Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Who the Hell Gave Rand Paul This Advice as a Way to Solve the Social Security Deficit Problem?



On Tuesday, Rand Paul visited a senior center in Concord, N.H., and vowed he would increase the retirement age for workers and make it tougher for Americans to qualify for disability. It was a tough sell to his crowd, which was overwhelming grey and frail, reports TIME Magazine.

"I’m not gleefully jumping up and down about raising the age. It’s not very popular,' he said.

“It’s just a math problem. Smaller families, larger numbers of retirees, and we’re living longer,”

Not only is this idiotic from a political perspective, it is a terrible way to "solve" the SS problem.

Retired seniors, and those close to retirement. who kicked in for SS payments their entire lives should be the last to be cut. There are plenty. as in PLENTY, of other areas in the federal budget where cuts can be made--and, further, SS should be wound down so that the young are not coerced into kicking money into a Ponzi scheme where, decades down the road, a senator from Kentucky on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire can walk in and tell current youth when they are elderly, "Hey, we are going to cut your payments and eligibility."

-RW

6 comments:

  1. I like Ron Paul's opt-out option. Of course you can't really let new investors opt out of Ponzi scheme. I don't see meaningful spending cuts without some form of debt/monetary crisis. I would just talk about the proper role of government in a free society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Props to Rand for bringing up the Disability issue.
    He should explore that further.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Retired seniors, and those close to retirement. who kicked in for SS payments their entire lives should be the last to be cut. There are plenty. as in PLENTY, of other areas in the federal budget where cuts can be made--and, further, SS should be wound down so that the young are not coerced into kicking money into a Ponzi scheme where, decades down the road, a senator from Kentucky on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire can walk in and tell current youth when they are elderly, "Hey, we are going to cut your payments and eligibility."'

    This is my first true "WTF?" moment reading EPJ.

    First, I'm sure Rand Paul is not talking about raising the retirement age for someone on the cusp of receiving the payouts (but it wouldn't be immoral to do that).

    Secondly, it is absolutely true the people were coerced out of their money, but the root truth of this ponzi scheme is that to pay out the current victims, you have to create myriad more victims that then believe they are entitled to victimize yet another group of people. The "trust fund" is a scam of IOUs for money already spent. Payouts have to come from higher taxes or more Fed printing.

    Thirdly, SS is HUGE. You're never going to do anything meaningful by playing with the fringes of the problem -- stupid politics or not.

    Rand Paul has been a disappointment, but in one of the few places where he's actually saying something meaningful, he's getting crap from libertarians. If anything, the criticism should be that he's only scratching the surface and isn't going far enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you made some interesting points. Thanks for sharing.

      On another note, if I could opt out of social security today, I'd do it in a split second.

      Delete
  4. IDIOTIC. There is NO Federal Money left for ANY program or agency as there is a $19 T deficit. Why is it that after they loot the SS fund they try to claim there is no money left.
    How about they say there is no money left for the Department of Education? No money left for troops in some countries, foreign aid to some countries?
    Rand Paul isn't even being rational and his plan is a political loser

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before Obama I didn't see this much in the federal government. It was usually an Illinois thing. The way Obama handled the sequester was pure Illinois tactics by closing the national parks. Hit the people on the few things they expect of government.

      Instead of cutting (or even slowing the increase of) what is beneficial to politicians and their friends they threaten to cut the few major things most people expect. Then when people object well, it's time for a tax increase. Or they threaten the cuts unless they get a tax increase from the get go.

      The result is people argue over the size of these few things and the tax hike to pay for them instead of looking at the pork and crony deals and such that benefit those in office and sucked away the funds to pay for them in the first place.

      Delete