gut;666220 wrote:To be fair, relying on a promised program as part of the retirement plan is hardly irresponsible.
I agree. If I had the liberty of placing my money that was diverted to SS in a simple saving account or other investment, I doubt I'd be accused of being a selfish SOB for expecting to be able to withdraw my money from that account at retirement. But because the Feds in their infinite New Deal socialist stupidity implemented SS back in the late 30's and made it the law of the land, I'm an irresponsible self-centered Boomer for expecting that my $250,000 worth of mandated contributions made over 40 years will be disbursed to me as promised at retirement.
I agree with this as well. But when you stop and think about it, part of the reason Roosevelt thought the Feds needed to step in and take care of us by implementing SS is because very few people then or today have the discipline to plan for their futures when human nature is to address the needs, wants and desires of the moment. Unfortunately when we as a society give up our liberties and allow the government to care of us, a social contract occurs and it is very, very difficult to make it go away. It is also very, very easy to say, "Well I there's always SS."gut;666220 wrote:That said, people should not have planned to retire with the bare minimum and it should not have been the sole source of savings.
This. But apparently those of us who voted responsibly but nevertheless frequently lost to those who prefer Big Government policies are doomed to share in that misery. Gotta love our democratic republic though!gut;666220 wrote:It's only fair that the voters who have been asleep at the polls share in that misery.
And since we as a society agreed to make SS the law of the land, which is more irresponsible: Those of us who believed in the social contract or the government (IE: us) who appears poised to renege on the promise?