| Mr Khan said: There's a difference between arguing to change an existing structure and arguing for their utter elimination. The candidate in the OP is doing that, and you said you agreed with him. Rebuilding the system to something more efficient i can agree with, the problem is that the efficiency people tend to get lumped together with the nuts that just want to do budget slash-and-burn (though i note that they never want to touch many of the excesses in military) There is room for debate on the effectiveness of programs, certainly, but not on whether they (or some program that would serve as a fitting substitute) should exist or not |
The question them becomes: How do you reform/fix a system that has refused change for decades? Social security issues have been around for decades. Everyone knew that the system was screwing payees over, but no one has wanted to change it. My advocation is for reform. The issue is that the reform needed to fix social security requires removing it from federal control, into privatization. For example, the states have much MUCH better systems for their employees, as does the actual federal government, because it relies on private retirement principals (e.g. investing the money into stocks, bonds, real estate, ect to return the pensioner a tangible return).
I know I argue a radical change by eliminating the system, but I only advocate it so a better system can be put in place. I'm not saying 'get rid of it, and let people struggle on their own'. I am saying 'Allow people to invest how they want for retirement'. With health care, the issue is a bit deeper....Payments to doctors and facilities via Medicare HAS to be radically reformed for it to work. Unfortunately, no politician wants to touch it, along with other entitlements because voters fear too much.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
