Bush's Social Security
Bush's revised Social Security amendments rely on a firm element of wage-indexing to get the system under control for the supposed crisis of Social Security. He hasn't backed away from privatization, but this new element, would indeed, bring the system potentially more in line, albeit with very significant cuts in benefits.
The question now becomes: how will this new rendering of Social Security go over? The Democrats should be open to this as it maintains appropriate funding for those who need it the most and relies on the richer classes to practice responsible personal financing for themselves- in other words, those that can rely on themselves should be able to.
The interesting dynamic should develop [and we, at the AntiCentenarian, will do what we can to help it] where this new version of Social Security becomes a rephrasing of a social welfare program. That "W" word [like others] tends to strike very negative chords amongst our Conservative elite. And, unfortunately for them, this new model of Social Security more of a method of income reassignment than the current incarnation. Unless, of course, Bush also wants to cut the elite out of the tax plan of paying for Social Security through it, which wouldn't surprise me down the line [which would lend itself to all sorts of problems: If you are impoverished, you'd have to pay social security to collect it; if you are wealthy you are exempt from both; what happens to those fortunate souls who engage in upward socioeconomic mobility and strike financial gold? Do they pay while poor and collect while rich? And what of those who fall from graces on Fortune's wheel: are they exempt, then suddenly, forced to pay to collect? Oh mercy!], but all of this is naysay, since we haven't actually heard any of his real plan to finance these drastic changes.
One way to finance the changes, of course would be to rebuild a reasonable tax code that does not A) have significant shortfalls because of the [literally] uncivilized system of tax reduction concurrently with war and B) allow billions of tax breaks to corporate interests.
Of course, the Conservative elite is not so keen on this method, either, presumably: you can't take away my taxs break! I voted in the guy who gave me that cash back!
So what's it going to be, Bushy? or have you started to disenfranchise your loyals no matter what you do? Have you begun the wonderful, glorious process of backing yourself into a corner? We, at the AntiC, certainly hope so.
UPDATE:
Atrios has a good concise breakdown of some of what this means for us, in more concise terms than I can give.
-----
Note: "Uncivilized system" link goes to Air America Radio talk show host Al Franken page debunking Hannity's lies on John Kerry. One of the responses concerns Kerry's voting record on taxes, in which Franken says: "As we discussed with Paul Krugman last week, never in the history of this country have we had tax cuts while we were at war. Not only that, but Paul Krugman told me that he has yet to find any civilization in the history of this planet that ever had a tax cut during a war."
The question now becomes: how will this new rendering of Social Security go over? The Democrats should be open to this as it maintains appropriate funding for those who need it the most and relies on the richer classes to practice responsible personal financing for themselves- in other words, those that can rely on themselves should be able to.
The interesting dynamic should develop [and we, at the AntiCentenarian, will do what we can to help it] where this new version of Social Security becomes a rephrasing of a social welfare program. That "W" word [like others] tends to strike very negative chords amongst our Conservative elite. And, unfortunately for them, this new model of Social Security more of a method of income reassignment than the current incarnation. Unless, of course, Bush also wants to cut the elite out of the tax plan of paying for Social Security through it, which wouldn't surprise me down the line [which would lend itself to all sorts of problems: If you are impoverished, you'd have to pay social security to collect it; if you are wealthy you are exempt from both; what happens to those fortunate souls who engage in upward socioeconomic mobility and strike financial gold? Do they pay while poor and collect while rich? And what of those who fall from graces on Fortune's wheel: are they exempt, then suddenly, forced to pay to collect? Oh mercy!], but all of this is naysay, since we haven't actually heard any of his real plan to finance these drastic changes.
One way to finance the changes, of course would be to rebuild a reasonable tax code that does not A) have significant shortfalls because of the [literally] uncivilized system of tax reduction concurrently with war and B) allow billions of tax breaks to corporate interests.
Of course, the Conservative elite is not so keen on this method, either, presumably: you can't take away my taxs break! I voted in the guy who gave me that cash back!
So what's it going to be, Bushy? or have you started to disenfranchise your loyals no matter what you do? Have you begun the wonderful, glorious process of backing yourself into a corner? We, at the AntiC, certainly hope so.
UPDATE:
Atrios has a good concise breakdown of some of what this means for us, in more concise terms than I can give.
-----
Note: "Uncivilized system" link goes to Air America Radio talk show host Al Franken page debunking Hannity's lies on John Kerry. One of the responses concerns Kerry's voting record on taxes, in which Franken says: "As we discussed with Paul Krugman last week, never in the history of this country have we had tax cuts while we were at war. Not only that, but Paul Krugman told me that he has yet to find any civilization in the history of this planet that ever had a tax cut during a war."
posted by General Stan at 10:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home