Mediaboss Marketing

By Dan Bowser

Recent Gazette articles have expressed different opinions on entitlements such as welfare, but what dothey call Social Security and Medicare.

One article supporting our current system claims Social Security is revenue neutral, but admits it willbecome depleted in 2034 after which it will be able to pay out 79 percent of benefits. The same articlecriticized George W. Bush for attempting to privatize Social Security. Lying politicians from both partiesused scare tactics on uninformed seniors to promote the idea President Bush is taking away their SocialSecurity.

An article titled Social Security is not an entitlement gave factual information on the benefits ofprivatized Social Security. It compared actual benefits of $18,000 to $19,000 a year to a potential of$45,000 to $50,000 per year. Many retirees living on Social Security without other sources of income liveat a poverty level. Privatized benefits could more than double their potential income.

Another writer claimed there are just as many cons as there are pros to privatizing Social Security. Thepros are obvious. I have ask some seniors what are the cons. Most said in a volatile market I would notknow how to invest my money and I may end up with nothing. I am not a financial expert, but in thissituation only the most secure options should be available such as US Treasury Bonds, low risk annuitiesor mutual funds. A continuous audit should be in place to ensure the company handling these funds dovnot create another Ponzi scheme like we now have with government handling 15 percent of our gross income.

I have heard many people make the foolish statement that you will get more out than you put in. Wouldthese same people put their lifes savings under a mattress expecting no return?

Government run health care is an issue politicians on both sides of the aisle use to snowball voters. AllDemocrats want to salvage this failed Obamacare program and would probably favor a single payersocialist system. Several Republicans oppose the new replacement plan as it will reduce Medicaid benefits. According to the Heritage Foundation the plan does not cut Medicaid it just reduces the futuregrowth.

Lets look at the history of welfare. The war on poverty began in 1964. In the 50-year period from 1964until 2014 $22 trillion has been spent to reduce poverty. Adjusted for inflation this is threetimes the cost of all U.S. military wars. Those in poverty in 1964 were 14 percent of our population and itremained 14 percent in 2014. Today government spends 16 times more, adjusting for inflation, on anti-povertyprograms than it did when the war on poverty began.

Why is the war on poverty not working? The poor have a much better life than they did 50 years ago.

They have many more amenities and financial benefits today to help entice them to stay dependent.

Many politicians want to keep them in that state so they can count on their vote. Any scare that apolitician may cut Medicaid sends Democrats on the attack. I think of an old saying (do you give a persona fish every day or do you teach them to fish). In a recent article a Democrat appears to think it is moreChrist like to give the fish every day.

One article mentioned the word Socialism. If you research the life cycle of a Democracy you will learnthat Democracies turn into socialist societies when politicians give the people financial benefits from thegovernment treasury in order to get elected. If this continues, bankruptcy is inevitable. Some say we arethe richest country in the world and we should supply health care and freebees. No other country hasbeen $20 trillion in debt indicating we are the poorest country. Our citizens are wealthy, so are theysaying the government can take our money. In a socialist society your money does belong to thegovernment.

Dan Bowser

Gastonia

Follow this link:
My Turn: The growth of socialism - Gaston Gazette