“Do you believe seniors living in gutters is the future of ‘social security’?”

[kpete]

The Meaning of ‘Ponzi scheme’ vs. The Consequences of ‘Privatization’

How the Left once again is letting Republicans define the issues

• Who Cares What Perry Believes?
• What does Social Security look like in Perry’s White House?

.................


Rather than battling over a definition coined by a crank, the Left needs to focus on what Social Security would become under a President Perry – or a President Romney. Despite the two candidates’ differences in rhetoric, both believe in “fixes” that lead to the program’s demise.

Both Perry and Romney have voiced their support for creating private, individual social insurance accounts – which Romney claimed in 2007 is different from “privatization,” even if it isn’t different at all. Rather than minor tweaks, which is all that will be required to extend the longevity of a program that has already worked for three-quarters of a century, Republicans prefer scrapping the entire point of Social Security: the security part.

Whereas Democrats understand the moral imperative of maintaining a program that for 75 years has helped keep senior citizens out of poverty, Republicans, in contrast, believe that if you live past a certain age and run out of the money you paid into a private retirement account, oh well. You can “live in a gutter,” as Limbaugh put it.

That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats, and that is the comparison liberals and Democrats ought to be making. Publicly. Not terms and definitions and contrasting arguments about slight similarities that even Chris Matthews can’t quite pin down, but the heartlessness of forcing senior citizens to “live in a gutter” if they live too long, if they are injured as working adults, if their spouses die, or if they’re otherwise unable to work long enough to build up a sufficient savings. Social Security is not a retirement account, it’s an anti-poverty program that provides some dignity to seniors.


MORE:
http://www.muddypolitics.com/2011/09/meaning-of-ponzi-scheme-vs-consequences.html
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/09/16/pushing-back-on-conservative-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme-framing/#more-80672

[teddy51]

1. "• What does Social Security look like in Perry’s White House?"

I worry about what SS looks like in any of these 8 idiots running for the WH in 2012. None of it is good.

[eShirl]

2. They would have to be very tiny to live in gutters.

[virgogal]

3. I'm a senior. My family wouldn't let me live in the gutter and I wouldn't

have let my parents live in the gutter.

[dmr]

4. Mine wouldn't either, but we're lucky, not all families are as caring. n/t

[enough]

6. Not all Seniors have families. And not all families can guarantee than nobody in the family

will end up in the gutter.

Happy for you, though.

[Raine]

7. That's good, I would never have let my father live in the gutter either,

I took care of him at home till he died. Not everyone though has someone to take care of them. I don't but I'm well off enough I won't have to worry. I never figured on SS or medicare, figured pols would fuck it up. Everyone is not so fortunate though and I really worry what is going to happen to them.

[Golden Raisin]

10. Good for you but

not all seniors are so fortunate. Some have no living family members, or their relatives are located far across the country.

[Fumesucker]

5. The cops would harass your ass out of the gutters so, no..

[patrice]

8. No, there will be different classes of warehouses, with lots of buzzy religious accessories & long

lines of hospices vying for their business.

[999998th word]

9. If it gets that bad for me, and it might-my kids would never find out.