Posted on 12/29/2006 5:16:49 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Do you like to post to prove just how stupid you are?
If SS benefits will have to be cut by a quarter or thereabouts, some Republican politicians should propose such action as part of their 2008 platform. How many seats in the House and Senate will be changed from D to R as a result of their adoption of the "quarter or thereabouts SS check reduction" plan?
You mean like private accounts holding stocks and bonds? That's a great idea!
That should be required in all press references, to balance their mandatory decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry.
Back it up.
Define fascism. Define neoconservatism.
I bet you can't.
No need to propose anything. Lack of action, guaranteed by Democratic refusal to reform SS, will bring it about automatically.
Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire by Anne Norton (Paperback - Oct 11, 2005)
Leo Strauss and the American Right by Shadia B. Drury (Paperback - Feb 15, 1999)
The leading neocon organization besides the Repbulican Party is The Project for the New American Century, with a website at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm
Disregarding the sarcasm and cynicism in your post, we can expect that bonds in the SS fund will be backed up by stocks and/or bonds about the same time that bonds held by banks in Russia, China, India, Venezuela, et al., are backed up by hard assets like stocks.
IOW, never.
You misunderstand. If private accounts held stocks and bonds, there would be no need for bonds to be held in the SS fund.
Why should a Republican propose the democrats' bitter medicine? Benefit cuts and higher taxes are the dem plan. The Republican approach avoids most of the pain. Yes, there will be costs to finance the transition to investment accounts, but these are far less than the eventual costs of doing nothing.
I do not want to attribute motives to you, but clearly the democrats are playing hidden agenda politics on the issue. Why would they prefer lower to higher benefits and higher to lower taxes? It is crazy unless retirement security is secondary to other goals. I am driven to the conclusion that democrats want people dependent on a government program. They would rather have retirees poor and dependent than financially indendent and therefore more likely to vote Republican. SS is simply a way to organize and discipline their base vote.
I also suspect that the hard-left types desperately want to avoid moving all Americans into the owner/investor class, even on a small scale. Socialist and anti-corporate tub-thumping will lose most of its appeal when the wrench turners and bus drivers start checking their accounts every morning. The fascist left doesn't want broad-based ownership of wealth; it wants government ownership of wealth.
As a proud cockroach I must say that in the end we will take over the world.
IBTZ?
IF the democrats sunset-ed the Social Security System(SSA) which is PURE socialism... PURE socialism.. Most republicans would gouge out their EYES.. throw dust in the air.. and rip their clothing.. and get all compassionate...
So much for anti-socialist republicans..
Who is Paul Krugman?
MurryMom! Where have you been? Back off your meds, I see.
Funnee! Someone actually believes there's something called a "SS fund">
And how far could you or I get at the bank keeping books like that?........Not many folks recall LBJ covering his a$$ ( and DEM spending) by combining the 'budgets.'
Won't be pleasant that is for sure.
The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also, neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II, including literary criticism and the social sciences.
Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and others described themselves as neoconservatives during the Cold War. In general, however, the movement's critics use the term more often than supporters. In fact, some people described as "neocons" today say that neoconservatism no longer exists as an identifiable movement.
Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, along with the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
More details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservativism
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.