|
Opinion #1
Debater: paraquat99
|
|
Social Security wouldn't be secure if it was privatized.
|
|
Apparently, the Special Olympics rejects (i.e. Jtaylor1) are in town today to debate Social Security. For the rest of us, who like to argue so others can clearly understand it, why would anyone want to dismantle Social Security? Americans like the system. The system, in 70-years, has never faltered. And only the minority, the wealthy elite, would even benefit from its being dismantled. If we replaced it with private accounts, wouldn't the government merely be enriching private investment firms/banks who'd have to manage said "accounts" for investor fees. Next, what if these investments in the Stock Market failed? How would elderly folks retire and supplement their incomes? What about the disabled and children of deceased parents? Without workers paying into a SS system, how would they survive? Private charities would be overwhelmed (as they were before SS), and the old, crippled and orphaned wouldn't have the funds for housing, food and transportation. SS wouldn't be SS if privatized!
|
|
|
|
Opinion #2
Debater: powerofk
|
|
Problem with SS
|
|
The problem with Social Security is that it is NO LONGER a guaranteed benefit. Those of us under the age of 35 have no guarantee that it will even be solvent by the time we retire. Right now, there are more people collecting Social Security checks than people paying in. And even those people receiving SS money are given a time-limit of how long they can receive (if they live longer, too bad for them). Also, SS enrollment did not become a requirement until the late '70s/early '80s. Now, if we are going to keep the system we have, we need to raise the SS tax or allow for privitization. Unfortunately, though, there is no easy answer...
|
|
|