The issue from American History I have chosen for my blog today is Social Security. Now I can't find much sourced online information about it however i know there is an Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist argument over it through personal experience. I know that a lot of Anti-Federalist people recently(and lets be honest, every second since it has been created) have doubted the effects of social security and whether the deficit we are in as a country will be able to provide the "promised" money. Anti-Federalist in this topic (such as my dad) believe that the near 12% tax A lot of Federalist people pay shouldn't not be paid and they should be allowed to do with there money what they want, whether they will save that for the future themselves, put it in the stock market, or just waste it all and be totally screwed when they retire.
However among talking musician Steve Poltz, who is currently a democrat and Federalist on the topic, he believes in social security. He believes that "we could run the Social Security program better, however we need it no matter what for the people that cannot handle there money well". Continuing on to say that "there will always be people left to the wayside, so it just comes down the the age-old theory of, do we look out for them or do we not look out for them"? He continued on the relate the topic to the Tea-Party saying "the ethics of the tea party which is: i can't be bothered by you, i'm trying to look out for myself". Finally ending on "its a big distrust of government, which i completely understand, but without control and government what do we end up with? anarchy?" I though a lot of great points were made about the fact that without the Federalist control over the people, we would have a lot of people doing whatever they wanted, which maybe they think is the best for themselves, but is it really?
No comments:
Post a Comment