Pretty Panther said in another place...
many Tea Party candidates (and you yourself here on these forums) have professed their disdain for popular government programs such as Social Security. You have advocated the dismantling of a major proportion of government. That is a common theme among the Tea Party.
====================
To which I have to ask, what on earth is "extreme" about dismantling Social Security? It is nothing if not "perfectly sensible".
++++++++
Continuing on..
...your Tea Party ideals are extreme, and when your candidates actually start speaking on national television, they appear loony at worst, and radical at best.
===========================
What's "loony" or "radical" about stating we are amassing colossally stupid levels of debt for no good reason? And that government is wasting unbelievable amounts of money? And that the federal government has expanded its own mission, purpose, activities, and controls FAR beyond its Constitutional limits, and as such consumes more of our total output than it has at any time since WWII, and is rapidly approaching that, and it needs to be scaled back?
What's "loony" about understanding the mind numbingly stupid bureaucratic jungle that was passed as Obamacare, and realize we desperately need to get rid of it before it wreaks havoc on both the taxpayers and the medical system?
+++++++++++
Also said:
As for Rand Paul, he backpedaled on his original comments about his opposition to the CRA after he saw the reaction. Of course he said he wouldn't repeal it. What else would he say if he wants to get elected?
NO, the problem is not what you think it is. The problem is that people desperately seek to have people believe UNTRUTH about why Rand Paul would have opposed the CRA and ADA, rather than have an intelligent conversation. Lies to advance a political agenda, in other words. Explain the ACTUAL Rand Paul position and statements on both, and the vast majority agree with HIM.
+++++++++
Repealing social security is one of the most sensible things on earth we could do.
First, Social Security consumes roughly 15% of everything you earn. When you reach retirement age, you do not own a single dime of it, and if you die, you can't leave it to anyone, it just goes back to the government. If you do live long enough to start collecting, the level of benefits is far below poverty.
So, let's just analyze it a little:
Future return on investment; Not calculable: Subject to the vote of Congress. level of Benefit: About 25% of middle class income. Equity: 0 Amount retained by estate if you die before disbursement date: 0
Actual cash value: Nil.
At the death of a spouse, benefit falls to higher of the two benefits.
Contrast that to:
Approach any financial planner, and ask them how to retire well off.
Save 13% of your income, with tax-free earnings, starting with your very first paycheck, and not stopping until you dont' work anymore. Typical values:
Starting income ( just start first job today): 25,000.
after 35 years of employment (today's dollars) 62,000
Approximate contributions: 210,000
value at 35 years, approximately 1.2 million
Spouse's savings, same time: 1.0 million
Value: 2.2 million in today's dollars.
value if you die at 35 years: 2.2 million
Income in today's dollars at retirement: 17,000 / mo
Benefit loss at death of spouse: none
Note, there's no adjustment here for inflation, but inflation increases your rate of return and your amount of contribution. Small losses of value due to inflation occur, but also assets held not part of retirment (home) will inflate, partially compensating for inflation.
If you choose to live only on the investment return income, you will continue to hold the entire principle amount, and can live indefinitely, with no loss of income.
What is required of you? Save less than you lose to Social Security, make simple changes in the level of investment risk as you approach when you wish to retire.
That's it. It is very simple, and it works.
For less than SS taxes, we could ALL be well off at retirement, including TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS more dollars available for investment and lending. Net benefit to retiree, economy, and country.
So, yes, getting rid of Social Security is the smartest, most sane, most carefully considered and rational thing to do. There are NO downsides, and lots of benefits.
Oh, and for the liberal trollers: You have to be beyond stupid to make bad investments for your retirement. It is less complicated than buying a car, to have a good return and moderate risk. liberal trollers shouting about wall street, greed, and other stupidity will be treated with appropriate contempt that dishonest politicians get.
0
