My gg grandparents took in poor elderly back before Social Security - they were identified in the census as paupers. There were a LOT of households (usually clergy of small churches) keeping paupers in the area because financial panics(recessions) had caused bank failures, business failures and foreclosures. IS THIS WHAT WE WANT TO GO BACK TO?
Or should we make the government shore up and continue SS?
2007-02-15 04:33:12 · 8 answers · asked by oohhbother 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
all they would have to do is quit spending social security money on war and there would be enough
2007-02-15 04:38:22 · answer #1 · answered by anya_mystica 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Right - bank failures and a depression that were caused by policies no longer in place and not in jeopardy of being put back in place, and an entire decade, the 1930s, in which the stock market gained no ground, because the top corporate tax rate was 90%, which is also no longer the case.
The MARKET is the better way - let me save for my own retirement, thank you.
The ONLY thing you get out of social security is that you force everyone to save for their retirement. This makes sense only if you feel obligated to bail out people who didn't save - I don't.
2007-02-15 12:46:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Instead of social security, which is forced on the American people for their retirement. Forced retirement savings should be privatized. This way the interest returned is a greater amount and the government can't touch it. You actually get what you put in back and then some, unlike social security.
2007-02-15 12:59:34 · answer #3 · answered by Knowledge 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the return on investments in the SS fund is currently less than a everyday savings account. there is not ONE person in the democratic party that would invest in a scheme that produces so low a return yet they continue to push for it.
2007-02-15 12:39:43 · answer #4 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Social Security should be abolished and Retirement should be privatized. Plain and Simple.
2007-02-15 12:38:55 · answer #5 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We should start planning for the fix now. The cons hate it because they will actually have to pay for what was promised the baby boomers, so they attempt to divert the conversation by claiming it's a responsibility issue. Hmmpf.
2007-02-15 12:40:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
if politicians would have kept their greedy hands off of it over the years, there would never have been a conversation about saving it.
2007-02-15 12:39:33 · answer #7 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get rid of it.
2007-02-15 12:37:22 · answer #8 · answered by Curt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋