|
Why Liberals Abhor Social Security Reform
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | MARCH 11, 2005 | CHRISTOPHER ADAMO
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/c...y.asp?aid=13501
If Americans of all ages ever recognize the degree to which they’ve been conned by the proponents of failed government programs such as Social Security, they will likely respond in a manner reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party. And it is not hard to imagine a few career politicians floating in the harbor alongside of King George’s cargo.,br>
Consider the caterwauling from Democrats in response to President Bush’s efforts to reform Social Security. Originally promoted as merely a retirement supplement, Franklin Roosevelt’s scheme initially involved a minuscule payroll tax. Once implemented however, the road was clear to incrementally grow the program in scope and cost, eventually burdening American workers with a thirteen percent confiscation from every dollar they earn.
Politicians in Washington quickly recognized that intake from taxpayers would, for a time, exceed expenditures. So, in a manner sufficient to earn any Enron executive a trip to the slammer, Congress soon began pillaging the fund, using the money to supplement its insatiable quest for pork. Worse yet, it then covered its actions with a lie of unfathomable proportions.
Ostensibly, such violation of public trust is assuaged by the substitution of IOU’s, offered as a “guarantee” of repayment. Consider the abject absurdity of this concept, and how it exemplifies the unbridled contempt with which these politicians regard the American people.
Not even worth the paper it is written on, any government issued “IOU” simply concedes the fact that monies were indeed appropriated, and that sooner or later, somebody will be forced to repay them. Since governments cannot create wealth, and only possess that which can be forcibly extorted from the citizens, those promissory notes hold no monetary value whatsoever. Instead, they are nothing more than confessions of the original theft. If they are to be repaid, it will be by the very same citizenry—or its grandchildren—that was overtaxed to create the surplus in the first place.
Meanwhile, political operatives are having a field day dipping into the coffers, essentially robbing from one citizen in order to purchase the loyalty of another. It is perhaps the biggest deception of the twentieth century to portray Social Security surpluses as anything other than a supplemental income tax, further burdening the citizenry while enabling big-government liberal Democrats from both parties to perpetuate their “business as usual.”
Thus, the phony outrage among liberals, intent on maintaining the system in its present form, offers proof of their real loyalties. And politicians who piously suggest another tax hike as some sort of corrective action are merely showing themselves to be willing to continue the theft, not only from this generation, but from future generations, until such time that the public wakes up to the sham.
Such underhanded tactics are the lifeblood of liberalism, which on the one hand publicly reviles the evils of capitalism while on the other hand, continually seeks to solidify its access to the lion’s share of the fruits. Is it any wonder that liberals vehemently oppose revamping the system into a form that would allow average people some measure of independence, and would eventually force the system to become honest and accountable?
Perhaps the common citizens, particularly those who rely heavily on Social Security for their sustenance, can be forgiven for their anxiety. But those politicians echoing such alarmist rhetoric are either grossly incompetent of the fiscal reality, or shamefully disingenuous and willing to stoke the fears of their constituents in order to keep them in line. Among the worst collaborators in this ruse is the American Association of Retired Persons, an organization with a fundamental necessity to maintain its symbiotic tie to the governmental status quo. The AARP thrives on the backs of frightened and dependent members, and therefore works to ensure they stay that way. That is why it cannot sanction any Bush plan, no matter how favorable to future generations, or how thoroughly it protects present recipients from any adverse effects, if such a plan holds even the tiniest possibility of allowing them to disentangle themselves from the debilitating web of dependence on government. Every pyramid scheme in existence requires the inclusion of a “bottom tier” of people whose destiny it is to be robbed blind, in order to enrich those above them. Social Security is no different.
In the private sector, such schemes are considered criminal. How much more criminal is it for the government to continually subjugate present and future working Americans by fleecing them in this manner?
About the Writer: Christopher Adamo is a freelance writer from southeastern Wyoming, where he has been involved in grassroots political activites for several years. He maintains a website athttp://www.chrisadamo.com Christopher receives e-mail [email protected]. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
Reform = good, keep politicians from raiding it, make some adjustments for life span increases. Social Security has been extremely successful when you compare the poverty rates of seniors before and after the program came into effect.
Bush's Privatization = Bad, less benefits, does nothing for solvency. Let's be honest, this is a step toward ultimately getting rid of the system altogether down the road by framing the debate further to the right.
And what a great marketing plan:
| quote: | WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said Thursday that President Bush's argument for African Americans to support his Social Security plan is "offensive."
Bush is courting African Americans with the pitch that the Social Security system is unfair to black men because of their shorter life expectancy.
Obama said the notion that Bush would tailor his Social Security appeal to blacks by talking about their shorter lifespans -- without linking it to the causes of the death rate -- was "stunning'' and "puzzling.''
Obama said he would prefer the president not frame his Social Security argument "in racial terms.'' Obama's strong words may have special significance since he is the only African-American senator.
Last Jan. 11 at a White House forum on Social Security, Bush said "African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people. And that needs to be fixed.''
Bush is traveling across the country to win backing for his proposal to divert a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund individual investment accounts. Democrats oppose the creation of these private, or personal, accounts and said they will not deal with any presidential proposal until they are taken off the table.
"I frankly found the statement that the president made somewhat offensive,'' Obama said at a press briefing with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), focusing on the impact the creation of individual investment accounts would have on blacks.
"There is no doubt a disparity in the lifetime opportunities between white America and black America. And that is something that everybody at this table is committed to closing,'' Obama said.
Group: Blacks get a lousy deal
He criticized what he said was the cynical use of disparities as a reason to dismantle Social Security. Instead, people should be talking "about how are we going to close the health disparities gap that exists, and make sure that African-American life expectancy is as long as the rest of this nation."
"The notion that we would not be talking about lack of health insurance, and reducing diabetes, and reducing incidents of AIDS, and making sure that African Americans have the wealth and the income to save into retirement and supplement Social Security is stunning to me."
Maya Rockeymoore, a vice president of research and programs at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, said at the briefing that Social Security survivor and disability benefits -- which are part of the package that includes retirement payments -- are used by African-American families and the conversation about change should deal with all three aspects of the program.
Stephen Moore, president of the Free Enterprise Fund, which is backing Bush's bid for investment accounts, defended the approach. "I think the Republicans should go into the black communities and let people know what a lousy deal they get from Social Security."
Obama, Moore said, did not take issue with the "fundamental truth'' that there is a racial death rate disparity.
"This is not about why the life expectancy is lower," Moore said. "It is about the fact of life that blacks do die at younger ages and they get a relatively worse deal out of Social Security than whites."
Said Obama, "This is as if the president is arguing for privatization of fire protection because our houses aren't worth as much as houses in rich neighborhoods. Or maybe we could privatize police protection because if we get robbed, our stuff is not as nice. It defies logic.'' |
P.S. you want to talk about who's raiding the funds, you might ask where the Bush tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the top 1% came from. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Reform = good, keep politicians from raiding it, make some adjustments for life span increases. Social Security has been extremely successful when you compare the poverty rates of seniors before and after the program came into effect.
Bush's Privatization = Bad, less benefits, does nothing for solvency. Let's be honest, this is a step toward ultimately getting rid of the system altogether down the road by framing the debate further to the right.
And what a great marketing plan:
P.S. you want to talk about who's raiding the funds, you might ask where the Bush tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the top 1% came from. |
That money wasn't the government's to begin with.
And if I recall, Bush said in his SOTU speech that he was open to many options and hadn't made any definitive plans(outside of not raising taxes), and he actually offered several options that had been championed by many congressional Democrats. Why are you so quick to call his plan "Bad" when there is not a clear cut plan at this point? That's called obstructionism.
Not to mention Obama is OK, but let's face it. He's a rookie with all of a month of experience under his belt. Probably not the best source of information on this subject matter. Nothing against the guy, but he has a lot to learn. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | There was a remarkable exchange during President Bush’s meticulously choreographed townhall meeting in Alabama yesterday. One of the people selected to speak with Bush was a woman named Sarah Garrison Webster. It’s clear that she was chosen because she is a federal employee who is eligible for the federal Thrift Savings Plan, a program that gives federal employees the option of putting some of their retirement money into stocks. Ms. Webster was supposed to be Exhibit A on how much people love to invest their retirement money in stock funds. It didn’t go exactly according to plan:
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you something about the Thrift Savings Plan. This is a Thrift Savings Plan that has a mix of stocks and bonds?
MS. WEBSTER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, how hard was that to learn how to do that?
MS. WEBSTER: And I chose the safe plan, government bonds. (Laughter.)
|
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
|
I don't think the President's plan is as much about getting people to invest in the stock market as it is about giving people more control over their own retirement savings. If you want to invest in bonds, invest in bonds. If you want to play a little higher risk/return game, hey, you're in control.
And the plan is also not about getting people to blow retirement money on high-risk pump & dump stocks like risky tech stocks and internet shams. There is an ocean of possibilities between a 2% government bond that barely keeps up with inflation and Taser, Yahoo or Mama.com.
Perhaps you're just scared that people will do better with their savings than you could do, which just doesn't fit the liberal definition of "fair". |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I don't think the President's plan is as much about getting people to invest in the stock market as it is about giving people more control over their own retirement savings. If you want to invest in bonds, invest in bonds. If you want to play a little higher risk/return game, hey, you're in control.
And the plan is also not about getting people to blow retirement money on high-risk pump & dump stocks like risky tech stocks and internet shams. There is an ocean of possibilities between a 2% government bond that barely keeps up with inflation and Taser, Yahoo or Mama.com.
Perhaps you're just scared that people will do better with their savings than you could do, which just doesn't fit the liberal definition of "fair". |
That figure of 2% is not accurate. Invest your OWN money in whatever you want between government bonds and mama.com, this is social SECURITY, not a retirement savings account. Bush's numbers do not add up and yes you COULD make more, that doesn't mean you will you could also earn less, which is happens with even "safe" investments. Do Ayn Rand and you care if that happens or is it just too bad? That's what scares me. It is a fact that SS benefits would be cut under the plan as well. Note that in my intial post I never once talked about risky stocks. Government bonds are by far the safest investment no matter what other options you talk about and that is the point of the program, it is about retirement security that helps supplement your private retirement savings. Add something to the plan that provides government insurance for people who lose money in their investments and then it might be different. I'm sure Mr. Opus will have a lengthy post on this soon. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
That figure of 2% is not accurate. |
Admittedly it was just a number I threw out off the top of my head to describe a typical, low-yielding government bond. It may not be accurate, as you say, but I'd bet it's not far off the mark.
| quote: | | Invest your OWN money in whatever you want between government bonds and mama.com, this is social SECURITY, not a retirement savings account. |
Yes, an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM set up during the GREAT DEPRESSION that has become one of the biggest financial drags on our economic system that one could imagine. A financial black hole, if you will.
| quote: | | Bush's numbers do not add up and yes you COULD make more, that doesn't mean you will you could also earn less, which is happens with even "safe" investments. |
Yes, it's called risk, and only a fool would think that anyone is immune to it. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
| quote: | | Do Ayn Rand and you care if that happens or is it just too bad? |
Lucky for you, Rand is dead. Sure I care, but not so much that I'm willing to throw my entire philosophy out the window to appease someone who's afraid of change(change that could be for the better or the worse--nobody knows yet).
| quote: | | I'm sure Mr. Opus will have a lengthy post on this soon. |
Yes, I'm sure your hero will be along to bail you out in due time. (No offense, Opus;) ) |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Admittedly it was just a number I threw out off the top of my head to describe a typical, low-yielding government bond. It may not be accurate, as you say, but I'd bet it's not far off the mark.
Yes, an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM set up during the GREAT DEPRESSION that has become one of the biggest financial drags on our economic system that one could imagine. A financial black hole, if you will.
Yes, it's called risk, and only a fool would think that anyone is immune to it. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Lucky for you, Rand is dead. Sure I care, but not so much that I'm willing to throw my entire philosophy out the window to appease someone who's afraid of change(change that could be for the better or the worse--nobody knows yet).
Yes, I'm sure your hero will be along to bail you out in due time. (No offense, Opus;) ) |
I realize Rand is dead, but you regularly mention that's part of your ideological basis and that's what I referred to.
Opus needs to bail me out? Let's see, you said you made up a number off the top of your head, which is much lower than an actual figure and you made an assumption that I'm afraid of change, even though I stated that reform is good, just not the one being propsed. Would you care to put some facts on how it's been one of the worst financial drags in history? As discussed, the solvency is threatened by money being raided that should be in the system. The higher standard of living for citizens I'd say is worth something.
By the way, I recall you posting in another thread a few weeks back that I shouldn't put words in your mouth, yet anytime you post something related to me now it seems you have a vendetta and you make an assumption about me. I disagree with you on most issues, but I don't see what you're so angry about since i have a difference of opinion. I thought we were just discussing controversial issues. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
I realize Rand is dead, but you regularly mention that's part of your ideological basis and that's what I referred to. |
I didn't realize I mentioned her that often, but yes, I do have a lot of admiration for her objectivist philosophy and think it is a very sound one at that. Does it admit some harsh realities? Sure, but at least it's honest.
| quote: | | Opus needs to bail me out? Let's see, you said you made up a number off the top of your head, which is much lower than an actual figure and you made an assumption that I'm afraid of change, even though I stated that reform is good, just not the one being propsed. |
The way you said it, it sounded as if you were hoping he would come in, post his typical ungodly long response citing everything from Encylopedia Britannica to Dr. Seuss(that's sarcasm in case you didn't catch any of it from my previous posts. I laid it on pretty thick).
And if I look at the current yield curve, which is flattening(not a good thing), the current yield on a 6 month treasury note is ~3% with the 30 year long bond yielding about 4.8%. I don't think my estimate was too far off the mark, especially if you factor in inflation.
| quote: | | Would you care to put some facts on how it's been one of the worst financial drags in history? As discussed, the solvency is threatened by money being raided that should be in the system. |
Come on--surely you can realize that it's a huge drag. Again, sorry if the sarcasm escaped you. Nobody has proposed "raiding" the system. Hell, there isn't much to raid outside of a box full of paper IOUs.
| quote: | | The higher standard of living for citizens I'd say is worth something. |
Yeah yeah yeah. Greater good for the greatest number of people, right?
| quote: | | By the way, I recall you posting in another thread a few weeks back that I shouldn't put words in your mouth, yet anytime you post something related to me now it seems you have a vendetta and you make an assumption about me. I disagree with you on most issues, but I don't see what you're so angry about since i have a difference of opinion. I thought we were just discussing controversial issues. |
Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth. I will try not to. I don't have a vendetta against you and I'm certainly not angry. I apologize if you took it that way. I like that you play rugby. What position do you play? My best man was a rugby fanatic in college.;) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
*cracks fingers*
Let’s get started, shall we?
| quote: | CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | MARCH 11, 2005 | CHRISTOPHER ADAMO
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/c...y.asp?aid=13501
If Americans of all ages ever recognize the degree to which they’ve been conned by the proponents of failed government programs such as Social Security, they will likely respond in a manner reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party. And it is not hard to imagine a few career politicians floating in the harbor alongside of King George’s cargo.,br> |
Amazing how the most successful insurance program our government has ever created, bringing some 40% of the elderly out of poverty prior to its creation, currently giving benefits that raise nearly 13 million American seniors out of poverty, cutting the share of seniors who are poor from nearly one in two to one in twelve is somehow labeled a “con”.
http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05socsec.htm
Boy this douchebag spinmeister’s off to a great start.
| quote: | | Consider the caterwauling from Democrats in response to President Bush’s efforts to reform Social Security. |
“Reform” my ing ass. Bush is out to destroy it, period. This has been the GOP wet dream all along:
| quote: | --Remember the resurrected CATO Institute paper from 1983 laying out a "Leninist Strategy" to phase out Social Security?
--Remember Peter Wehner's January 3rd memo stating "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country"?
--And when Stephen Moore, formerly of the Club For Hair Growth declares that "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state...If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state," is there any doubt as to what he's referring to?
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=3SS...Azp6iM41Q%3D%3D |
His plan does NOTHING, ABSOINGLUTELY NOTHING to help the solvency of the program, which he freely concedes as did the GAO. In fact, it only hastens the financial problems of SS:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...3_social10.html
Pushing that “Doomsday” date of 2018 to 2012, according to the latest date by Chief Actuary to the SSA, Stephen Goss in his February 3, 2005 memorandum called, “Preliminary Estimated Effects of a Proposal to Phase In Personal Accounts”. If you can somehow explain how this assists the solvency problem, please let me know. Furthermore, his plan to divert benefits from wage indexing to price indexing would drastically cut benefits all around, according to the CBO:
http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec4.htm
And BTW, the CBO puts that date to 2020. Keeps getting pushed back –strange that.
It does, however, add anywhere between $1-$2 trillion to our deficit in the next 2 years:
http://www.csss.gov/
http://www.cbpp.org/12-13-04socsec.htm
And according to CBO figures, we’ll need to borrow approx. $15 trillion to fund Bush’s scheme project over 40 years.
So how is that going to help our children of the future – giving them a monumental deficit already to pay back, and throw in a few extra trillions of dollars for them to cover as well?
| quote: | | Originally promoted as merely a retirement supplement, Franklin Roosevelt’s scheme initially involved a minuscule payroll tax. |
No, it wasn’t promoted “merely” as a retirement supplement, . Take a look at what Franklin said after signing the SS Act into law:
| quote: | Today a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled. The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last.
This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.
We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.
This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future Administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.
I congratulate all of you ladies and gentlemen, all of you in the Congress, in the executive departments and all of you who come from private life, and I thank you for your splendid efforts in behalf of this sound, needed and patriotic legislation.
If the Senate and the House of Representatives in this long and arduous session had done nothing more than pass this Bill, the session would be regarded as historic for all time.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/HOP/FDR.html |
Now does that sound like he’s promoting a retirement supplement, or an insurance safety net for everyone should they unfortunately come to that point?
| quote: | | Once implemented however, the road was clear to incrementally grow the program in scope and cost, eventually burdening American workers with a thirteen percent confiscation from every dollar they earn. |
Actually it only burdens the worker 6.2%, and is matched by the business industry 6.2% as well. I guess he’s rounding up, and lumping it altogether, but oh well – who’s countin’ for this guy? And let’s also keep in mind that this regressive payroll tax inacted in ’83.
| quote: | | Politicians in Washington quickly recognized that intake from taxpayers would, for a time, exceed expenditures. So, in a manner sufficient to earn any Enron executive a trip to the slammer, Congress soon began pillaging the fund, using the money to supplement its insatiable quest for pork. Worse yet, it then covered its actions with a lie of unfathomable proportions. |
Then why don’t we do a “locked box” as Gore once said? I won’t make excuses of former presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, but why is our current President and his GOP Congress raiding the Trust Fund to support his tax cuts (3x more expensive than SS over 75 yr. projection) and a war of choice? Because other presidents did it, it’s logically reasonable to assume he should too, even during a monumental deficit which HE created?
| quote: | Ostensibly, such violation of public trust is assuaged by the substitution of IOU’s, offered as a “guarantee” of repayment. Consider the abject absurdity of this concept, and how it exemplifies the unbridled contempt with which these politicians regard the American people.
Not even worth the paper it is written on, any government issued “IOU” simply concedes the fact that monies were indeed appropriated, and that sooner or later, somebody will be forced to repay them. Since governments cannot create wealth, and only possess that which can be forcibly extorted from the citizens, those promissory notes hold no monetary value whatsoever. Instead, they are nothing more than confessions of the original theft. If they are to be repaid, it will be by the very same citizenry—or its grandchildren—that was overtaxed to create the surplus in the first place. |
How did I know this hack would resort to the old “worthless IOUs” line? Problems run rampid with his silly argument.
1. If we are to believe that Treasury Bonds are “worthless IOUs”, this runs counter to our history:
The U.S. has never defaulted on Treasury Bonds in its 200 year history. Why would we start now?
2. It would also run counter to the 14th Amendment to do so:
| quote: | Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend14.htm |
3. It would also be quite devastating to the world economy, whom we give Treasury Bonds to in order to support our spending habits. As the NYTimes Jan. 10th editorial states:
| quote: | If the trust fund’s Treasury securities are worthless, someone better tell investors throughout the world, who currently hold $4.3 trillion in Treasury debt that carries the exact same government obligation to pay as the trust fund securities.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html |
4. And Bush himself would have a bit of a credit problem since he tends to invest in our Treasury Bonds as well:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd...008072_2003.pdf
| quote: | | Meanwhile, political operatives are having a field day dipping into the coffers, essentially robbing from one citizen in order to purchase the loyalty of another. It is perhaps the biggest deception of the twentieth century to portray Social Security surpluses as anything other than a supplemental income tax, further burdening the citizenry while enabling big-government liberal Democrats from both parties to perpetuate their “business as usual.” |
Oh gimme a ing break! This is “burdening” the citizens? “Purchasing the loyalty”?
Are we talking about the Republicans or the Democrats here? Sounds a helluva lot more like the former. And how does one describe the ing huge ass deficit created largely by this President’s tax cuts? If he considers SS a bit “burdensome”, then the tax cuts moneywise are nothing shy of scandalous.
| quote: | | Thus, the phony outrage among liberals, intent on maintaining the system in its present form, offers proof of their real loyalties. |
Oh, you mean by not jumping on board the “crisis” boat? Better tell that to the faint-hearted Republicans who can’t sell this crisis to their respective states and districts. Anyone really wondering why Bush’s numbers on this SS crap idea of his has been tanking? Is that the Democrats fault, or is it perhaps the public simply doesn’t buy his bull?
| quote: | | And politicians who piously suggest another tax hike as some sort of corrective action are merely showing themselves to be willing to continue the theft, not only from this generation, but from future generations, until such time that the public wakes up to the sham. |
That’s honestly what I find to be the most hilarious amount of bull yet. What exactly is a “tax hike” at this point in the game? Is rolling back the ridiculous tax cuts for the top 1%, which would contribute greatly towards the solvency SS considered a “tax hike”? Maybe, just maybe that ing tax cut for the most affluent shouldn’t have been there in the first place, considering it does nothing to help our economy (and actually hurts it by increasing the deficit).
IOW, how could we be intellectually honest by calling something a “tax hike” on a tax cut which, IMO shouldn’t have been there in the first place (at least the 2nd tax cut)?
| quote: | | Such underhanded tactics are the lifeblood of liberalism, |
Did I mention that I think this guy’s a ing Right-wing hack yet? Just checking.
| quote: | | which on the one hand publicly reviles the evils of capitalism while on the other hand, continually seeks to solidify its access to the lion’s share of the fruits. |
Ahh yes, branding all liberals into that lovely “anti-capitalist” circle. Nothing new, really. And quite the straw man attack.
We’re not attacking capitalism – if it could assist the fiscal solvency of SS, then that would be worth putting on the table.
It doesn’t however. The Republicans know it. We know it. Bush damn well knows it. And the public is increasingly becoming more aware of it too.
And besides – we have nothing against capitalism and stock market investments. 401Ks and other associated retirement funds have been around and do us just as well as conservatives. We just don’t want to take money out of SS, thereby greatly hurting the program, and place it into another government-owned “private account.”
| quote: | | Is it any wonder that liberals vehemently oppose revamping the system into a form that would allow average people some measure of independence, and would eventually force the system to become honest and accountable? |
Both cute and highly misleading. There’s plenty of “independence” where you put your money – 401Ks, stock market, IRAs, mutual funds, you take your pick.
But at the heart of this last argument is the real true thesis of privatizers – they just don’t like being a part of a society and assisting the society as a whole. They don’t want to ing pay for anything, regardless of how much that particular program or system has greatly increased the numbers out of poverty and kept them there.
All I have to say to you true privatizers is this-
Too ing bad.
You don’t like contributing to the safety net insurance program that has greatly helped the elderly and disabled as a whole, tough. Move out of the country if your heart desires. I really don't ing care.
| quote: | | Perhaps the common citizens, particularly those who rely heavily on Social Security for their sustenance, can be forgiven for their anxiety. But those politicians echoing such alarmist rhetoric are either grossly incompetent of the fiscal reality, or shamefully disingenuous and willing to stoke the fears of their constituents in order to keep them in line. |
I did say this guy was a ing hack, right?
IOW, we can just dismiss those who actually rely on it (the majority of the elderly) for benefits:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/i...alsecurityfacts
Let’s go after the liberal politicians who fight for keeping these folks out of poverty, right?
And who the , exactly is “stoking fears” ? Who the is doing these ridiculous “Townhall meetings” across the country telling us we’re in a “crisis” or that the system is going “bankrupt”?
And don’t cha just love those Townhall meetings too? I mean, it just seems so uncanny that everyone there is in fully agrees with the President, and there’s no dissenters or anyone there that questions his ideas! It’s like the whole country agrees with him or something!
Those stupid Gallop, CBS, and Zogby polls must be biased or outright lying or something! Either that or Bush is pre-screening people coming into these Townhall meetings in order to help give the impression that so many agree with him.
Surely he wouldn’t do that, would he?
| quote: | | Among the worst collaborators in this ruse is the American Association of Retired Persons, an organization with a fundamental necessity to maintain its symbiotic tie to the governmental status quo. The AARP thrives on the backs of frightened and dependent members, and therefore works to ensure they stay that way. |
Nevermind the fact that the author doesn’t support this bull assertion of “frightening” the members in any way.
I was ready for him to say the AARP is against the troops and are pro-gay marriage. I’m actually disappointed he didn’t say that Conservative talking point. Damn!
| quote: | | That is why it cannot sanction any Bush plan, no matter how favorable to future generations, or how thoroughly it protects present recipients from any adverse effects, if such a plan holds even the tiniest possibility of allowing them to disentangle themselves from the debilitating web of dependence on government. |
Well it’s either that or it could possibly be because those old farts have a bigger ing clue about Bush’s fiscally irresponsible plan and they want no part of it.
Take your pick, I guess.
| quote: | | Every pyramid scheme in existence requires the inclusion of a “bottom tier” of people whose destiny it is to be robbed blind, in order to enrich those above them. Social Security is no different. |
Kinda sounds more like Bush’s tax cuts really.
| quote: | | In the private sector, such schemes are considered criminal. How much more criminal is it for the government to continually subjugate present and future working Americans by fleecing them in this manner? |
Well then tell your ing King to stop raiding the ing trust fund for his tax cuts and war of choice then, will you?
Sorry, this guy’s rhetoric is old and tedious. And he needs some serious work on his facts. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Right on cue. And you forgot to quote Dr. Seuss.:whip: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I'll let you and Wolverine duke out your own personal debates. I just wanted to addrss this point only:
| quote: | | Yes, it's called risk, and only a fool would think that anyone is immune to it. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. |
I must say I do have a problem with this economic philosophy. Right now we have a system that insures that EVERYONE can receive benefits IF needed. Hence the "safety net".
What you are seemingly wanting is for folks to divert this safety net to the stock market (which are ironically going to be under some governmental influence if Bush has his way). Bottom line is it is, indeed, a gamble - some winners and some losers. Or what's worse, people retiring during a market crash or serious downturn like a few years back. This would suck up a load of $ for many, and the losers will ineviteably grow. Furthermore, no benefits are given whatsoever - they're wholly separate (at least I've never seen any private stocks give benefits). Consequently, poverty rates rise.
So honestly, which is truly better for everyone? Having an insurance policy with guaranteed benefits for all, or relying on a risky market with no benefits or seriously cut benefits where ultimately many folks will lose out on and either be thrown into poverty or just die off?
I'm sorry but I think this is not right target for Conservatives and privatizers to go after. Our country and our retired elderly have benefitted too much from this program to simply have it ripped from underneath them and replace it for a risky stock market with slashed benefits. Some government programs are worth keeping and funding. I'll forever contend that Social Security is one of them. |
|
|
|
|
