Sunday, January 3, 2016

The NYTimes Lays Another Egg

The editorials of the NYTimes are mind boggling.  They seem to be little more than requotations of policy statements from the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton's campaign or the Democratic National Committee.  There has not been a single NYTimes editorial to depart from this pattern in the past five years.  That the editorials are inconsistent with one another does not seem to bother the Times editorial staff as they blithely recite Democratic Party propoganda on their editorial page.

The latest jibberish is today's editorial on social security.  The editorial suggests, incredibly, that all social security needs is a simple fix to be the ideal retirement system for middle class Americans.  That is pathetic.

The main real-world impact of social security is to eliminate middle class savings in the mistaken hope that social security will take care of the middle class.  That nonsense is perpetuated in today's editorial.  If citizens simply invested the money that the government takes away from them in social security payroll taxes in an index fund of common stocks from age 21 to age 65, a simple calculation shows that they would end up (each individual) with $ 6.3 million by age 65, instead of the paltry $ 1,300 per month that social security provides.

Social security robs the poor and the middle class by taking more than 15 percent of their income annually and providing a pitifully small monthly stipend that provides zero for the next generation upon their death.  Worse, the taxes that people pay in are spent to fund the Clinton Foundation, subsidize friends of Obama in the alternative energy space, etc. and are not set aside to fund social security.  You can see why Clinton and Obama like social security, while the poor and the middle class are being looted to provide funding for rich Democrats.  Why is that a good system?

A better system is a broad based system along the lines of a Roth IRA expanded for all Americans and not touchable, by them or by Democrat politicians, until age 65.  A system like this would build wealth, not dependency and could not be looted by Democratic politicians seeking Al Gore - like wealth.

Instead of advocating more theft from the middle class, the NYTimes should address realistically the plight of middle class Americans, who are currently being looted by their government while the NYTimes sits on the sidelines applauding this debacle.  Wealth creation, not victimization, is what middle class America needs and it will not come about by pretending that social security is a fair or even viable system.

No comments: