It looks obvious

The true nature of collectivism, and the complete failure of the idea behind social security, is encapsulated in this quote:

Want to do something truly patriotic to help preserve the American way of life?

Don’t retire. At least not yet.

[...]

If boomers all turn in their keys at age 55, 62 or 65 and head for the Tuscan hills, that great sucking sound you’ll hear is untold amounts of taxpayer dollars being leached from the economy. That is money heirs will have to replace or do without.

It’s an act Yarrow calls “profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.”

According to this authoritarian clown being patriot is to keep working and paying taxes to serve the need of other people instead of retiring at the age you gathered enough saving to stop working. I on the other hand believe that in order for people to demonstrate real American patriotism they need to be much more Selfish. They should stop funding the entitlement that might force them to delay they retirement and they need not to listen to people that want to enslave to the needs of other.

Are Neoconservatism a Jewish movement? No:

It is a matter of record that a small group of Jews played a leading role in the 1970s and 1980s in originating what has come to be known as neoconservatism, and many of neoconservatism’s most prominent spokesmen today are Jewish. The sensibility or persuasion they cultivated did in some measure grow out of reflections on Jewish ideas and experiences: the biblical teaching that all human beings are created in God’s image; the importance of tradition, family, and education; the horrors of the Holocaust; the enduring need for free nations to stand ready to take action, including military action, against the enemies of freedom; and Israel’s struggles against terrorism, autocracy, and religiously inspired fanaticism.

Yet no account of neoconservatism would be respectable if it omitted mention of eminent non-Jews such as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat from N.Y. state and, as assistant secretary of Labor in 1965, author of The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, which created a national storm by arguing that the deterioration of the black family was a central cause of black poverty; Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Democrat from Washington state and Cold War liberal around whom many emerging neoconservatives rallied in the 1970s; Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, a professor of government at Georgetown who staunchly represented the U.S. at the United Nations under Ronald Reagan; Father Richard John Neuhaus, founding editor of First Things and incisive analyst of religion and public life; William Bennett, former Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, author of the bestselling Book of Virtues, and today host of a popular talk radio show; and James Q. Wilson, for many years a professor of government at Harvard and for decades an outstanding scholar of American politics.

More important, however, than the diversity of backgrounds of those who have elaborated it, is the fact that neoconservatism does not rest on Jewish premises. Nor does it seek to advance specifically Jewish goals.

George Will remind us that the Economy is always in ‘Crisis’ in election years and that we should keep some sober perspective:

In 1935, when Congress enacted Social Security, protracted retirement was a luxury enjoyed by a tiny sliver of the population. Back then, Congress did its arithmetic ruthlessly: When it set the retirement age at 65, the life expectancy of an adult American male was 65. If in 1935 Congress had indexed the retirement age to life expectancy, today’s retirement age would be 75.

[...]

So far during this “crisis,” the homeownership rate has declined just three-tenths of 1 percent since it peaked in 2004. At 67.8 percent, it remains higher than it was when President Bill Clinton left office.

Subprime mortgages are a small minority of mortgages, and only a minority of subprime borrowers are not making their payments. Casting this minority of a minority as victims of “predatory” lending fits the liberal narrative that most Americans are victims of this or that sinister elite or impersonal force, and are not competent to cope with life’s complexities without government supervision.

The politics of this may, however, be more complex than the compassion chorus supposes. The 96 percent of mortgage borrowers who are fulfilling their commitments, often by scrimping, may be grumpy bystanders if many of the other 4 percent — those who found the phrase “variable rate” impenetrably mysterious — are eligible for ameliorations of their obligations.

Ed Mlavsky take a critical look at Churchill’s famous statement that “Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.”:

The very basis of the democratic process is, of course, the one(old enough)-person, one-vote axiom, but with some de facto assumptions like sufficient literacy to cope with registration procedures and ballot forms that are frequently unnecessarily (and deliberately?) complicated. Interesting idea really, since about half of any group of people – especially large ones like electorates – are, by definition, of below average intelligence, and that lot are tacitly expected to make ‘informed decisions’, despite clear evidence that many of them – and, for that matter, no few of the above average group too – don’t have the appetite for becoming well-informed, as evidenced, for example, by the sensitivity of the polls to the latest most often basically irrelevant gaffes by each of the contenders for office. Those gaffes may prove decisive, however, but how can they be avoided during campaigns as long and tedious as that in which the current adversaries have been engaged?