Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (113275)	5/10/2005 12:43:08 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793667

Privatize to a degree. Good! Eliminate completely. Bad! IMO that is what the conservative think tanks want to do. They want a road map to eliminate SS. But, they are smart enough to know that that is an unpolular position and are not about to present it as such. But, generally, that is the conservative view. They do not want anything to do with anything that suggest nannism. They hated FDR for doing what he did. I have also heard that George W. Bush held these views while attending Harvard Business School. His teachers, being from the liberal establishment, were naturally opposed to these views. Nevertheless, there are many scholarly people (as well as our own kholt) who are opposed to SS and would try to find some practical ways to end it. Thinking is what these think tanks generally do. There are some very well regarded conservative think tanks that share the anti-nannism views. The Bush administration is not that detailed oriented as to be able to come up with a road map to get rid of SS - however, the administration would be putting into place at the undersecretary levels people from the think tanks that share those views.