security,) opines that the reason Democrats oppose President Bush's private account plan is the fear that this concept will diminish government control over our financial destiny. Jay typically personifies
assumptions made by non Democrats of what Democrats fear and believe. As usual it is the Republican conception that Democrats just love government control over most aspects of their lives and as usual ,it is so much rhetorical
nonsense. Surely there are those who embrace the umbrella of proctective government, but they come in all political colors. Jay is one hundred percent right when he says more debate is needed on social security. There are many confusing and conflicting renderings of how to fix it, including the extent of changes needed to keep it going. For instance, how can we be sure that the money invested in private accounts through the stock market will be there when its needed, considering the ups and downs we have seen over recent years?
It seems to me that the only guaranteed beneficiarys are the stock markets.
On the other hand, other options, such as raising the retirement age and decreasing benefits are bound to run into serious obstacles sooner than later.
I certainly have no cohesive answers nor do I deem myself qualified to degrade
solutions offered by others....except those who profess to know what I think or fear on the subject. How can THEY know when I don't. Hopefully a practical solution will finally emerge. I wonder if anyone has considered doing a study on how many prospective social security recipients die just prio to their eligability.
How many millions of dollars are pumped into the system by these unfortunate
citizens that are not passed on to their heirs? Troubling thought, is'nt it?
George Morin
Auburn
assumptions made by non Democrats of what Democrats fear and believe. As usual it is the Republican conception that Democrats just love government control over most aspects of their lives and as usual ,it is so much rhetorical
nonsense. Surely there are those who embrace the umbrella of proctective government, but they come in all political colors. Jay is one hundred percent right when he says more debate is needed on social security. There are many confusing and conflicting renderings of how to fix it, including the extent of changes needed to keep it going. For instance, how can we be sure that the money invested in private accounts through the stock market will be there when its needed, considering the ups and downs we have seen over recent years?
It seems to me that the only guaranteed beneficiarys are the stock markets.
On the other hand, other options, such as raising the retirement age and decreasing benefits are bound to run into serious obstacles sooner than later.
I certainly have no cohesive answers nor do I deem myself qualified to degrade
solutions offered by others....except those who profess to know what I think or fear on the subject. How can THEY know when I don't. Hopefully a practical solution will finally emerge. I wonder if anyone has considered doing a study on how many prospective social security recipients die just prio to their eligability.
How many millions of dollars are pumped into the system by these unfortunate
citizens that are not passed on to their heirs? Troubling thought, is'nt it?
George Morin
Auburn
