Re: Whoopi Snaps At Trump, Says If He Touches Entitlements, "We Could Put You In Jail"

Kerman wrote:

She's wrong. "Entitlement" is Washington double speak for a program in
which the spending is in the authorization bill, and not appropriated.
Similarly, the Social Security tax is euphemistically called a
"contribution".
>
It's all moviePig speak.
>
"Save for your retirement", uh, no. Your taxes paid for pensions
received by Americans already retired. You're fucked.

On Tuesday, I apparently blew up the Internet because I touched the political
third rail. I talked about Social Security.

Now I know what you�re thinking: What�s so spicy about Social Security? And I
will admit I was thinking the same thing.

Well, I said two things.

First, I said that Social Security needs to change. We must raise the
retirement age.

Second, I said that as a general rule, it is not a good personal decision for
people to retire early, unless we are talking about people who suffer a
physical or mental malady as a result of continued work. Retirement,
particularly in the post-familial, post-church age, harms mental health and
robs people of purpose. That doesn�t mean you can�t retire if you want to �
it�s a free country � or that you should be forced not to retire if you can
afford to retire. It means that we should seriously consider what
�retirement� itself means before we jump to the universal belief that
retirement is always good.

Let�s start with the first argument.

There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
One, we don�t have the money for it: it�s a Ponzi scheme. We don�t have
enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
There is no third option.

This means that the government should not be paying people to phase into
retirement at 62. And make no mistake, that�s what�s happening: Other
taxpayers are paying for your Social Security. The money you paid in was
stolen long ago. Which means that fewer and fewer workers � people generally
poorer than those of retirement age � are paying for more and more retirees.

What�s more, the average person who lives to 60 will live at least another
couple of decades. If you wish to bankrupt the American economy, the
continuation of Social Security as-is is guaranteed to do so. Every single
politician knows this. And they all lie for political gain.

Second, with regard to the personal decision to retire, very often when
people retire, they�re making a bad decision.

Not always, of course: There are people who are suffering from health
problems who don�t want to continue working. That�s understandable. And if
you want to retire on your own dime, because you�ve earned enough to retire,
and you can find other forms of fulfillment aside from work, that�s certainly
your prerogative.

The point I was making is that many people who see retirement as a cure-all
will be disappointed. Statistically, according to one study from the
Institute of Economic Affairs, �while retirement may initially benefit health
� by reducing stress and creating time for other activities, adverse effects
increase the longer retirement goes on. It found retirement increases the
chances of suffering from clinical depression by around 40%, and of having at
least one diagnosed physical illness by 60%.� According to a meta-analysis of
retirees, continuing to work prolonged life for those who worked beyond 65:
�Healthy workers that continued to work until they were 66 had an 11% reduced
mortality risk. Even retirees with health conditions that worked until they
were 66 still had a 9% reduced mortality risk.� Yet another study from Social
Science and Medicine finds that �those who had retired were 40 percent more
likely to have had a heart attack or stroke than those who were still
working.�

My point about retiring is simple: Work provides purpose and fulfillment for
a huge number of people throughout their lives. That purpose and fulfillment
does not automatically disappear at age 65. If we really believe that work is
inherently degrading and joyless, what does an ideal retirement age look
like? In that world, we should be looking to institute a universal basic
income and get rid of work entirely. Which would, of course, be a truly awful
idea.

The vision of retirement we are constantly sold � sitting on a beach in a
lounge chair � may not actually be real for many people. And what�s more, all
people need a sense of purpose � from family, from community, from church.
Our society has steadily removed all of those social institutions from daily
life. The elderly no longer live in intergenerational homes, helping out kids
and grandkids; they�re too often shuttled into old age homes, dependent on
programs like Social Security. Which means a lot of people find that purpose
in work. Retirement from work without getting involved in another job, or
another community purpose, or in church is a recipe for personal malaise.

Now, again, you can choose to retire. Nobody should force you to work; nobody
is suggesting anything like that. But when it comes to government
subsidization of retirement, we can�t afford it, and there�s little evidence
that it�s good public policy.

The solution, of course, is for you to keep your own money. We ought to phase
out the Social Security system � if you�re close to 65, you can�t be left
without a safety net, of course. But we need to move toward a system where
you get to keep your own money, save and invest for the future.

Politicians will continue to lie about this. But we should all understand
that they are, in fact, lying.

--
Let's go Brandon!