Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFor too many years, Republicans and Democrats have promoted the lie that Social Security is "in crisis."
Getting Americans to buy into this fantasy is the first step in achieving what the financial services industry -- which donates generously to politicians in both parties -- really wants: privatization of Social Security so that the federal government will start promoting speculation on Wall Street rather than assuring that Americans will have the resources they were promised upon retirement.
The truth, as honest financial analysts have always argued, is that Social Security is secure -- and will be for decades if Congress agrees to minor reforms, such as requiring wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.
In a major victory for progressives -- and for real-world economics -- the draft Democratic Party platform acknowledges this reality.
"We recognize that Social Security is not in crisis and we should do everything we can to strengthen this vital program, including asking those making over $250,000 to pay a bit more," reads the draft language.
If that line survives the platform-writing processes final stages and becomes a major theme of the fall campaign, America may finally have a real and responsible debate about preserving Social Security.
And there is no question that Democrats, running on the theme that Social Security is sound and can be preserved for the long term with rational reforms, will win that debate. In fact, the only question is this: How many savvy Republicans will adopt the "Social Security is not in crisis" message?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
Look, SocSec privatization is dead...as a doornail.
Proof? Bush wins re-election by 3 million votes, has a decent approval rating, and a SOLID (both Houses) GOP control over Congress...
couldn't get SS privatization passed...not even a percent or two.
So? McCain wins (for the nightmare scenario) and he has a pretty solid Democratic Congress...and even if he was making SS priv. a priority in his campaign (which he isn't)...
how does HE get it passed?
GOP hopes for it are dead....Dem fears of it should be too.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 08:57am
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/08/2008 @ 11:04am
Sorry, HAPP...as noted above, Bush tried this 3 years ago, fresh off a re-election which secured his mandate and with a Republican Congress and NUMEROUS trips around the country....
couldn't sell putting even a percentage into the stock market.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 12:05pm
No, FRANK, he's not a threat on THIS issue.
He's still a threat on Iraq, Supreme Court, fiscal irresponsibility, etc.
And YOU don't care if it was a threat or not....McCain could promise to nuke China and you'd still support him and want us to as well, claiming "Oh, the Pentagon boys will keep him in check...and when Hillary defeats him in 2012 it'll be okay!"
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 12:09pm
It is a crisis if it cannot be solved with a simple emendation of policy. The fact that a small increase in taxes, which would really not affect 90 to 95 % of the population would solve it means that it is not a crisis.
As for treasury bonds versus privately held stocks and funds: a ridiculous dilemma. Who do you think has a better credit rating Jo block or the US? If the US defaults, which is the only way for the TBs to be proved worthless, then you having stocks and funds in your account will not save you as the world around you will sink.
And BTW maybe taxes would probably not have to be raised if you cut your aircraft carrier groups by half, shrunk your attack and ballistic submarine fleet, shut down 100 of your of the US military bases and canceled Missile defense and F-22. But no, you want SS and world dominance.
Posted by dimik72 at 08/08/2008 @ 12:12pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 12:12pm
FRANK, try to get it through that egomanical thick head of yours....
by now EVERYBODY who reads your stuff knows the underlying message in it...
"PLEASE vote for McCain...so that Hillary can get her last shot at it in 2012. If Obama wins, Hillary will never be able to become President!"
And everything else is just "filler".
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 12:24pm
At least,ol' FrankGrits is admitting that he doesn't want McCain and knows that McCain would have to be kept in check by a democratic congress until Hill can run,again..It would be disastrous for Frank if McCain actually did a good job,but Frank figures that McCain will fail..Of course,he figured that Hillary would win.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/08/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 12:55pm
That's all I need.
You've admitted it. This November is about "avenging her"....you predict McCain "won't seek a 2nd term" so you'll avoid the hypocrisy of attacking him in 2012 if Hillary were the nominee.
Again, that one underlying message ("Elect McCain so Hillary can run in 2012") is the sum total of everything you post now....completely.
All qualifiers, insults, "Obama once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die", apologia, and rationalizations...
are just designed to fit one idea-
"Hillary MUST have 2012 cleared for her!"
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 2:12pm
Let's just cut to the chase here. Nobody trusts Frank anymore ever since he went nutsee cuckoo because Hillary lost the democratic nomination.
So, back to the social security thing which is a hell of a lot more important than Frank. The jackasses on Wallstreet want to get their greedy friggin mitts on peoples' social security payments so they can profit handsomely off the interest generated. Problem is, we've seen just how trustworthy wall street, the banking industry, and of course the republican party that is pushing this crap are.
The whole idea is a farce. dimik72 hit the nail on the head. If we cut the penatagon budget in half, we would solve a hell of a lot of problems, but the military industrial complex would never allow that. Better to let all Americans starve to death, lose their jobs, outsource everything and become owned by other countries, but by God, we must overfund the hell out of our military. What geniuses we have running our country...and military.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 2:17pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 2:17pm
I agree on the dropping of the irrelevant.
And THIS TOO is an irrelevancy. If McCain were to win, Social Security "investment accounts" would be D.O.A. with Congress...even McCain knows that (just part of his "Pander Bear" routine that he's going through the motions).
Hell, HAPPY probably even knows that SS privitization is dead. But he's got to spout the typical GOP talking points on it.
As shown with Bush in 2005, there is NO political impetus for "investment accounts" and nobody yet has figured out how you get it to work without it being dangerously un-stable or the Fed having to pretty much RUN the New York Stock Exchange.
As far as the "crises"?...From what I've heard and read SS is solid until the mid-2030s, and that's with NOTHING done. Raise the cap on income taxes from 90K to 120K...and it's good until the late 21st Century.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 2:31pm
As far as the "crises"?...From what I've heard and read SS is solid until the mid-2030s, and that's with NOTHING done. Raise the cap on income taxes from 90K to 120K...and it's good until the late 21st Century.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 2:31pm
Let's hope so. I for one am not as trusting as you. From what W has been able to do in his 7 going on 8 long long years in the White House, who knows what kind of B.S. these people can bury in some bill, get our stooges in congress to sign off on, and president granpa to endorse on behalf of the wallstreet extortionists.
If they can chip away at Constitutional rights, they can chip away at anything. Just do it behind the scenes. If history has shown us one thing, it has shown us that our leaders as of late, don't do anything in the public eye that the public might not like.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 2:44pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 12:12p
Frank. Have you been paying attention to Bush? He has proven that checks and balances don't work.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 2:44pm
....it becomes blatant thivery!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/08/2008 @ 2:50pm
Happy, what would you call the fed bailing Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac out at tax payer expense. I would call that thievery too. How is it theivery asking the wealthy to pay the same percentage in SS money as anybody else?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 3:12pm
How is it theivery asking the wealthy to pay the same percentage in SS money as anybody else?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 3:12pm
Before you asnwer with the...they worked hard to earn more money, and taxing it away steals the incentive to earn more defense, I'll just go ahead and call bullshit on that one now. The wealthy have better police protection, the public schools they live in are better funded and have the better teachers, they enjoy, the publicly funded law system protects their money and fortunes so they have more at risk to protect. That same government that protects them, should tax them equally as their peers, not say, oh, after 100k you don't make anymore than anyone else. That is what thievery is.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 3:16pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 2:44pm
Ain't happening. Bush had just won re-election (by 3 million votes), popularity still above 50%, and he had a Republican Congress...
and he couldn't get SocSec private accounts.
It won't happen under McCain and HAPP's desire for a crises won't bring it either. Last time there was a "crises"...RONALD REAGAN agreed to an acceleration of a previously-enacted increase in the payroll tax rate and made potentially taxable, income up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit!
Not private accounts...a payroll tax hike and benefit tax. Again...RONALD REAGAN!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 3:36pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/08/2008 @ 2:50pm
The solution is for gen Y and Gen X to start pumping out babies.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 4:09pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 4:09pm
Or make citizens a bunch of folks already here, so they'll start paying FISA!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 4:11pm
You on the left are jumping the gun here on this discussion.
You will need to wait until you see who is elected President before you know what your opinion is on this subject.
As I remember, when Bill Clinton was President, it was said that Social Security was in crisis.
After the election of George W. Bush, and since President Bush tried to do something about the problem, the left switched off on the fly and declared Social Security was not in crisis.
This was a necessary step, I realize, to further the main goal of the left. (The crucification of George W. Bush).
But obviously, since what the left thinks about this is dependent on who is President, the left can't really commnent now until they see who is President.
Of course, the system IS in crisis, because of how Social Security works.
People who work now pay in now for people who collect retirement now.
But the demographics in this country have changed since the 1930s. People live longer and younger people are having fewer childeren or no children at all.
Fewer people paying in and more people collecting money out.
Just from basic math ratios, how can the system possibly not be in crisis?
But when the left finds it "necessary" the left says the system is not in crisis and just needs tweaking.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 4:58pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/08/2008 @ 4:38pm
Yeah, my mom said me going to college almost bankrupted her. College is ridiculous now. I talk to my grandmother and she said she said she went to a university for like 5,000-6,000 dollars. Now it is 80k for 4 years just in tuition.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 5:01pm
Hello Wolfgang1,
You discuss tax fairness and "thievery" etc. and think the wealthy should be taxed equally as their peers.
Check out www.irs.gov. Then relax.
The wealthy do not pay tax equally as their peers. (I assume you mean non-wealthy).
They pay more tax!
Check out www.irs.gov. Then relax. It already is the way you think it should be!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 5:06pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 5:25pm
"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others."---wikipedia
AKA FRANKGRITS
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 6:47pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 5:06pm
BTW, Warren Buffet is offering a $1 Million prize to any CEO that can prove that they pay more in taxes than their secretaries....
nobody has won it yet.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 9:46pm
The same democratic Congress that will keep him in check on privatization will keep him in check on everything else as well.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 12:12pm
the demicrats?
<i>he's got hi-i-igh hopes,
pie apple sky in the lie hopes.....</i>
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:26am
Now it is 80k for 4 years just in tuition.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 5:01pm
U of Toronto, school of music tuition:
Undergraduate, Entering 2008 $4,776/year.
not bragging. i think humanity needs to make a very concerted effort to make excellent education available to all.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:31am
BTW, Warren Buffet is offering a $1 Million prize to any CEO that can prove that they pay more in taxes than their secretaries.... nobody has won it yet.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 9:46pm
but if they won the money, then they'd have to pay tax!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:33am
Just another opportunity for all the good little socialists to demand more theft from the people. And at the same time promoting like all good Marxists their redistribution dogma. As noted below, Marx,Engels, and Trotsky certainly seem to be describing the goals of our leftist friends here at the Nation blog.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his need".
"In Marxist terms, socialism is generally regarded as the period of transition between capitalism and communism - the transition to a system in which we can truly have "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". So genuine Marxists can be interchangeably called socialists so long as they have as their goal the abolishment of capitalism and the establishment of genuine worker controlled, democratic socialism.
Despite the illusions of the anarchists that we can somehow magically abolish the state and capitalism overnight, what is required is a transitional period in order to usher in a new era of peace, freedom and plenty. The material basis for communism is to be able to provide enough to go around for everyone. While we have already developed the technology and the know-how to make this possible very quickly, we still cannot jump from the poverty and want of capitalism to full-fledged communism overnight. For Marxists, this transitional phase is called socialism. As Marx explained in the "Critique of the Gotha Program":
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/117/60/#marxi
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 01:04am
More on our marxist bloggers:
"The first step in this process is the seizure of political power by the working class majority of society, known in Marx's day as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as opposed to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" we currently live under. Once in political power, the working class can then move to assert its control over the economy. Once the working class democratically runs the economy in the interests of all, instead of in the interests of a handful of capitalists, then very quickly we will be able to provide the basic necessities and then much more to everyone. We will be able to abolish unemployment, provide free, quality healthcare, education, housing, and more to everyone. The creative and productive potential of humanity will be unleashed.
As Engels explained, this socialist "state", which would truly democratically represent the vast majority of society, would already be withering away in the proper sense of the word. The capitalist state represents a tiny minority of society, which is why they resort to such brutal measures to keep the majority under their boot. But once the state is run in the interests of the majority, then the need for police, a military, etc. will rapidly disappear along with the inequality and oppression of the capitalist system. Gradually, the coercion and compulsion of the capitalist system will disappear, replaced by the democratic administration of things in the interests of everyone."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 01:08am
replaced by the democratic administration of things in the interests of everyone.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 01:08am
ooh,
wouldn't want that to happen.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 01:12am
And this bit from Lenin looks very similar to Wolfgang and a few other leftist bloggers and their postings.
""And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord.
"In other words, under capitalism we have the state in the proper sense of the word, that is, a special machine for the suppression of one class by another, and, what is more, of the majority by the minority. Naturally, to be successful, such an undertaking as the systematic suppression of the exploited majority by the exploiting minority calls for the utmost ferocity and savagery in the matter of suppressing, it calls for seas of blood, through which mankind is actually wading its way in slavery, serfdom and wage labor."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 01:14am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 01:12am
No surprise that Marxism has such an appeal to you.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 01:23am
seas of blood
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 01:14am
<<<<<>>>>>
Published on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
Children Killed and Maimed in Cluster Bomb Attack on Town
by Robert Fisk in Baghdad and Justin Huggler
At least 11 civilians, nine of them children, were killed in Hilla in central Iraq yesterday, according to reporters in the town who said they appeared to be the victims of bombing.
Razzaq Kazem al-Khafaj grieves over the bodies of his children in Hilla in the southern province of Babylon. Khafaj lost 15 members (including six children) of his family as his car was bombed by coalition helicopters while fleeing al-Haidariyeh towards Babylon.(AFP/Karim Sahib) Reporters from the Reuters news agency said they counted the bodies of 11 civilians and two Iraqi fighters in the Babylon suburb, 50 miles south of Baghdad. Nine of the dead were children, one a baby. Hospital workers said as many as 33 civilians were killed.
Terrifying film of women and children later emerged after Reuters and the Associated Press were permitted by the Iraqi authorities to take their cameras into the town. Their pictures – the first by Western news agencies from the Iraqi side of the battlefront – showed babies cut in half and children with amputation wounds, apparently caused by American shellfire and cluster bombs.
Much of the videotape was too terrible to show on television and the agencies' Baghdad editors felt able to send only a few minutes of a 21-minute tape that included a father holding out pieces of his baby and screaming "cowards, cowards'' into the camera. Two lorryloads of bodies, including women in flowered dresses, could be seen outside the Hilla hospital.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 01:25am
No surprise that Marxism has such an appeal to you.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 01:23am
marxism?
no. no. no.
frostyism.
si. si. si.
democracy? interests? everyone?
what a commie i am!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 01:26am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 4:58pm
Actually, while both Republicans and Democrats were playing Wall Street's "crisis" game, many on the left were arguing that there was no such thing. Do a little digging in the archives of The Nation and Left Business Observer if you don't believe me.
And for heaven's sake, not all leftists support the Democrats. Some of us actually enjoyed lvliberty1's posting of excerpts from Lenin, Trotsky and Co., even if history didn't turn out so well, and despise the Clintons and Obama.
Posted by cka2nd at 08/09/2008 @ 03:51am
Hello Maskdelta,
BTW, the wealthy pay most of the tax in this country.
Look up data about tax revenue by income distribution at www.irs.gov
That's www.irs.gov. Go there, then relax. It already is the way you and Wolfgang1 think it should be.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 08:56am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 08:56am
They pay most of the Federal INCOME tax...not "most of the tax". There are actually OTHER taxes, as you may know. That "The wealthy pay most of the tax line" (a fave of Rush, Sean, et al)...subtlely doesn't mention that.
And why can't Buffett find any CEO to take his bet?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/09/2008 @ 10:05am
Maskdelta,
The wealthy pay most of the tax line is a "fave" of Rush,Sean,schermak,et al, because the wealthy pay most of the tax.
State income tax would be the same situation.
How about property tax? Obviously the wealthy own much more property and it is much more expensive. How could the wealthy possibly not pay more property tax?
Don't bother trying to tell me about "write-offs" or deductions, etc, because that would be a circular argument - that would affect the amount of income tax they pay and www.irs.gov shows they pay most of the tax.
Sales tax? The wealthy obviously buy more stuff, and it is more expensive. How can you possibly argue that wealthy people do not pay more sales tax?
At this point what Buffet does and how CEO's respond does not matter. It is totally irrelevant. It is just a lib publicity stunt that isn't worth anybody's time to bother to respond to.
The logic, data and facts are what they are. So maybe when you and Wolfgang1 go to www.irs.gov to relax, you need to take Warren Buffet with you!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:29am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 01:25am
Sorry Frosty, but helicopters are not capable of dropping cluster bombs..
that doesn't take away from the tragedy of what you are reporting if the injuries are true.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 11:13am
Some of us actually enjoyed lvliberty1's posting of excerpts from Lenin, Trotsky and Co., even if history didn't turn out so well, and despise the Clintons and Obama.
Posted by cka2nd at 08/09/2008 @ 03:51am
Thanks CK,
You are one of the few posters from the left here who is actually honest about this subject.
I posted the info at length to demonstrate how much it really represents much of what the left posts here. Somehow they want to deny where these influences come from.
I respect your honesty in this compared to their failure to be honest or if I give them the benefit of the doubt, their naivite about the source of their ideology.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 11:17am
there aren't nearly as many HonestLiberals willing to stand w/CK....Progressive pussies!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/09/2008 @ 11:30am
You are absolutely correct Happy. I wanted to post that info to point out to them where their ideas actually come from. All of them, Mask included, don't want to admit where their ideology originates. They get "righteous" indignation when we accuse them of being marxist/socialists. However the facts speak for themselves.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/09/2008 @ 11:44am
Any candidate who would privatize Social Security will lose the support of Senior Citizens. Looking at the current economic mess, only a complete idiot would risk their retirement with people who gave us the sub-prime mess and the coming depression. I have a good retirement package from L. A. County. A few year back, they wanted to buy it out and give me a cheaper pension, witch included included 401ks. I turned it down, because I didn't trust private enterprise with my pension. I am now retired, and I don't have to worry about the idiots on Wall Street who are wreaking other people's 401ks.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/09/2008 @ 2:16pm
Will the Democratic Party actual put Social Security into their platform? I sure hope so! We do need a real debate on this issue. Will Barack Obama win? Again, I sure hope so! Even though he is in his forties and doesn't look at it the same way as someone almost ten years his senior (me), I am much more confident that he will do what needs to be done to preserve it. I am so tired of these idiots threatening to "privatize" social security. Really? Has any one of them checked Wall Street lately? Or our financial institutions (Phil Gramm are you listening)? Puleeze, I'd much rather have government managed social security and medicare than putting it into the hands of those thugs! And if Obama doesn't win (don't even go there!) can we preserve it with John McCain? Well....yeah, if we get real numbers in the Congress. Could we get one and not the other? Again, yeah and an increased Democratic majority would be the only way we could preserve it.
Posted by debbie061653 at 08/09/2008 @ 5:50pm
<b>"freedunomics"</b>--the river flows unto the sea, and each individual jumps into the swirling eddies, hoping to get caught in a current both gentle and swift that will safely carry them to the awaiting tropics.
<b>"controlanomics"</b>--it is decreed that the river shall be damned, correction dammed, and we shall harness the power of all the river's energy on your behalf in order to make things go round and round and round and round.
<b>"Frostynomics"</b>-- "Honey, get off that friggin' blog and go get us some water."
"Uh, what's that, darlin'? Uh, yeah, right away."
<b>"I, Frosty Zoom, do hereby declare, to use the smallest of buckets when i go to the river. I will endeavour not to spill a drop. I will try to save every drop i have fouled and will return this life-giving force back to it's flow (almost) as clean as the moment i first fetched it."</b>
"Te amo, ahorita regreso"
"Adios" ("to god")
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 10:13pm
see,
marx had some great ideas.
adam smith, too.
von mises, too.
keynes, too.
these dudes all want to help their fellow human.
i say, find the best of what they got and mix and match until you've got a fair and functional economic system.
all or nothing at all rarely works.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 10:15pm
oh, and this guy i found on the internets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pogge
they's bright folk everywhere!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 10:17pm
so much of what Rush say of the Left on the EIB network, rings so true....----Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/09/2008 @ 11:58am
Again, what about what Rush "say of the Right", HAPP?
That "if either of these two (Huckabee or MCCAIN) wins the nomination, it will destroy the Republican Party"?
Or is that part of the 0.983% of the time Rush is wrong???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/09/2008 @ 10:27pm
The hopes of reasonable folk everywhere is victory by Obama and we can begin a decent and reasonable exploration of Social Security. No intelligent discussion of SS can continue without going back to the recommendations of the only person to grasp SS's purpose and ow to ensure the program contiues to reflect the purpose of this nation. Patrick Moynihan articulated reasons for the apparent the growing problems and I just hope Obama reaches into this wisdom and saves the future from a dismal possibility as is being developed by Bush and his economic clone John McCain. The problem is to tear the development and management of future social programs from the hands of the wealth oriented economists and back to the folk with soul and wit. Look around, placing more assets in the hands of the wealthy is obviously not the way to grow and economy is it?
Posted by HapKlein at 08/10/2008 @ 06:57am
"As I remember, when Bill Clinton was President, it was said that Social Security was in crisis."
Said by whom? Gore's much-talked-about "lockbox" was about making sure SSA and Medicare surpluses weren't spent elsewhere.
Posted by brunowe at 08/10/2008 @ 11:08am
LL
Name one poster here who has called from the "withering away of the state" or the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
I can't recall seeing anyone here even call for the nationalization of big private industries like the oil companies or the railroads.
Posted by brunowe at 08/10/2008 @ 11:17am
I can't recall seeing anyone here even call for the nationalization of big private industries like the oil companies or the railroads.
Posted by brunowe at 08/10/2008 @ 11:17am
hey, that's a great idea!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 1:59pm
hey, that's a great idea!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Okay, I stand corrected. And no, it isn't a great idea.
Posted by brunowe at 08/10/2008 @ 2:38pm
Posted by brunowe at 08/10/2008 @ 11:17am
No surprise, instead of disputing the overarching them of marxist socialism, you reach for something to note: "see, we aren't asking for that part of marxism, thus we are not marxists".
Point of fact, the intents and solutions proposed in the marxist doctrines I posted are evidenced daily on this blog by the vast majority of the left that posts here.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/10/2008 @ 4:45pm
ooohhhhh,
we're commies.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 11:53pm
No surprise, instead of disputing the overarching them of marxist socialism, you reach for something to note: "see, we aren't asking for that part of marxism, thus we are not marxists".
Actually, it isn't just a part of marxism, it is a key part of the theory. The idea that you can be a marxist without wanting a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is logically impossible.
Posted by brunowe at 08/11/2008 @ 04:31am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/10/2008 @ 4:45pm
Folks, the thing to remember with LL is...there is no "Middle".
There's either "Marxists" or "non-Marxists" (who are complete laissez-faire capitalist who want nothing from the Fed except highways and maybe a space program).
If you're not onboard for laissez-faire...you're a socialist.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 09:06am
If you're not onboard for laissez-faire...you're a socialist.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 09:06am
And you've shown no evidence that you disagree with a socialist state.
Care to share what govt programs you want to eliminate or what what new govt programs (ie Univ Healthcare) you disagree with?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/11/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/11/2008 @ 12:48pm |
but what about dioxin?
regulate or not?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:26pm
c'mon rev.
every time i ask you a tough question, you ignore me.
how about plutonium?
regulate or not?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:39pm