More on SS

I think everyone should take the time to look at atrios' comment yesterday. In brief for those that are lazy or don't care as much, he basically points out the problems that have been created in other countries due to privatizing state pension packages. Apparently it caused huge problems in England, nearly bankrupted Argentina and well, just take a glance, it's worth the read. The bottom line here is that it's the same philosophy behind the trickle down tax cuts. It's a short term stimulus for the economy. What people keep asking me is "If this plan is so horrible in my view, how can they propose it legitimately as a solution." The answer is, as in all politics, with spin. First off, the big "C" word, crisis is easy to throw out with SS because we've heard it since the Reagan era. Granted, back then there was some justification, but Greenspan used interest rate changes along with Reagan's tax increases(yes, I said increases read your tax returns) to save SS for some eighty years, or at least that's what we were told then. Theses policies created the big surplus we had in the nineties that Clinton handed over to Bush. Bush squandered this money into a big tax cut for his rich buddies, we won't rehash that, but essentially he wasn't able to pull all of it from SS. Hence your state program issues as of late due to lack of federal funds. So SS is still to this day intact for quite a while yet. Some estimate 2074, some estimate higher. I've given you guys links to that stuff, so I'm going to finish this with "How they spin their idea." By taking the current estimates, you can spin a fact to say that current Americans(the ones that can't vote yet) will experience a lack of money or a "crisis" in SS benefits in their lifetime. So we need to solve the problem by creating a better way to increase funds. Us rich folks, we use the stock market for that. Now we all know the stock market thrives on cronyism. Folks trade info left and right to get the scoop on who and when to buy. Some profit some fail. Most fail, but have enough invested they make up for it. A surge in monies in the stock market increases investment in large companies giving them more leeway to expand or improve their organizations and the lives of their employees.(notice I didn't mention trickle down, I almost sound like them don't I?). However, a failure to compound on those investments, i.e. keeping everyone in business and making more profits steadily, makes those investment values drop and the monies used to fund those investments go into the big well of "loss". So what the proposal is is a stimulous package. We pump 4 percentage points of your SS fund into the stock market. The stock market goes way up with all of that new money, but poor investment choices due to lack of knowledge will cause the average account to spike downward dramatically. And where does that money go? Well into the pockets of the CEOs that are fired when the companies go under, of course. Hence, more money in the hands of those that paid for the president's election. It's a fuck you to the little guy, just watch the numbers. Read the facts and don't believe a word you hear from the White House and more than anything, contact your congressmen. If this gets squashed in Congress, it's likely that the 2006 election will have a horse of a different color if you gather what I mean.