The comments below are what I posted on the Washington Post Blog today, but it fits here as part of my philosophy as well:
I've been hearing that old saw "Social Security won't be there for you" since I was in my teens, I'm in my late 60's and it is still here and keeps a roof over my head. Do I wish I'd saved more for my retirement, "YES", but what part of my life would I have changed.
Should I have stayed in the abusive marriage I got out of at age 40, even though my son and I would continue to suffer? Should I have not quit job in my late 50's and moved to another state to take care of my aging father, a WWII & Korean War Veteran, which allowed him to stay in his home until he died at age 93? When my father died, and I was 65 should I have gone back to work rather than to take care of my boyfriend, a Vietnam era veteran, who was dying of pancreatic cancer and had no one else to care for him. That pretty much took care of my life from age 40 - 67.
There is an old saying about being a housewife, that applies here "It is not that what I do is not valuable, but that it is not valued". What I did in my life was valuable to me, and to those I loved, but it did not build up a retirement fund and is not valued by the Republican, "Ayn Rand" , vision of society that sees need as weakness and giving as something to be despised. I want this "insurance plan" called Social Security to be there for my son, and for his son so that when life intervenes in unexpected ways it will provide a floor for their old age as it has for mine. There is every reason to keep this program intact, and to strengthen it .
Do not believe the Republican Tealiban lies when they tell you that Social Security won't be there for you when you reach old age. Also, when the Republicans talk about only doing away with Social Security for those below age 54, I wonder what makes them think we don't care about our children's future security. We need to raise the Social Security Withholding Cap. I think Senator Bernie Sanders plan to leave the Cap at $106,000, but then re-start the withholding when people reach income over $250,000 makes a lot of sense. It balances out the fact that the lower income levels have had their wages stagnate over the past 20 years, while the top income groups have seen huge increases in income yet sharply dropping tax rates.
Should I have stayed in the abusive marriage I got out of at age 40, even though my son and I would continue to suffer? Should I have not quit job in my late 50's and moved to another state to take care of my aging father, a WWII & Korean War Veteran, which allowed him to stay in his home until he died at age 93? When my father died, and I was 65 should I have gone back to work rather than to take care of my boyfriend, a Vietnam era veteran, who was dying of pancreatic cancer and had no one else to care for him. That pretty much took care of my life from age 40 - 67.
There is an old saying about being a housewife, that applies here "It is not that what I do is not valuable, but that it is not valued". What I did in my life was valuable to me, and to those I loved, but it did not build up a retirement fund and is not valued by the Republican, "Ayn Rand" , vision of society that sees need as weakness and giving as something to be despised. I want this "insurance plan" called Social Security to be there for my son, and for his son so that when life intervenes in unexpected ways it will provide a floor for their old age as it has for mine. There is every reason to keep this program intact, and to strengthen it .
Do not believe the Republican Tealiban lies when they tell you that Social Security won't be there for you when you reach old age. Also, when the Republicans talk about only doing away with Social Security for those below age 54, I wonder what makes them think we don't care about our children's future security. We need to raise the Social Security Withholding Cap. I think Senator Bernie Sanders plan to leave the Cap at $106,000, but then re-start the withholding when people reach income over $250,000 makes a lot of sense. It balances out the fact that the lower income levels have had their wages stagnate over the past 20 years, while the top income groups have seen huge increases in income yet sharply dropping tax rates.
No comments:
Post a Comment