The administration who cried wolf
The Bush administration would have us believe that we are on the verge of a social security crisis that needs to be solved now. Not in 15 years when there will be a 200 billion dollar shortfall but today. I maintain that I don't believe we will see any social security reform during Bush's second term, but I have to admit I never thought Congress would allow him to go to war in Iraq either. If social security reform is in such a crisis then Bush should repeal the tax cuts, repay the money borrowed from the surplus and strengthen the social security coffers for future generations.
When my income stream is at it's lowest and I'm barely keeping my head above water, would I decide to refinance my home and pay thousands of dollars in closing costs? Probably not. Instead I'd try to cut costs increase my income and wait for a better time. Bush has probably never had a mortgage so it's hard for him to understand. What he needs to realize is that the tax cuts are suffocating the governments ability to meet it's social obligations. Unfortunately you need to keep poor people relatively happy even if you don't think they contribute to society. Ask Louis the 16th about the power of the lower and middle classes when they get angry about inequities. Give them 4 years of reduced services, higher costs of living and wages that rise behind inflation and they will be storming the ranch in no time. If they can find it.
Social security reform should be on the agenda of a government that is able to effectively manage debt and fund it's social programs. I don't think that is too much to expect. Why would we trust a government that has dismal economic record and has been less than honest with the American people in the past with one of the most challenging political undertakings of our lifetime?
When my income stream is at it's lowest and I'm barely keeping my head above water, would I decide to refinance my home and pay thousands of dollars in closing costs? Probably not. Instead I'd try to cut costs increase my income and wait for a better time. Bush has probably never had a mortgage so it's hard for him to understand. What he needs to realize is that the tax cuts are suffocating the governments ability to meet it's social obligations. Unfortunately you need to keep poor people relatively happy even if you don't think they contribute to society. Ask Louis the 16th about the power of the lower and middle classes when they get angry about inequities. Give them 4 years of reduced services, higher costs of living and wages that rise behind inflation and they will be storming the ranch in no time. If they can find it.
Social security reform should be on the agenda of a government that is able to effectively manage debt and fund it's social programs. I don't think that is too much to expect. Why would we trust a government that has dismal economic record and has been less than honest with the American people in the past with one of the most challenging political undertakings of our lifetime?
posted by mochi at 6:25 PM
11 Comments:
How true. A quick story: I come from a conservative family. Every memeber of my family who voted, as far as I know, voted for Bush. I've always contended that only two types of people support him - the greedy and the ignorant (religious zealots fall under the ignorant category as far as I'm concerned). I love my family, but they definitely fall under the greedy heading. My mother, for one, can get downright nasty when she starts talking about "giving my money away to people who don't work". But this is really a let them eat cake mentality. I think she'd change her tune fast if she knew a single poor person. Growing up the way the George W. did, he obviously never met one.
I agree with smorgasbord. I have the same types in my family, and they not only voice the let them eat cake sentiment, they do it while enjoying all the benefits that liberal social and economic policies have showered upon them... which is why I keep using the "H" word.
(hypocrites)
"and strengthen the social security coffers for future generations."
LOL. What "coffers"? Social sec is paid out of current revenue. There is no pot of savings, whatever the State may have conned you into thinking.
Now if a private pension provider did that, they'd be banged up for ever. But of course, when the Government does it ....
Julius
www.20six.co.uk/juliusb
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Mochi, another thing. As a former government employee (judge) I enjoyed pouring your hard earned tax dollars down the drain. Government waste is rampant-- Do you know they are building a multibillion dollar indoor rainforest in Iowa? Don't be sucked into the idea that taxation is good. If one reviews history just a few hundred years ago, they will realize that taxation without representation is tyranny--the very thing that is going on today. There is one problem with Bush's tax cuts though---they were much smaller than they should have been.
Julius, read this, I'll post it to your blog too.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/27/retirement/surplus/index.htm
Jack Mercer, with regards to your statement "taxation is good," how else do you propose to pay for police & fire protection? National defense? Roads & highways? I was a state worker and fought hard against waste myself, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As far as Bush's tax cuts go, they overwhelmingly favor the rich while shifting the burden onto the lower-income working class, and then there's the "corporate welfare". I'd be all for tax reform if were fair.
SheaNC, I have heard this so much from so many that I just have to ask the question (and I'm not being a smart aleck really!). How much do you know about the tax code? Whenever tax rates are cut, those who pay more will get the greater cut because the tax rate is cut. Proportionately though, the lower tax bracket rates were cut more than the upper. The "rich" pay 80% of the nation's taxes anyway, SNC--naturally if there is a cut they will pay less.
Which leads me to this question. How can one justify ethically charging one person proportionately more than another? We do NOT live in a nation of fairness--the poor do not pay taxes, the middle class less than under the Carter Administration, and the rich pay the the most, but use the services least. I don't see how anyone could consider that fair?
SNC, some taxation is good, but not the rapine that is happening today! Do you realize that July was tax free month for American's last year? Thats over HALF the year paying your tax burden?
The baby is drowning in the bathwater...
SNC, if you are going to gain some credibility, you are going to have to do some thinking and speaking for yourself. Not just another talking head repeating the mantras of a failing system.
(ps. I do respect your opinion, SNC. Please don't take this as being offensive.)
Jack Mercer, of course life is not fair. Liberalism arose out of our desire to cushion the blow for those to whom that unfairness takes a heavy toll. It includes the notion that those with more than they need to survive have more to share with those who don't have enough to survive. Did you know that "blue states" pay more in taxes, while "red states" use more of that tax money? Then they want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Also, I was a bank teller once, and I wish I had a nickel for every wealthy retiree who rolled up to the drive-thru teller window in his cadillac to cash a humoungous social security check, listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio in the background howling about the evils of socialism.
Finally, of course your insults are offensive: you tell me I have no cedibility, you say I don't think for myself, and you say my statements are not based on serious consideration. Well, listen up, Mr. Know-It-All: you may have been a judge, but you are not the one to judge my credibility. My opinions are just as valid as yours. You know nothing of me or my contemplative history other than the tiny examples in these blogs, yet you pass judgment like that? Your holier-than-thou assumption that I do not think for myself is presumptuous and self-righteous, and if that's the only way you can reinforce your own self-assigned "validity", you can have it.
P.S. Go ahead... point out that my typing sucks, too.
I would just like to point out that the government needs money to operate. Something that people forget even though it's so obvious.
Because overall government spending is so much greater than government taxation, the Social Security "trust fund" is just an accounting gimmick that does not give the government a practical ability to actually spend money from the "trust fund."
Post a Comment
<< Home