Social Security Debate

Got this link from the Geekwife. Pretty interesting perspective. Though they have the facts a little off. The Socialism movement in Great Britain really started just after WWI. I've been reading a history of the inter-war years and Britain pretty much just fell to pieces in those few decades. They formed a major welfare state and decimated their armed forces. (part of the reason for the need of the welfare state.) I would say the commonwealth wasn't in too bad shape, but the Britain itself was a mess.

This quote really bothers me both in the fact that it's true and from the perspective of what our Demoocratic leadership don't seem to believe the rest of the citizenry deserve.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says market Social Security accounts are playing "roulette"; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi calls them a "guaranteed gamble"; Sen. John Kerry that the market account idea is "a rip-off." Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) is opposed, having "serious concerns" about individually owned accounts; Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R., Mo.) opposes allowing individuals to invest their Social Security payments in "risky investments."

And yet each of these individuals owns just such marketplace investments, either through the Thrift Savings Plan or other accounts. The question is, why won't they let you do the same in your retirement plan, the one called Social Security?

Oh and one snarky remark related to the article. Noam Chomsky is like a bizarro world Ayn Rand. Clueless but on the other side.

Granted sent this link to a UPI article on the "Commanding Heights" PBS series. I'm thinking the book sounds better to me, but the series probably is easier. One line in particularly convinced me to look at it.

"In 'Commanding Heights' we're more telling a story than making an argument," he said. Nevertheless, the theme of the series seems clear: markets work, and government economic planning does not.