More on Social Security Insurance
More fodder for the grist mill on Social Security:
BlogPAC launched There Is No Crisis to counteract the conservative privatization PR offensive. I'm not sure I agree with the framing of "no crisis" though, because it may just reinforce the "crisis" frame. An example George Lakoff gives in his book Don't Think of an Elephant is how Nixon's famous "I am not a crook" remark branded him as a crook in the public imagination. I'm not the only one worried about this. However, maybe the shear audacity of standing up and saying that there isn't a crisis is good enough.
On the Wall Street Journal's EconBlog, Max Sawicky takes Arnold King to school over the Social Security phase-out. (It helps that King, unlike so many right-wingers, is honest about the true fiscal health of Social Security.)
Finally, another thing to think about when we discuss how to make sure Social Security is fiscally healthy: Pessimistic Conservatives Cannot Fix Social Security. The Bush administration and conservative ideologues like to pretend that it's impossible to fix Social Security without eliminating it as a guaranteed benefit. This pessimism is simply a result of their hostility towards government spending.
posted by Luke Francl @ 5:30 PM |
| 
5 Comments:
There is no crisis? I-am-shocked!
So President Clinton was LYING to us when he said..
"Administration officials estimate the cash infusion and higher earnings could push back the date when Social Security would run short of money by more than 20 years, to 2055."...?
And he dancing on the strings of evil corporate puppet-masters when he proposed a partial privatization?
"A: No, Clinton also wants to earmark another 11 percent of the expected surpluses to new 401(k)-style retirement savings accounts for most American workers. The accounts would be separate from Social Security, giving people an additional source of old-age income."
"Based on current projections, government contributions to the accounts would total about $500 billion over the next 15 years."
"Q: How would the new accounts work? Would everyone get one?"
"A: The accounts would work much like the 401(k) savings plans many companies offer workers, with a choice of investment options such as stock or bond mutual funds."
Or is it that you moonbats are just shuffling along to the DNC's off kilter tune again aprapos of nothing in particular.
Yea, that sounds right.
Keep your shorts on sport. When the dust settles any moron who wants Uncle Sam to continue to hold his hand will have that option.
And the grown-up's will be able to take control of their own financial planning.
"The accounts would be separate from Social Security, giving people an additional source of old-age income."
Why, that sounds just like the personal savings accounts I said I support just the other day!
Thanks for playing, Tom!
P.S.: In case you didn't notice, Social Security has gotten even healther since Clinton proposed this.
Oh, oh. But why mess at all with a system that is rock solid?
I noticed you've ignored Pres. Clinton's plan to hold-off insolvency until 2055. So, was that just mean-spirited fear mongering? Was he playing word games?
There is no crisis right? And God knows that we cannot be trusted to look out for our own best interests, so personal savings accounts are just a disaster waiting to happen, right? What the heck is going on over there at moonbat central?
Maybe all we need is that 'ol lock-box (TM) (Pat. Pend.) that algore invented eh?
Swiftee, are you capable of making a rational comment without resorting to insults? Experience tells me you're not.
Bush's privatization plan (or what he's hinted might be his plan) would necessarily cut guaranteed benefits and would cost a ton of money. That's why it's a bad idea.
Something that can be fixed trivially in 40 or 50 years is not a "crisis."
It will be a crisis if Bush gets his grubby paws on the extra money we working people have been putting into Social Security since 1983 and gives it away -- which is the essence of all privitization plans.
Clinton's plan sounds good. Let me correct that, it sounded good, back when we had a huge surplus. Now that Bush blew that, using the surplus to shore up Social Security doesn't sound so good, does it?
Hmmm, Clinton's plan sounds a lot like what Brad DeLong wants to do with Social Security (an approach I largely agree with). Could it be because Brad DeLong was in the Clinton Treasury department? Maybe! It's good to know you hold DeLong's opinion so highly, Tom. Because he doesn't think there's a crisis either.
Post a Comment
<< Home