Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
(Post 1507780)
The military is maybe 20% of the budget. It could certainly be cut, but it is at least a legitimate expense, unlike SS etc.
So cut away, but if we want to hold the line, basically 2/3 of cuts need to be entitlements.
As for insulation from insolvency having some offshore investments and gold is about it if you don't count real estate, guns, and ammo :) . Not enough, but better than someone depending on SS. Assuming the country doesn't fail we'll be fine without it.
|
Social Security may be many things, but it is not an illegitimate expense; with respect, to even imply that suggests you are simply projecting your ideological beliefs rather than taking a moment to consider the issue.
The individualist argument against Social Security is at least consistent -- give as little as possible, expect nothing in return -- but I can't agree that it would translate to effective or positive policy, at least not now. According to
The Century Foundation, 40 percent of our country's elderly population were kept out of poverty because of Social Security in 1999; another 10 percent were in poverty despite their benefits, and I believe those two figures have remained constant since. Eliminating or significantly reducing the program could thrust anywhere from 13 to 20 million people beneath the poverty line, to say nothing of those who would have their retirements impacted by an amelioration in supplementary income. Assuming that the economy continues to linger for the foreseeable future, it's simply not possible that all of these people could re-enter the labor force to finance their retirement as it is ongoing (it never will be), and that ignores turning this into legislation a majority of politicians could coalesce behind.
I'm far from a supporter of his, but I'm inclined to agree with Robert Reich's argument that the question of Social Security -- which will not be forced to reduce its payments until 2036 in a worst case scenario -- is resolvable with a few adjustments. The Urban Institute wrote an excellent summation on the subject earlier this year; ultimately some combination of an increase in the retirement age (68 or 70, to better coincide with today's longer lifespan), raising the tax rate by a percentage point to 13, and an examination of the Cost Of Living Adjustment will have to be undertaken. I don't welcome the idea of any tax increase, but in the absence of a superior alternative, it's the only fiscally responsible, conservative thing to do if we are committed to retaining Social Security as it exists today. We also have to increase investment and wealth management education, encourage personal prudence, and emphasize the costs of an ideal retirement. In 2003, 34 percent of people on Social Security relied on it for 90 percent or more of their income; if we can reduce that statistic by half or more, then we may have cause to delicately explore how to reduce the benefits Social Security is paying out.
You may disagree with the definition of retirement as a universal or Constitutional right, but it's an eventuality I think we should try to facilitate for everyone, and the implication that some should not be deserving of the privilege is rather draconian. As a society, we need to be better than that. As a Republican, I believe we should strive to find conservative, logical solutions to these challenges, not pretend they don't exist or aren't worthy of our concern because they violate some sacrosanct ideological prism. That's what the Republican Party is truly about.
