Incredible as it seems to me, there is a never-ending call for eliminating altogether, or drastically overhauling, the social security system.
The hue and cry comes from politicians who believe that all Americans should be responsible for saving the monies necessary for their retirement years.
In theory, that sounds logical; but two words argue against the idea--human nature. The working poor--those who need social security the most--will always have financial "emergencies" that preclude accruing reserves.
When the family car conks out, or a family member calls out for help, or when any one of a number of possible needs arises, human nature takes over and says, "Here it is. Use the money that we've set aside. We'll worry about retirement later".
That's why we started the social security program in the first place--to set aside money that couldn't be touched. Getting rid of social security might be okay for the working wealthy, but not for the working poor, for whom it was created.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bill, you have achieved new heights in political punditry in selecting a Romney-Santorum ticket for the White House. Santorum bothers me for his denial of global warming and the role of evolution in the creation of our species. I am not entirely sure what Romney is saying about these issues, but anyone who agrees with Santorum has to be labeled an ignoramus of the first magnitude. Maybe we ought to consider yet another candidate with both business and governing experience and a well-informed views about science and the origin of our species - Michael Bloomberg, currently the Mayor of the Big Apple.
ReplyDelete