Skip to comments.Socialism's Last Redoubt - Why do Dems oppose Social Security reform?
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 ...
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..
Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
Or, more simply, when Democrats let people stand on their own two feet, Democrats then become extinct.
Well, I'm still not convinced Republicans are interested in real solutions to SS and other forms of socialism.
The liberals think that it is better if all are equally miserable than unequally happy.
What else will they scare the old folks with in national elections : Republicans will take away their viagra and dentures ?
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
You got that right.
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.
A better question is why do republicans support expanding social security (medicare) by giving "free" (socialism) drugs to seniors?
...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!!!
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.
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.
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..
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
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.