It's a thrilling topic, I know.

I keep wondering why Bush etc. are so hot on privatizing social security accounts. I know it fits their ideology better - putting money in the hands of the people, rather than the gov't - but is there some other, more nefarious (or at least unspoken) motivation for such a strong push? Maybe it avoids the necessity of raising taxes/cutting out previous tax breaks?

The electrical audio board is where I go for all my in-depth analysis of current events. Please don't let me down.

By privatizing Social Security it will add liquidity to the markets thus putting more money in the pockets of Mr. Bush's Wall Street friends. Think about it all of the sudden you have billions and billions of $ hitting the markets all at once. It would be a sudden huge boost to not only the U.S. money markets but, also depending on how it is invested to the world's money markets as well. Also, I think it will displace the blame of a failed Social Security system away from the All Seeing Eye (Government).

When stocks are traded, there are people who make money off of the process. If every working person in America is forced to buy stocks, those people stand to make a hell of a lot of money. This will make the Bush administration very happy.

No money is going to be in the hands of "the people"; it's just going to move from Big Government to Big Business. You could say that Democrats trust Big Government, while Republicans trust Big Business. I think that misses the point: this particular crop of Republicans don't trust Big Business, they are Big Business.

If you want a "solution" to the made-up Social Security crisis that is actually compatible with conservative ideology, you'll reduce (or eliminate) Social Security benefits, and reduce (or eliminate) Social Security withholding as well. Just do the first more than the second, and all will be well. Not actually well, but looking good from the point of view of a Republican.

Everything Bush and his henchmen do or want to do is destructive to the country. First, the Orwellian language and fear are distributed through the docile, uncritical press (or totally sycophantic like Fox News... i.e. the US Pravda) then the docile, uninformed and easily trained citizens support it and those who are supposed to represent us in government vote it through. Later it is revealed that we were once again raped and the whole thing is money/power scheme for the ultra-rich corporate interests. Still, the docile citizens won't believe it despite the ever-decreasing quality of life that directly affects them.

That's the story. Just plug in the latest issue and repeat!

-Marlowe

Linus Van Pelt wrote:No money is going to be in the hands of "the people"; it's just going to move from Big Government to Big Business.

More accurately, it's going to move through Big Government to Big Business, which is one reason it's going to cost anywhere from $1 to 2 trillion.

I couldn't even be bothered to listen to the asshole yammer on, or worse, listen to the blowhards analyze and fake-debate the speech afterward. I drank a bottle of wine, cleaned my studio, and made sure I put "Call your Congresspeople" on my calendar for the day.

Oy vey, as my wife would say.

mb

This is just another lame attempt from the Bush administration to try and mend a certain domestic issue that has been put on hold due to the escalating war costs. In the hands of the people? What a bunch of crap. Bush and co. have always been about Big Business, and I doubt that will ever change. It'll be interesting to see how much this administration will spend on not just the war but the ill-fated homefront juggling in the next 4 yrs.

But it's _hard_ work, and I'll be damned if George won't grease up his hands and get it done right...

Audio Electricale: A fair and balanced world view.

spoot wrote: I know it fits their ideology better - putting money in the hands of the people, rather than the gov't - but is there some other, more nefarious (or at least unspoken) motivation for such a strong push?

Money in the hands of the people? Ideologies should not be evaluated on the basis of their claims. That would be really, really naive (stupid).

Republican 'power to the people' sloganeering is a farce. It shouldn't even be given lip service to.

This doesn't go all the way to debunking Bush's claims, but it's a simple online start:

http://www.bloodlesscoup.com/blog/000788.html

P. S. (edit) No offense - just saying.

I was hoping for someone with at least a little sympathy for the conversative agenda to speak up here. I'm not learning anything new from you revolutionaries.

I've been trying to understand why GWB is so adamantly spouting these easily refuted false statistics. It's hard for me to believe that it's just so more money will go into the stock market.

Also - regardless of whether they're acting for the sake of public interest, the Republican party is the party of small gov't. (In theory & in philosphy, if not in reality.) Social security is big government; so, ideologically, the Republicans are likely to want to shrink it or get rid of it. This doesn't mean they don't have other motives for pushing their agenda; but I think ideology is either a factor in their agenda, or the ideological fit allows things like the push to overhaul social security to remain on their agenda.

Democratic sloganeering & ideology is often a farce, too. This doesn't mean it isn't a factor when it comes to choosing a political agenda.

spoot wrote:I've been trying to understand why GWB is so adamantly spouting these easily refuted false statistics. It's hard for me to believe that it's just so more money will go into the stock market.

Right, okay, this is not going to be very helpful but this is what I know so far from trying to keep up with politics (hey, I actually KNOW some Republicans. Wanna ooo and ahh?):

Privatizing social security has a potential exponential payoff (as long as the markets stay put, and the right believes in the power of the free market). This is the flip side of market risk (which is what the left keeps emphasizing).

The right has always wanted to do away with The New Deal; it is not in line with the free market ideology/pick yourselves up by your bootstraps thing they adhere to. I've actually heard Republicans speak of Welfare and Social Security as being ideologically the same. "If society gives handouts, people will take them and grow to feel entitled to them and be the weaker for it."

Ummm, let me look up a thing I saw the other day...this may take a while.

Don't everyone start in on the above: it's not my ideology. Also, no doubt, it's incomplete and not well-rounded and wholly mistaken and I suffer from brain damage, so add to it, but explain the right's position when you do.

The choir preaching to the choir gets old sometimes. Where's the social security version of unarmedman when you need him?

First time writer, intermittent lurker...
I don't think Bush or the people who put this idea in his brain despise the New Deal and its progeny because of conflicts with any ideology they may have. I think it's more about power, and who should be able to wield it indiscriminately (people with lots of capital), and who shouldn't have more than is necessary to placate them (everybody else). These people wield a lot of influence in terms of domestic policy in Republican circles, in generating "ideas" and helping people get elected. Predicably, they have a hardon for privatization:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/
On the other side, here's an analysis of the right's claims regarding the impending "crisis:" http://www.cepr.net/publications/facts_ ... curity.htm
The thing that kills me, is the implication by Bush that there will be continual growth in the market, from here to eternity, and all you have to do is plug your money in and watch it grow. If he's lucky, this illusion won't get smashed before he leaves office. I'm guessing it will, though.