Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Socialism's Last Redoubt - Why do Dems oppose Social Security reform?
WSJ ^ | February 16, 2005 | PETE DU PONT

Posted on 02/19/2005 1:46:37 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe

In 1945 Clement Attlee led the British Labour Party to victory over Winston Churchill's Conservative Party. He then proceeded to socialize much of the British economy, for he believed that "the creation of a society based on social justice . . . could only be attained by bringing under public ownership and control the main factors in the economic system." Labour's goal was to get rid of the waste and irrationality that, in the socialist view, doomed market economies to failure.

Fast forward six decades, and you hear an Attlee echo--Sen. Hillary Clinton telling a California audience last summer that taxes must rise because "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

American socialist Noam Chomsky made the same argument concerning Social Security: that allowing people to invest in markets is a bad thing, for "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together, and diminishes the sense that people have responsibility for each other."

So the 2005 Social Security argument is an old and familiar one: government decisions versus individual ones, government control of assets versus individual ownership. In short, socialism versus individualism.

There is agreement on Social Security fundamentals. Because of increasing baby boomer retirements, in 13 years Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. A few decades after that, there will only be enough cash to pay about 75% of promised benefits. These problems could be solved in various ways--by gradually increasing payroll taxes from 12.4% to 18%, or gradually decreasing benefits by about one-third, or by borrowing about $11 trillion.

President Bush has proposed solving this problem in a different way--with personally owned market accounts to which working people could contribute 4% of their income...

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dupont; dupont2008; petedupont; socialsecurity; ssreform

1 posted on 02/19/2005 1:46:40 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
American socialist Noam Chomsky made the same argument concerning Social Security: that allowing people to invest in markets is a bad thing, for "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together, and diminishes the sense that people have responsibility for each other."

Once again, Im at a loss for words to describe my contempt for those who think they can tell me what to with MY money..

2 posted on 02/19/2005 1:49:46 PM PST by cardinal4 (George W Bush-Bringing a new democracy every term..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
There's only one way to do things. The way The Annointed want us to.

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

3 posted on 02/19/2005 1:51:00 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Or, more simply, when Democrats let people stand on their own two feet, Democrats then become extinct.


4 posted on 02/19/2005 1:51:29 PM PST by Dustin Hawkins (Friends Dont let Friends Date Democrats www.dustinmhawkins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
It's the largest program $ wise that they control. Money = power. Invest personally, their power is diminished. Exposing the Left
5 posted on 02/19/2005 1:54:27 PM PST by traderrob6 (http://www.exposingtheleft.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Well, I'm still not convinced Republicans are interested in real solutions to SS and other forms of socialism.


6 posted on 02/19/2005 1:54:44 PM PST by k2blader (It is neither compassionate nor conservative to support the expansion of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

The liberals think that it is better if all are equally miserable than unequally happy.


7 posted on 02/19/2005 1:55:32 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Socialism's Last Redoubt - Why do Dems oppose Social Security reform?

What else will they scare the old folks with in national elections : Republicans will take away their viagra and dentures ?

8 posted on 02/19/2005 1:58:19 PM PST by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I was arguing with a lefty at work, and I asked her to tell me whose money was in the Social Security account that pays the retirees and the diabled. She promptly replied, "the governments!"

They truly believe they are entitled to other people's money. But, then where does Harry Reid keep his money? Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton? You can bet they have mutual funds, stocks, and other investments they think are too risky for us to invest on our own. They are smarter than us, you see, and know whats best for us..GRRRRRR

9 posted on 02/19/2005 1:59:31 PM PST by cardinal4 (George W Bush-Bringing a new democracy every term..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Because they'll no longer be able to tak your taxes and buy someone else's vote.
10 posted on 02/19/2005 2:01:08 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dustin Hawkins

You got that right.


11 posted on 02/19/2005 2:02:44 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good

Social democracy is a political ideology emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism who believed that the transition to a socialist society could be achieved through democratic evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. During the early and mid-20th century, social democrats were in favor of stronger labor laws, nationalization of major industries, and a strong welfare state. Over the course of the 20th century, most social democrats gradually distanced themselves from Marxism and class struggle. As of 2004, social democrats generally do not see a conflict between a capitalist market economy and their definition of a socialist society, and support reforming capitalism in an attempt to make it more equitable through the creation and maintenance of a welfare state.

12 posted on 02/19/2005 2:04:01 PM PST by oldbrowser (They're not the MSM.........they are the AGENDA MEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Socialism's Last Redoubt - Why do Dems oppose Social Security reform?

A better question is why do republicans support expanding social security (medicare) by giving "free" (socialism) drugs to seniors?

13 posted on 02/19/2005 2:06:05 PM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Hi, I am new here so I'll keep this short

My question to all democrats who don't want to do what Bush has suggested, but realize that something needs to be done about S.S. Whats your suggestion? What do you want to do about it?
14 posted on 02/19/2005 2:10:49 PM PST by Veronica316 ("Get busy livin or get busy diein")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

...American socialist Noam Chomsky made the same argument concerning Social Security: that allowing people to invest in markets is a bad thing,...

Bad markets. BAD!!!


15 posted on 02/19/2005 2:11:31 PM PST by planekT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
American socialist Noam Chomsky made the same argument concerning Social Security: that allowing people to invest in markets is a bad thing, for "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together, and diminishes the sense that people have responsibility for each other."

If Chomsky is like the other members of Cambridge's Academic Glitteratti,he lives on Brattle Sreet in Cambridge.A search of the City of Cambridge Property Assessor's Office http://www.cambridgema.gov/fiscalaffairs/PropertySearch.cfm (just type in "Brattle St" and leave the rest blank) will show you that the private residences on Brattle St closest to Harvard Sq (the "chic" portion)are all valued at at least 1 million dollars...and more than a few are valued at 5 to 7 million.

I think it would be reasonable to ask the "Professor" what his net worth is and what percentage of his income is taken by taxes.I'll wager that the answers are "many millions" and "about 12%" (same as Mother Teresa's).

In other words,he's another one who's oh-so-generous with other people's money.

16 posted on 02/19/2005 2:23:59 PM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Money remaining after payouts is spent.

All money diverted into private accounts comes off the top of the money available to spend.

That 4% of all receipts is a hard cash reduction in the amount of cash available to steal from you.

That is why the democrats oppose ss reform.


17 posted on 02/19/2005 2:41:37 PM PST by Pylot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
Whoso wants the "solidarity" and "responsibility for each other", should go straight into khmer Rouge communes, for there such a person ought to feel right at home. The whole Western Civ is grounded in individualism, i.e. repudiation of normative "solidarity" and "responsibility for each other".
In a sense, it is our slogan "Get lost!" versus theirs "Workers of the world, unite!"
18 posted on 02/19/2005 2:47:12 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Veronica316
My question to all democrats who don't want to do what Bush has suggested, but realize that something needs to be done about S.S. Whats your suggestion? What do you want to do about it?

They dont have one. Like all other Bush proposals, the libs have a knee-jerk reaction against it, without even looking it over. Its automatic with them..

Oh, welcome to FR..

19 posted on 02/19/2005 2:50:49 PM PST by cardinal4 (George W Bush-Bringing a new democracy every term..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

democrats m.o.- make as many people dependent on big govt. and you have more single issue voting blocs for the dems.
hence make ss a ponzi scheme that induces elderly to vote for the party of big govt.
virtually all big gov democrat programs create a single issue constituency to maintain the status quo


20 posted on 02/19/2005 3:42:16 PM PST by avitot (give a man one fish every day for life and you make them vote democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The harder you work, the more money you lose... to the corrupt Socialist government. So.... why are you working so hard? Just vote Socialist, and let them pick up the bill... Social Justice, right? Why work when the government will pay you not to? Why risk your capital and efforts when the government will take them away anyway? If poverty and general economic and cultural decline is what Socialist governments aspire to, they are wildly successful.
21 posted on 02/19/2005 6:21:13 PM PST by Richard Axtell (We should be proud, we made the right choice! God Bless George W. Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Dems are against it for 2 reasons - they need the money for other stuff - and it goes against their grain to give up any control over the citizens whatsoever.


22 posted on 02/19/2005 6:27:01 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

The Dems want credit for Social Security reform; they do not want a Republican name even close to this.


23 posted on 02/19/2005 6:53:13 PM PST by cricket (Just say - NO U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cricket

They wanted reform in the 90's when one of their own was in the White House...and God forbid if one of their own gets back in they'll be for it then as well....just not when an "R" occupies Pennsylvania Ave.!!


24 posted on 02/19/2005 7:54:48 PM PST by FlashBack (www.teamamericapac.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FlashBack
". . .and God forbid if one of their own gets back in they'll be for it then as well....just not when an "R" occupies Pennsylvania Ave.!!"

For sure!

The Dems want reform all right. . .which is to say, they really want 'control'; and they want the money so as to increase their 'own' largesse so as to be better able to bribe and enlarge their constituency; while punitively diminishing the constituency of their opponents.

Under the 'lie' of their saving social security. . .this Party wants to be rewarded and congratulated, for their efforts.

25 posted on 02/19/2005 8:55:14 PM PST by cricket (Just say - NO U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
I was arguing with a lefty at work.

I gave that self abuse up long ago.They don't think logically,So they can't be logically talked to a solution.

They are irrational.And a large number of the Kool-Aid drinkers are extremely hatefilled.

They may try to act "normal",But a few innocent sentences like "Bush is doing a pretty good Job" or "Rush was pretty funny today,Did you listen to his Radio Show??" will "set them off" spewing the most vile,hatefilled garbage.

I've begun to think they suffer from some sort of mild mental illness or something.

26 posted on 02/19/2005 9:21:52 PM PST by HP8753 (My cat is an NTSB Standard,The Naval Observatory calls me for time corrections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
"You can bet they have mutual funds, stocks, and other investments they think are too risky for us to invest on our own."

. . .Where Hillary's name is mentioned, in particular. . .don't forget those 'off shore' accounts. . .

Cannot understand why this plan not identified properly rather than by a 'misnomer' by which it is referenced. .'privatizing Social Security'. . .or at least not corrected at every opportunity by every Repub including GW himself.

Not doing so. . .creates only more disinformation for a public trying to understand this.

. . .and why don't these same, remind/inform the public that Congresscritters have had the same "CHOICE' for years. . .by way of a similar model? And it is not MANDATORY! .

Nothing difficult about the truth here. . .why don't we hear it more - like everytime a Republican must promote and defend this plan?

27 posted on 02/19/2005 9:27:52 PM PST by cricket (Just say - NO U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson