Weblog
03/12/05 07:16 PM: A Rebuttal
So I realized that it has been like 3 months since I last updated. I turned 21 in that timespan, and boy was that a ridiculously bad hangover. I will use that as my excuse. Sorry.
Ok, I see that we have a new writer. Thats good because he can cover me when I get lazy. I noticed though, that I just got outnumbered, and I guess we aren’t fair and balanced anymore. I’m kidding, its great to see someone else’s point of view on here. Welcome Sean.
Time to discuss the topic at hand. I think that this is not Bush’s most unpopular stance on an issue. Among interest groups (AARP) maybe, but not among the public. I’d put the war over that one, but no war will ever be popular.
Any surplus in the budget in the last 20 years was put there by paying into social security. In the past, when a president needed to balance the budget, he would just borrow from these funds. This sort of balancing act has effectively screwed future generations.
I personally think that this plan is rife with problems, but it is a step in the right direction. Just sitting on Social Security as it is now is a ticking time bomb. Older voters are not going to be happy if anyone touches it because they are so close to receiving the money that they have put in for so long. Bush’s plan is geared more for younger voters, especially college students. Theoretically, provided nothing happens on the scale of the Great Depression, such a plan of investing would potentially give us more money, controlling for population growth and inflation. Its the classic problem of taking guaranteed money, or taking chances and potentially making more money. With careful planning and investment, you can minimize those risks, but unfortunately most Americans only see dollar signs and forego those critical steps in investment.
