Advertisement
In the spirit of realizing that in working toward a better social reality we can learn from analyzing the glaring power structure of the present, I have been troubled by this whole "saving" Social Security mantra of the GW Bush administration.
Bill Clinton spoke to us from the standpoint that we could all band together for mutual benefit (even if the gain was not always equitable). GW Bush, however, seems to be all about dividing us against ourselves for the benefit of those in position to exploit us.
In the case of Bush's grand gesture to save Social Security, there is no need to "fix" Social Security in order to continue the level of payouts that recipients have grown to expect. The problem here is not in the program, but in the demographics. Of much more concern should be the lack of labor force in comparison to retirees, leaving too few people to take up the work that will need to be done (especially with such a large retired community in need of services), and thus also lowering the tax base. As many people are indeed more able to work for longer years, the rationale for raising the retirement age would be to keep more people in the workforce doing the work. However, this could also be accomplished by immigration policy to bring in more younger workers. In light of the oversupply of unemployed young adults in much of the world, such a policy could also work to the advantage of the U.S. in international relations and other foreign policy concerns.
My big peeve about the Social Security system is the cap on income eligible for payroll taxation. If we took the tax all the way to the last dollar, there would be plenty available to seriously lower the percentage of taxation, taking more of the burden off of the lower paid workers. I am sure that there are other positive changes that could be made to improve the system and better serve the social function of taking care of our old and infirm in a manner that honors their social contributions and affords them respect.
The Bush doctrine on Social Security is not at all about serving such laudable social goals. It is about pitting the haves and hope to haves against the already burdened. It is about inciting our insecurity, rather than inspiring our creative spirit.
Peace,
libramoon
Bill Clinton spoke to us from the standpoint that we could all band together for mutual benefit (even if the gain was not always equitable). GW Bush, however, seems to be all about dividing us against ourselves for the benefit of those in position to exploit us.
In the case of Bush's grand gesture to save Social Security, there is no need to "fix" Social Security in order to continue the level of payouts that recipients have grown to expect. The problem here is not in the program, but in the demographics. Of much more concern should be the lack of labor force in comparison to retirees, leaving too few people to take up the work that will need to be done (especially with such a large retired community in need of services), and thus also lowering the tax base. As many people are indeed more able to work for longer years, the rationale for raising the retirement age would be to keep more people in the workforce doing the work. However, this could also be accomplished by immigration policy to bring in more younger workers. In light of the oversupply of unemployed young adults in much of the world, such a policy could also work to the advantage of the U.S. in international relations and other foreign policy concerns.
My big peeve about the Social Security system is the cap on income eligible for payroll taxation. If we took the tax all the way to the last dollar, there would be plenty available to seriously lower the percentage of taxation, taking more of the burden off of the lower paid workers. I am sure that there are other positive changes that could be made to improve the system and better serve the social function of taking care of our old and infirm in a manner that honors their social contributions and affords them respect.
The Bush doctrine on Social Security is not at all about serving such laudable social goals. It is about pitting the haves and hope to haves against the already burdened. It is about inciting our insecurity, rather than inspiring our creative spirit.
Peace,
libramoon
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Saving Social Responsibility
Mon, February 7, 2005 - 11:48 AMnice post--i dont agree with immigration at this time cause we have enough young, unemployed people who are already "American Citizens."
1900--immigration good
2000--no longer a need for it
2030--we will have to wait and see... -
-
Re: Saving Social Responsibility
Mon, February 7, 2005 - 12:54 PMMy presentation for tonight's class Monday February 7, 2005
Since the future is unpredictable and Social Security is a function of future sustainability any person with a wild idea predicting the future could be argued to be correct. The deception is that there are too many factors that go into forecasting the financial market—especially long term. And the financial market’s stability or lack of stability—especially over the timeline of generations is absolutely impossible to predict. The purpose of Social Security is to protect the aged after they retire from the work force. It does not matter what policy you enact as long as it is used widespread and equally across the entire working force in America. So when President Bush forecasts Birth rates and fertility, Retirement ages, Health advances and the need for government benefits and health care trends, International trends, Rate of economic growth, Interest rates, Life expectancy rates, he is trying to make it difficult for any one group to figure out his true motive for a RADICAL operating change in Social Security when all it needs is a small modification to compensate for the above average number of people dependent on Social Security at present. -
-
Re: Saving Social Responsibility
Mon, February 7, 2005 - 2:27 PMIn the foreseeable future, as more of the demographic bulge retires, there will come opportunities in a variety of circumstances for a much greater base of employment. There will be the services industries fueled by the needs and desires of retirees. There are already a plethora of projects greatly in need of organizing by folks who can find a way to profit from a creative business plan. Bringing in new blood, fresh ideas from people not so tied to the status quo could help to catalyze the process. Then, there is always the new, unanticipated technologies as well as new, unanticipated crises that our quickly changing world is so prone to develop. The thing is, what we need to encourage these kinds of economic development is an atmosphere of open inquiry and a shared flow of ideas, not "compassionate conservatism" or whatever they're calling it now. -
-
Re: Saving Social Responsibility
Fri, February 11, 2005 - 8:38 AMdont u hate when the government invariably comes up with a new way to say the same fuckin thing???
whats in a name??? nothing!!!! the item is still what it is even if u use any word in the hundreds of languages in the world.---or make up a new word in any language even if it has never existed.
what difference does it make?--its still the same fuckin thing!!!
-
-
-