Libya...fair enough.
Stimulus...fair enough.
Unemployment benefits? There wasn't any alternative, there still isn't, and like Dvergar said it all goes right back into the economy.
All that, however, is marginal, and like Zaryi pointed out, government spending has remained constant when adjusted for inflation; what is sinking the boat is lower revenues and the Bush policies.
Idk, does anyone have figures on how much those three Obama policies cost?
Weena wrote:
Social Security is a savings account through the government in it's ideal form, and income transfer in it's current form.
People keeping their own money to either save or invest is a better alternative to both.
In the ideal form, SS doesn't earn any interest and isn't accessible like different types of savings accounts. Granted some savings account types have fees if you pull out early, but you still have this option if you find yourself in a pinch.
Sounds good, doesn't work.
Unfortunately, the reality is people by and large
can't be trusted to make all the right decisions through life.
It is easy to say, "people should live with the consequences of their actions". But that's not how it works, and that's not how it will ever work. The school of hard knocks is an unforgiving one, and being a healthy adult it is hard to visualize a day when one's vitality is gone. That is common to the human experience and very few people see past the illusion of eternal youth.
Draconian policies won't change human nature.
And what would happen when, inevitably, at least some people reach their old age with insufficient means? Do we chuck them out on the street? I won't argue for or against the merits of doing so, rather, I'm just going to point out - that is totally unrealistic. It's not a question of moral or political will, it's simply that a civilized people won't stand for it. Those reprobates WILL become a social liability. They WILL have to be cared for one way or another. They WILL become everyone's problem.
There's also the reality that sometimes the right decisions are the wrong ones.
Social Security was founded as part of the New Deal, because during the Depression a lot of people who did in fact have savings in banks lost them to bank rushes and bank failures. Some of us remember grandparents or great-grandparents who died trusting no bank more than their mattress.
More recently, back in the 70s, a lot of middle-class families saw their savings totally wiped out by double-digit stagflation. Socking away $10,000 in a savings account earning a generous 3% annually doesn't mean jack when you're watching the currency lose 10% of its value yearly.
For all the flaws of American government, there is no institution in this country - and only two others in the rest of the world combined - more stable and enduring. There is a reason that T-bills are still considered the second safest, surest investment (after gold). And, in the final analysis, if one has to bank their future on something, the stability of the American government the least of all evils. After all, if the government falls, all bets are off - and your savings, held in US dollars backed by the faith of that government, won't do you any good however you invest them.
Social Security provides a meager, but sufficient, livelyhood. You say it's a scam to anyone making the right choices in life, but the reality is, anyone who relies solely on it is already making the wrong choices. Someone who wants a comfortable retirement is going to be socking away anyway.
