Something I find interesting about your answers though, is the way in which you dodge points, which counter your vision. For instance, in my post I addressed the lingering problem of sustainability in the current Social Security System and you neglected to address it.
Can't answer everything, Michael. Everyone answers what they can in their post replies. On this one, the problem was well on its way to a long term solution with the Clinton pledge in 98 I think it was to put all surpluses to use for Social Security and Medicaid/Care. And the large surpluses available at the end of the Clinton years were available for such uses. The shortage now is caused, completely, by the two tax cuts Bush has pushed through the Congress. No other reason. And it's caused by those out year shortages.
There was a time when I thought that the sustainability of social security was a serious issue that needed to be addressed by moving the retirement age forward, which is, of course, happening already. I no longer believe that. Bush is now completely responsible, in my mind, for whatever happens. Until we get a better president and congress.
Let me repeat my belief that social security and medicare and medicaid all work. They've accomplished near miracles. And the funding was there to continue them at present levels and, for all I know, to expand in significant ways prescription drug assistance (as opposed to the half way house in the congress now).
Your assumption seems to be one of black and white. Either we have pure capitalism, or we have pure socialism.
Oh, pulleaze, Michael, as one of my daughters would say. I don't believe any such thing. Worry about your beliefs not mine. Socialism ain't going to happen in this country in my lifetime, in your lifetime, whatever. So we don't need it on the table. I prefer a system in which market rules are the accepted consensus for the economy (with some obvious exceptions like banking laws to keep them honest, SEC to keep that area honest, etc.). But I prefer other rules in other areas. Rules built out of healing the sick should be the dominant ones in health care, not how to make a buck. Rules built out of how to teach the young should be the dominant ones in education; not how to make a buck. Rules built out of how to handle crime and criminals should be the dominant ones in the criminal justice system; not how to make a buck. Rules built out of how to convert a state (Iraq) to something closer to a secular democracy should be dominant if we are going to continue to act as an empire; not how to make a buck (all the US contractors now eager to get the contracts). Surely you get the point. If you don't, read Michael Walzer's terrific book, Spheres of Justice. amazon.com
Ah, on your mother's social security, I see. Each had their own social security. Works for me. Nothing criminal there.
The interesting thing about your post is you keep putting in quotes about more creative thinking. Do it. Put forward a proposal that will make the current state of social security better, not decimate it for the people who need it. I'll be happy to listen, offer thoughts, whatever. But I will certainly criticize proposals, such as those put forward by the Bush folk, that go under the heading of helping but actually make matters worse. I give you their voucher proposals which would cut the meager amount of money available for public school education even further. Talk about a crisis in education.
I'm open to new ideas. Just argue specifics and make a case that they will make things better. There is plenty wrong with public education in certain portions of American cities but the only proposal out there--vouchers--takes money away.
Now if you think I'm ducking your questions, please put it forward. And it will help if you make it specific. Certainly more specific than these have been. |
