Jeff Gannon Blog

Friday, February 04, 2005

My Thoughts on Social Security

I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to see SS strengthened. On the other hand, I want to see it completely destroyed because it has always been a pretty useless program, another way for the government to take away my hard earned cash (I'm a journalist) and give it to an old person who is not a member of my family. (Not Grandma Gannon.)

Thankfully, we have a President (Bush) who understands that in order to completely destroy SS, we must first strengthen it. What the Bonkers Left fails to realize is that old people hate SS. It's confusing. They would feel much more comfortable if a smart young man from Wall Street would take care of the details.

16 Comments:

  • Hi Not Jeff Gannon!

    I am not Karl Rove and was thinking about starting a blog about my thoughts about the state of the Nation as Not Karl Rove.

    I am worried though about how the wakey, biased Liberal media might distort what I was saying as Not Karl Rove.

    With a little history behind you now, I was wondering, if you had it to do over, would you take on the responsibility of being and writing for Not Jeff Gannon?

    Thank you for your time. Any advice would be most welsome.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:07 PM  

  • Good afternoon, Mr. Jeff Gannon. What if we build orphanages for old people? That would bring them in out of the cold.

    Also it would protect them from all those other homeless people. Some of them look downright dangerous! What do you think?

    By Blogger Tomato, at 2:26 PM  

  • Invest in War Bongs!

    By Blogger The Liberal Avenger, at 2:28 PM  

  • hehe - I meant to say "War Bonds" but "War Bongs" is even better!

    By Blogger The Liberal Avenger, at 2:29 PM  

  • You know why we have a health worker shortage? Who wants to wipe old peoples' butts if the government is going to take 12% of your low pay and give it right to those crappy (literally) seniors? Let's get rid of the payroll tax and we'll have people lining up to wipe your grandma's butt.

    By Blogger Tomato, at 2:33 PM  

  • Maybe we should scratch that orphanage idea, Mr. Jeff Gannon. There aren't too many old homeless people, IYKWIM.

    By Blogger Tomato, at 2:39 PM  

  • Homeless people pretty much suck, don't they, Jeff Gannon? I mean, why don't they clean themselves up a little? No wonder they can't find a job.

    By Blogger Tomato, at 2:40 PM  

  • These are some very intriguing ideas. Unfortunately, being that I am not Jeff Gannon, I have some other work to do for a little while.

    However, I will chime in later with some of the unvarnished reporting you've come to expect from me.

    By Blogger J. Gannon, at 2:43 PM  

  • Oh and for the record: I am not Mr. Jeff Gannon and am not claiming to be someone else who also isn't Jeff Gannon. Just wanted to make that clear. Good afternoon.

    By Blogger J. Gannon, at 2:45 PM  

  • I think that if more people prayed, more dreams would come true, right?

    But what if your dream was for the same job of my dreams? Logic and fairness would dictate that whoever prayed the longest should get the job. So I feel that people who pray a whole lot probably have more dreams come true, and people who only pray a little only get some of their dreams to come true. It's like setting priority levels on TiVo.

    But if everyone prays alot then who actually works? Maybe we should make atheists do all the work since they don't have to pray.

    By Blogger Tomato, at 2:47 PM  

  • Mr. Jeff Gannon, you keep being who you are. I have to go back to work now, so the old people can steal more of my money. See you later, gator.

    By Blogger Tomato, at 2:50 PM  

  • Thank you. But like I said, I'm not Mr. Jeff Gannon.

    By Blogger J. Gannon, at 2:52 PM  

  • Let me just lay this out: The Social Security payroll tax is something you dislike because they take your hard earned dollars and give them to old people. Well, gee... by that rationale, shouldn't we be looking at the uses of all of the taxes you pay? How about: the income tax is taking your hard earned dollars and building roads and providing defence (offense??), among other things, for many people other than you. Gee, maybe we should destroy those programs, too.

    Social Security is an amazingly efficient "Poverty Insurance". If we had no Social Security, we would have many more people in poverty. People in poverty are going to cost the government much more money than the cost of Social Security. Well, then you say, "why does the government have to take care of people that can't take care of themselves?" Good question. Actually, wait... no, it isn't. It's in everyone's best interest to provide a minimum level of support for people. It provides stability to the economy. Sure, the economy won't have the highest possible highs, but it certainly won't ever reach great depression levels, either. People, for lot's of reasons, just never get enough money set aside to take care of themselves until the day they die. Sometimes they get sick, sometimes markets change (jobs move overseas, new technology makes their expertise obsolete, etc.), sometimes they get swindled, sometimes they have their money invested in Enron then it turns out the company was a giant Ponzi scheme and there never was any money. The CEO walks a multi-millionaire, but they are destitute. If there were no Social Security, these people would have to rely on their family (if available) or they would be homeless. Homelessness leads to all sorts of social ills- from the festering and spread of communicable diseases (assuming we don't provide them with emergency room crippling free medical care) to increased crime.

    So, perhaps that paltry payroll tax- which will also provide YOU with poverty insurance- isn't such a high price to pay to avoid recessions, depressions, epidemics and much higher crime. And, as for having these nice young men at Wall Street manage their money... give me a break. The government handles the money in SS at a cost of 2%. Even very conservative estimates say that the cost of having brokers handle the money will be much closer to 20%. Imagine the rate of return one would have to achieve to eclipse that difference! We already know from Argentina and England that those types of social security programs are utter failures.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:29 PM  

  • I loved it when not-you told E&P "I'm not the '60 Minutes' producer with the Kerry campaign on speed dial," to prove you also weren't a TV producer and had nothing to do with spead dial.

    Way to turbo-bonk the lefties, bra.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:00 PM  

  • Mr. Jeff Gannon, I don't know about you, but I never read past the fifth line of a comment. I could afford ritalin if I could re-import it from Canada, but I understand that's unamerican.

    Write on, dude!

    By Blogger Tomato, at 7:31 PM  

  • How about: the income tax is taking your hard earned dollars and building roads and providing defence (offense??), among other things, for many people other than you. Gee, maybe we should destroy those programs, too.Great idea, anonymous!

    By Blogger Tomato, at 7:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home