On Feb 16, 2005, at 6:35 AM, JDG wrote:
You say that Social Security reflects a view where Americans were willing
to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors did not "suffer privations" or
"go hungry." My point, however, is that if those were really the values
that Social Security were reflecting, then one would expect Social Security
to, say, primaly provide benefits to those who were in danger of "suffering
privations" or "going hungry."
TTBOMK that is precisely what it does. There are certainly exceptions; no one's arguing otherwise, I think. But if you doubt that SS is meeting its goal, or at least *gesturing* toward meeting its goal, I suggest you locate a few retirees and ask them if they're living off personal savings or SS. If you take a genuinely random sample, I believe you'll find your supposition is flawed.
One might also expect it to demand the
most sacrifice of those who most able to do so, rather than funding its
benefits through regressive taxation. Based on the evidence, however, I
can only conclude that Social Security is designed to reflect some other
values - with the benefits to those who might "suffer privations" or "go
hungry" being mere side effects.
I don't think anyone's arguing that SS isn't broken; there are definitely problems with the system. There are abuses. And there are plenty of cases one can point out that show some people are not paying into the system anywhere near as much as they might be able to.
However, it should be pointed out that it's administrations such as Bush II which encourage these dodges; the shift of taxation to the destitute is something that has happened chiefly in the last four years.
And again, highlighting troubles with a system doesn't qualify as justification for eliminating the system; rather, it's a good punch list of places to start making changes.
As for "living off the next generation" -- to some degree this is a fair payoff. If the "next generation" had not been raised, looked after and educated by the previous generation, it wouldn't have the plum jobs it has, nor the opportunity to pay into a system that helps ensure the elders whom it owes are not living in undue suffering and misery; and it helps that generation make sure the *next* one is as prepared to uptake its maintenance duties when the time comes. So SS can be looked at as a way any given society can look after its elders, to whom I believe it owes at least nominal gratitude. As the Germans say, one hand washes the other.
Finally, presupposing a fault in the stock market is hardly the gamble you make it out to be; it's guaranteed to happen. Assets cannot build indefinitely simply because there are not infinite resources with which to create them. There must be a leveling off, but history shows that we don't get leveling actions. We get valleys, corrections, crashes, whatever you want to call them.
The truly erroneous presupposition is that SS will be "bankrupt" in a few decades, which (it is argued) makes it somehow sensible to discard it utterly right now. For someone arguing a "conservative" viewpoint, this approach is hard to defend, because it absolutely is neither conservative nor even particularly prudent.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
