Constructive gadfly
Published on February 5, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

King George II and his Court are again revving up the fear of WMD by filling the media with nonsense and fear mongering in reverse: those over 55 have nothing to worry about because ironically the social security system is as solid as a rock; however, those under the age had better prepare for shock and awe unless they turn to Wall Street gurus for salvation. The Court accuses the Democrats of scare tactics directed at seniors while the Democrats charge the nobles with the same toward the younger.

Politics in this nation is becoming a farce par excellence at the expense of the people thirsty for the clean air of honest dialog. Democrats are right that at this stage there is no dire need to dig up this distant catastrophe, but they are wrong in stating there isn’t a car bomb down the rocky road. Republicans — thanks to George’s court of melodrama over privatization — fail to see that there are far more important matters on the agenda currently that require immediate attention. There are far greater economic problems now such as the growing national debt, the extraordinary cost of the prescription drug bill passed last year, the spiraling cost of medical insurance and the millions uninsured, the AMT crisis encroaching, tax cuts made permanent — and, oh, yeah, there’s a costly war going on. The simple truth is that social security can be easily fixed by raising the payroll maximum to $350K and permitting those who make more than $150K to opt for privatizing a quarter of the sum between $150K and $350K. In addition, as I have stated before, those in white collar and less strenuous blue collar work — assuming they are healthy — should expect to retire not before age 70 with payroll tax reduced in half between ages 65 and 70. The well-to-do with private pensions who wish to retire early may do so but must wait till 70 to be eligible for social security.

To tell those 55 and over that they do not have to worry, is as though all seniors couldn’t care less about the ensuing generations. They do, you know, worry about their children and grandchildren’s economic welfare and are thus just as anxious as the young generations that social security indeed be secure. Nor should unwarranted alarms such as “bankruptcy” bombard the youth into panic; it is a deliberate campaign of misinformation to cover up the disastrous effects of current handling of the federal budget which indeed is heading toward bankruptcy far sooner than social security — the only federal agency with a surplus.

    

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: February 4, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 05, 2005
Nor should unwarranted alarms such as “bankruptcy


Unwarrented alarm? Then maybe you should listen to the dems. The republicans ain't the only ones hollering. And before you get to squawking about it. Maybe you should read up on just how he wants to fix it.



Link

Link False advertisement

Link

on Feb 05, 2005

. The simple truth is that social security can be easily fixed by raising the payroll maximum to $350K and permitting those who make more than $150K to opt for privatizing a quarter of the sum between $150K and $350K


there are actually a number of alternatives--none of which would be as traumatic, expensive or risky as the bush scam.  hell im suggesting one that could actually cut individual contributions and ensure the future of social security for the forseeable future.  Link


. They do, you know, worry about their children and grandchildren’s economic welfare and are thus just as anxious as the young generations that social security indeed be secure. Nor should unwarranted alarms such as “bankruptcy” bombard the youth into panic; it is a deliberate campaign of misinformation to cover up the disastrous effects of current handling of the federal budget which indeed is heading toward bankruptcy far sooner than social security — the only federal agency with a surplus


you very rightly qualified this as the new wmd boogaboo.   it's astounding to me that there's no mention of the ways in which those who arent collecting still benefit as a consequence of not having to bankrupt themselves to provide their older and infirm relatives with expensive medical care or even just sustenance.

on Feb 05, 2005
You really seem to think that all that money you are talking about taking away from the wealthy just sits in a bank, don't you, steve?

It doesn't. It is either invested, or spent. Even if it DID go into a bank, it would be used to spur growth as it is lent and invested by those institutions. You can poo-poo the point if you like, but you'll be the first to use consumer confidence, declining investment, and low profits to prove other points when the damage is done.

You have to get over this hatred of the wealthy. They don't just stuff their mattresses with this money.

on Feb 05, 2005
You really seem to think that all that money you are talking about taking away from the wealthy just sits in a bank, don't you, steve?
Even banks invest, you know. No, I'm not against the wealthy, but I am against the intolerable gap between the haves and have nots. There is simply too much approval of gross misplacement of value, yet the well off, I propose, could still privatize some of the payroll tax. Too much of today's investments go toward non-essentials and overseas while our infrastructure is going down the tubes. 
on Feb 05, 2005

drmiler

And so last night, I said, all options are on the table expect for running up payroll taxes. And that's it in a nutshell--taxes! Cut taxes and never mind the shortfall; when push comes to shove, cut essentials.

His plan does nothing for security; all it does is switch the responsibility to the individual gamble driven by the whims of brokers.

on Feb 05, 2005
King, read your blog--interesting. Yes, the senior citizens of 2205, will be living with their children.
on Feb 05, 2005
"King, read your blog--interesting. Yes, the senior citizens of 2205, will be living with their children."

unless we torpedo the economy trying to fix it, in which case their kids won't have jobs to support them either...

on Feb 05, 2005
Yes, the senior citizens of 2205, will be living with their children.


assuming their kids own homes.   the fastest way to decapitalize the middle and lower classes is to cause them to have to expend all their resources caring for their parents...and the fastest way to do that is dismantle social security
on Feb 05, 2005
unless we torpedo the economy trying to fix it, in which case their kids won't have jobs to support them either


there are plenty of alternatives besides the one that seems most likely to torpedo ssa
on Feb 05, 2005

Reply #8 By: kingbee - 2/5/2005 5:06:47 AM
Yes, the senior citizens of 2205, will be living with their children.


assuming their kids own homes. the fastest way to decapitalize the middle and lower classes is to cause them to have to expend all their resources caring for their parents...and the fastest way to do that is dismantle social security


You should go read the links that I posted in the first reply on this thread. I don't know where your getting you info from, but it's wrong. Bush has NO plan to dismantle SS.
on Feb 08, 2005
Bush has NO plan to dismantle SS.
Yeah just wreck the hell out of it.
on Feb 08, 2005
#11 by stevendedalus
Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Bush has NO plan to dismantle SS.
Yeah just wreck the hell out of it

Your opinion. Big difference between wreck and dismantle.
on Feb 08, 2005
unless we torpedo the economy trying to fix it, in which case their kids won't have jobs to support them either...


Aye, back to cycling the Great Depression.
on Feb 08, 2005

And so last night, I said, all options are on the table expect for running up payroll taxes. And that's it in a nutshell--taxes! Cut taxes and never mind the shortfall; when push comes to shove, cut essentials.

What you call cutting taxes I call allowing the wage earner to keep more of their hard earned wages.

Simple fact, it is their money, not yours or anyone elses.  Tax cuts do not GIVE money to anyone.  It just confiscates less.

on Feb 08, 2005

Aye, back to cycling the Great Depression

The funny thing is that liberals have been claiming that for 30 years.  Has it happened?  No.  Will it happen?  no.  Will they finally realize that?  No.

2 Pages1 2