Social Security

One nice thing about hanging out in Blogistan is that I can forego the pressure of having to formulate my own thoughts on a subject, when someone else can usually be counted on to come up with a pretty precise formulation of their thoughts, which conveniently happen to mirror my thoughts. So I can just go ahead, quote them, and have done. In the case of political blogging, this saves me trouble of writing political stuff when I'd much rather drone on and on about Star Wars. (Just you wait, readers. By the time the first week of June rolls around, you poor people will be sick of reading me babbling about Star Wars.)

Anyhoo, a while back David Sucher wrote about Social Security, and he managed to precisely phrase a position that happens to also be my own:

The idea of "privatization" — "it's YOUR money" —seems to misunderstand the very purpose of Social Security i.e. it is NOT a private investment account and never was. But no matter, from what I understand, we should be saving more in the USA and perhaps Soc Sec private accounts will be part of a solution. But I can't see how we will escape (or want to escape) a system which takes care of old people who made bad investment decisions. Call that the Nanny State if you like. I just call it having beggar-free streets.

That's my position, and I'm sticking with it.