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