On Social Security, We Could Follow the Examples of Chile and Canada

From Canada Free Press

Greece should be sparking more talk about how we address the runaway spending in this country, which is due in large part to the dysfunctionality of our Social Security system. Now I am not going to propose anything about cutting your Social Security benefits, which is what the Democrats scream about every time someone brings up this problem. They don’t want anyone to consider real solutions to this problem.

Greece has promised retirees more and more free stuff, and they can’t pay the bill. Why do we think it’s going to turn out any differently here?

When our Social Security system was designed in 1935, it was based on certain assumptions about life expectancy, which no longer apply today. It was also based on assumptions about what each of us would have to contribute to the system, which likewise no longer apply today.

Back then, Social Security presumed to never tax you on more than $3,000 of your income, and never at a rate of more than 3 percent. Today, it’s $100,000 of your income, and at 12.4 percent.

And because they have tried to be sneaky about increasing the rate (and Republicans have resisted that as well), you’ve now got Social Security spending on auto-pilot. Whenever someone like Rep. Paul Ryan recommends an approach to restructure Social Security, he gets presented as throwing Granny off a cliff.

Why? Because the media want you to remain ignorant – not only about how broke our system is, but also about what two countries have done to fix their systems.

Republicans could have proposed any number of approaches. One of the really good ones is currently in use in Chile. Prior to 1981, folks in Chile had a system like our current one, and they were having to pay 27 percent of their income to support it! When Chile finally got a real leader who was willing to take on this problem, the nation introduced a new system based on individual, privately owned accounts. Currently, 70 percent of workers are covered by this system – each with their own individual account that belongs to them and not to the government.

Plus, if you want to put in more money toward your retirement, you can do that. Who would voluntarily put more money into the U.S. Social Security system? No one! But in Chile people are glad to do this.

George W. Bush tried to do something like this in 2005, but the Republican Congress of that time had no interest in going down that road and they left him high and dry. Would the Republican Congress of today be any better? You’d think that if they really looked at what they’re doing in Chile, they’d want that in the United States.

Even Canada, home of socialized medicine, had the foresight in 1997 to set up the Canada Pension Investment Board. This board monitors and invests the funds handled by the Canada pension fund. Our Social Security dollars aren’t invested! Granted, the bureaucrats who run the system now wouldn’t make good investment decisions. But why not empower people who know about investing to do it? In Canada, the fund has grown from a mere $37 billion to more than $265 billion.

That’s two ideas that are both vastly superior to what we’re doing now, but no politician – certainly no presidential candidate – from either part is talking about ideas like this. Nor are the media. I guess they’d prefer to see us go down the same road as Greece.

So, those of you who insist that Social Security must never, ever be changed . . . do you want to see us end up in the same place as Greece? Because that’s where we’re headed.


Canada was headed down the same road….running out of monies for seniors as our population of baby boomers are hitting that time of life. As it is….they raised the age also. A senior Canadian can apply for their Canadian pension at the age of 65 or earlier but…. they take a small decrease in monthly payments. The Canadian Government would rather a person start collecting pensions at the age of 67.

While most Canadians are doing that….it sometimes is not feasible for others.  

Having a run away financial train that the current gov’t. is running….Senior Americans could be facing the same outcome as Greece whose populace is able to retire at age 45.

Not all changes are bad but one has to be able to trust their government to be competent and truly love the American people. This can’t happen until after January 2017.

~Blessed B~

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to On Social Security, We Could Follow the Examples of Chile and Canada

  1. Hardnox says:

    Agreed. We also need to remove the illegals off this system.

    • Blessed B. says:

      I agree! If you haven’t paid into it….you don’t get it! If you are not a legal citizen of the country…you don’t get it!

  2. Uriel says:

    I am with Hardnox. Illegal implies that someone is not following the laws of a land as written. Looks like the press as usual has shown its political chains. I had not heard nor had many I don’t think in the general public of successful efforts in the world to address social security. The hypocracy of government here is constantly surfacing. Our government has ridiculed countries across the world for stifling freedoms of speech and transparency yet our own government has determinedly done all in its power to suppress our own. Good post Blessed B.

    • Blessed B. says:

      Thanks Uriel! Yep….the American gov’t. loves to ridicule and chastise other countries for their way of running their countries…yet USA is doing the stifling even worse!

      Obi has chastised Harper many times for how he is running Canada!

      With addressing the problems within a government…one needs to have a competent leader at the helm who is not ignorant of how to get things done and is able to listen to those who have concerns and charting a course of action to rectify the problem. A leader who sits on his hands and stuffs his head up his backside will never help the country he leads or the people he is suppose to be leading!

  3. Kathy says:

    Oh lordie, can’t you just see our government making investments for us? They can’t even operate within their lavish budgets, let alone actually MAKE money, unless it was their own – then they seem to do really well.

    A new system of private accounts might work for some people, but a lot of folks don’t save for the long-term anyway, so another account wouldn’t see much input. Especially the 30-40 year old bracket who live paycheck to paycheck and spend everything they have. We’re too much of a ‘total instant gratification’ society to show much restraint.

    Like Canada, the US is pushing the retirement age farther & farther out. Some of the literature we get from SS is pushing for 70. Basically, they want people to work until the fall over dead. Cleaning up the fraud and getting the illegals out of it, as the others guys have said, is about all we can do.

    • Blessed B. says:

      LOL! Not the current government you have!! I wouldn’t trust them to make any decisions, let alone investing your monies! Might as well burn it before you send it! Give them a pile of ashes!

      We live paycheque to paycheque here….we saved at one time for a down payment on our own home at one time…. but a few years with major setbacks in employment due to health related circumstances has found us behind the eight ball and we just can’t save now. BTW…we don’t go out for entertainment….we don’t buy what we don’t need at all….we haven’t even been able to take a short holiday to visit family in the past 3 years.

      I agree with you about cleaning up the fraud and getting the illegals out of it! That would help immensely!

  4. vonmesser says:

    Step 1 – No change in system for anyone over the age of 40.
    Step 2 – Any person 40 or younger CAN move to the new system
    (and take all their money with them)
    Step 3 – Anyone under the age of 20 is automatically on the new system.

    This takes the “Throw granny off the cliff” bit away from the Democrats and unions.

    The new system:
    You put the same amount (percent) into an INDIVIDUAL retirement system. You chose the system, you chose the financial institution. You can NOT NOT NOT touch it until retirement (or age 70). You can put more in if you want, but not less.

    • Blessed B. says:

      Your points would be a solution to the problem you now face…..unfortunately none of them will be done until you can get people in the government to understand that. 🙁

      The politicians don’t need to worry….they get their income now and can save for retirement….in some foreign bank….and don’t even have to pay taxes on it!

  5. Clyde says:

    And yet FDR was lauded as a HERO for starting this Ponzi scheme.

    • Blessed B. says:

      FDR was one of the first Presidents you had that really screwed America royally! It’s just been getting darker, with only a flicker of light during the Reagan years.

  6. CW says:

    Social Security is failing because it was and always will be a flawed system but it’s here to stay until it collapses and here’s why: because we have adopted the mindset that the failure of some people to save for retirement is everybody’s problem. As long as that remains the case then we will have a system of forced saving administered by corrupt and inept politicians. Whoopee for us.

    Social Security epitomizes what’s wrong with every socialist scheme. People have become dependent on the nanny state and can’t imagine life without it. Republicans like Paul Ryan who are trying to “save” this fraud machine by suggesting things like “means testing” make me just as angry as the leftists do, because he is a useful idiot playing right into their hands. I’ll issue the same challenge I’ve issued before to anyone who wants it: tell me the difference between means testing for Social Security and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Our “saviors” on the Republican side are making the case for Marxism in order to save Social Security, and I can only wonder what Trojan horse they rode in on.

    • Blessed B. says:

      I can’t tell the difference between the two ( Means testing or according to one’s ability or needs)…. Those “Saviors” are not true Republicans as far as I can see anyways.