why didnt bush's corporatizing of SS go through?

[Anarchist420]

i heard it was because big med lobbied against wall street.

anyway, im glad it didnt go through because it wouldve given the illusion that ss was private. and functionally, it wouldnt have made any difference overall because the SS tax wouldnt have been made lower (in fact, bush said he was willing to raise it) and because the things that could be invested in were limited to shit like TIPS and blue-chip stocks.

i think that the only true privatization of social security is repealing it and replacing it with nothing (although sound money and much lower income taxes would be necessary for people to not be broke in old age).

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In a nut shell, it failed due to opposition from the left and lack of support from the right.

 

[michal1980]

because the right is not as unified and monoblock as the lmsm and local libertards make them out to be.

Unlike liberal democrats who do whatever their president wants. Shutdown government - done. Obamacare - done.

bipartisan - the left talks about it, they never want to practice it.

 

[Anarchist420]

In a nut shell, it failed due to opposition from the left and lack of support from the right.

if that's true, then why did the right not support it? and what caused the left to oppose it?

bipartisan - the left talks about it, they never want to practice it.

most of the Democrats were bipartisan when Bush was president as they never made any sincere effort to oppose the iraq war.

Unlike liberal democrats who do whatever their president wants. Shutdown government - done. Obamacare - done.

the conservative party is no different... they have raised taxes practically everywhere they're in power and that's something Democrats wanted too. the Neo-Republican Party of Platform of 2012 had a plank referring to the Federal Reserve yet the Neo-Republican States (which are the majority which makes it even more dishonest) could've practically ended it already if they were really opposed to the likes of yellin/bernanke and they're loose monetary policy.

anyway, the thing i like about the democrats is that they're upfront about wanting to raise taxes while the Neo-Republicans say they're against taxes, but then raise taxes often past the democrats would've done.

bipartisan - the left talks about it, they never want to practice it.

then why did almost of them drop impeachment charges against bush?

 

[Moonbeam]

i heard it was because big med lobbied against wall street.

anyway, im glad it didnt go through because it wouldve given the illusion that ss was private. and functionally, it wouldnt have made any difference overall because the SS tax wouldnt have been made lower (in fact, bush said he was willing to raise it) and because the things that could be invested in were limited to shit like TIPS and blue-chip stocks.

i think that the only true privatization of social security is repealing it and replacing it with nothing (although sound money and much lower income taxes would be necessary for people to not be broke in old age).

How much do you earn and how much do you pay in taxes. If you save nothing and also pay no taxes how much sound money will you have in old age? If you earn very little and pay little in tax and save nothing either, can you see that to recommend against social security looks a lot like self hate? Whatever curse you wish to bring down on yourself is fine, but how about others. Do you wish others to wind up destitute too?

 

[Anarchist420]

How much do you earn and how much do you pay in taxes. If you save nothing and also pay no taxes how much sound money will you have in old age?

suppose i dont even live to old age? suppose i would've been set for life if my parents hadnt been taxed and their savings inflated away? suppose taxes and spending stop me from receiving charity?

Do you wish others to wind up destitute too?

um no.

If you earn very little and pay little in tax and save nothing either, can you see that to recommend against social security looks a lot like self hate?

please cut the bullshit.

 

[tweaker2]

I kind'a feel like SS is to many of our legislators the same as the 2nd Amendment right is: Messing around with either gets you recalled or losing badly in a bid to get re-elected.

They're both political poison pills.

 

[Moonbeam]

Anarchist: suppose i dont even live to old age? suppose i would've been set for life if my parents hadnt been taxed and their savings inflated away? suppose taxes and spending stop me from receiving charity?

M: Suppose somebody like you does. Suppose others didn't have parents who had anything to save. Suppose that people who have more don't give more to charity. How much of human need is covered by it?

A: um no.

M: But you do because you maintain a ideological perspective that is completely at odds with your reality.

A: please cut the bullshit.

M: I call bullshit being in need of help from others and despising the form that help arrives as. It looks for all the world like a vainglorious refusal to accept your condition. I am a nobody. You are welcome to my taxes. I have no reason to hate you. But you seem to torture yourself endlessly. There is no need to.

You post an endless stream of musings, associations spun out like cotton candy. Where do these chains of thinking begin. Are you constantly reading anarchist ideas on the web that launch you into outer space? Maybe you could wean yourself from such crap. Maybe do some kind or art or something. I don't know. What else would can you think of you might like to do?

 

[blankslate]

If failed because the harmful effects would have fallen squarely on a demographic that votes more than most others.

Sure they tend to vote more conservatively but even the Republicans couldn't smokescreen how bad an idea the privatization of SS was.

It was a shit idea and not even the most unified group of politicians could shove it down the throats of voters in a shit sandwich.

 

[shadow9d9]

because the right is not as unified and monoblock as the lmsm and local libertards make them out to be.

Unlike liberal democrats who do whatever their president wants. Shutdown government - done. Obamacare - done.

bipartisan - the left talks about it, they never want to practice it.

What a fool. The shutdown was 100% lockstep republicans who were the ones that MADE DEMANDS, gave up NOTHING in return, and REFUSED to bring up a clean vote, which would have passed bipartisan.

 

[brycejones]

What a fool. The shutdown was 100% lockstep republicans who were the ones that MADE DEMANDS, gave up NOTHING in return, and REFUSED to bring up a clean vote, which would have passed bipartisan.

Good luck.....he refuses to see what is right in front of him.

 

[JEDIYoda]

i heard it was because big med lobbied against wall street.

anyway, im glad it didnt go through because it wouldve given the illusion that ss was private. and functionally, it wouldnt have made any difference overall because the SS tax wouldnt have been made lower (in fact, bush said he was willing to raise it) and because the things that could be invested in were limited to shit like TIPS and blue-chip stocks.

i think that the only true privatization of social security is repealing it and replacing it with nothing (although sound money and much lower income taxes would be necessary for people to not be broke in old age).

You know Moonbeam is correct about you 100%!!

But let me go further.......
Moonbeam asked you -- Do you wish others to wind up destitute too?

The real truth is it really doesn`t bother you to see others put in the same position you are in as long as the government is is banded......

 

[Anarchist420]

The real truth is it really doesn`t bother you to see others put in the same position you are in as long as the government is is banded......

that's what you think.

Suppose somebody like you does. Suppose others didn't have parents who had anything to save. Suppose that people who have more don't give more to charity. How much of human need is covered by it?

how much of a human need is covered by the govt? i went with my dad to deliver christmas gifts from his church to people in govt subsidized housing and it looked awful... i think the quality of private charity wouldnt be a damn bit worse than the quality of anything the govt could ever do. looking from the outside, the public elementary, middle and high schools are atrocious in my area and most of the people who go there probably dont even graduate. cops go around killing innocent people and theyve even harassed me before.

M: But you do because you maintain a ideological perspective that is completely at odds with your reality.

you really dont know much about me.

You are welcome to my taxes.

just because i am welcome to your taxes doesnt mean that your taxes is what i want nor does it mean i am welcome to the property of all tax payers.

 

[Fern]

if that's true, then why did the right not support it? and what caused the left to oppose it?
-snip-

As a conservative I didn't support it.

I think it's a bad idea. SS is there to provide a minimum retirement income. If people were allowed to invest their SS amounts in private stocks I guarantee some will end losing their money (e.g., Enron etc.).

Now, others will make big profits.

So, what would happen?

As we've seen time and again 'the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized". I.e., We will bailing out those who invested poorly.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

that's what you think.
how much of a human need is covered by the govt? i went with my dad to deliver christmas gifts from his church to people in govt subsidized housing and it looked awful... i think the quality of private charity wouldnt be a damn bit worse than the quality of anything the govt could ever do. looking from the outside, the public elementary, middle and high schools are atrocious in my area and most of the people who go there probably dont even graduate. cops go around killing innocent people and theyve even harassed me before.
you really dont know much about me.just because i am welcome to your taxes doesnt mean that your taxes is what i want nor does it mean i am welcome to the property of all tax payers.

You will have a say in the matter when you manage to personally care for all your needs. People like me vote to care for you and we win the elections. We don't trust that you have the capacity for self care or the wisdom to know what is in your self interest. Think of folk like me as an emergency room doctors. We don't care what you wish or that you can't pay. We're going to do what is within our capacity to save you, and from yourself if need be. The best we can may not be ideal but it's not nothing either.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why? Because it was just a smokescreen for the greatest top down class warfare looting spree in the history of finance. AKA "the Ownership Society". Really. There were others, as well.

It never was a serious proposal. Like going to Mars. Not that the usual ravers will figure it out.