Why is this man not out next president?

[steven787]

Jackson50 said:

steven787 said:

Galaki said:
Answer in two words? Corporate interests.

 

It's not that simple.  Most people wouldn't benefit if you reduce government involvement in my list below (Granted I do think there should be a debate on whether it is a federal or state issue):

 

• Education, including funding grants and loans for higher education.
  
• Interstate highways, rail roads, water way management.
  
• Subsidising children's health care, as many states do.
• Social Security, most people benefit from it.

Education should be a consumer subsidized system as opposed to the current producer subsidized system. Education is an inherently private good and, although government should subsidize the consumer, providing the services by subsidizing the producer is not a good idea.

I am not going to debate the other issues, but being able to opt out of Social Security would be a great benefit to many people. I, for one, am a wise investor, and I could receive better returns on my investments as opposed to the low returns I will  receive from social security. I understand some people prefer the security and ease that social security offers them, and social security should be offered to those who wish to invest that way.  If I, however, do not wish to contribute my money to such a horrendous retirement program, I should not be forced to. 

 

 

I broke your statement in to two paragraphs because I want to address the ideas separately.

1. I don't agree.  Public education is one of the great developments in human history. It is not "broken" despite the number of people who say it is, except the inbalance of where the best equipment and teachers go.

2. What would then happen when the market crashes and banks go out of business?  All your savings would be gone and you'd be relying on the government; whether they write a check to you or to your banks and brokers.