Bush on Social Security

Gil,

Like Lynette and Lew I recognize that there is no proposal for privatization on the table. The only real partial privatization would be a reduction of the money taken from my pocket.

And you should realize that when this reform blows up it will be widely characterized as market failure, just like when power was "deregulated" in California.

John,

Don't you think that a partial privatization might make full privatization more politically feasible?

Do you think that partial privatization is worse than the status quo?

"Though these goals don't seem compatable, the libertarians are lending their support to the republicans."

Not all of us.

"Whether the libertarians are doing this as willing dupes or as paid shills makes little difference. They are fighting on the wrong side in this battle."

Monkeyboy has a bit of a point here, though of course he's also on the wrong side.

Real privatization of Social Security would mean simply not taking your money. Faux privatization is nothing but a government bait-and-switch. Libertarians ought not be falling for it.

Well, Glen, if you are in a war and two guys are standing side by side shooting at you, you have to assume they are on the same side even if they are fighting for different reasons.

What do liberatarians want from Social Security reform? They want to reduce government interference in people's lives.

What do republicans want out of Social Security reform? They want to create a huge new bureaucracy run by their pals on Wall Street. Then they want to channel the hundreds of billions of dollars in 'private' accounts into companies that support them.

Though these goals don't seem compatable, the libertarians are lending their support to the republicans. Whether the libertarians are doing this as willing dupes or as paid shills makes little difference. They are fighting on the wrong side in this battle.

Hey Monkeyboy -- Irony indeed. You indicate the "Social Security" is a lie, and it is: this program is not a very secure way to plan for your retirement! Seriously, what is the lie in question here?

And why do you insist on lumping Republicans and libertarians together, despite the latter disagreeing with the former on numerous substantive matters (including, for many libertarians, the war in Iraq)?

Hehe, there's a scary thought Paul. Pat Buchanan actually does strike me as a better leader now than Bush. What does it say about a party when its crackpots seem sane?

Is this what libertarians and republicans have come to? Staging phony media events to try to sell a program? I can't believe any 'intellectuals' take pride in that little Potemkin Village Bush put on yesterday.

There was a time when republicans and libertarians were happy to debate any issue any time. Now they stiffle debate and put on puppet shows to push their agenda.

The irony of one big lie(Social Security) being launched on the same day as another big lie(Saddam had WMD, we need to invade) came to a close(the CIA ended its futile search for the WMD) would be funny if it weren't so painful.

Better question: When did our Chomskyoids turn into Buchananites?

I doesn't suprise me that you attended the start of the attempt to loot Social Security. Did they hand out the list of stocks to buy now, or did they just hand out shares in Goldman Sachs?

The Republican defecit is financed entirely by selling bonds to foreigners. To fund the additional defecits caused by the private accounts, the federal government will have to sell more bonds to foreigners, at a higher interest rate.

Step 1 - enrich foreigners

The Social Security monies go to the general fund of the US government now. Except for the pittance we spend on foreign aid, federal funding helps Americans. Channelling SS monies into stocks will drive their price up. US stocks are largely held by foreigners and they will be the major beneficiaries of the private accounts.

Step 2 - enrich foreigners

When does simple greed turn into treason?