My New Propaganda Technique Is Unstoppable
Josh Marshall points us to an LA Times story(I know, I know, liberally biased, and if you ask Sean Hannity they are just lying because they hate Bush and...but seriously, stick with me, the rest of this post only uses Republicans as reference points, so it's not so bad...) quotes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on the subject of Social Security privitatization:
Clearly I misunderstood the purpose of the Social Security debate from the get go. I thought that privatization was proposed as a means to alleviate the solvency problems. But now, outside of Social Security going bankrupt(which in and of itself is a debatable proposition), we're being told two things. The first, which the estimable Mr. Graham said above, is that privatization isn't going to address the solvency problems. The second is what Shrubya told us at the SOTU. He said that personal accounts are a better deal. This leads me to think that perhaps the debate is not about Social Security per se, but about how to provide a "better deal". ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME?
I can see it now. The debate will turn from "my plan will solve the Social Security crisis" to "my plan is a better deal than Social Security. If you oppose it, you're an obsturctionist, you don't want to give people a better deal! Why do you hate old people?" Meanwhile, competent and sensible economists both left and right have shown that the supposed better deal is a load of hooey, and the "cisis" continues.
In Shrubland, if your faucet leaks, you scream bloody murder that the ensuing flood will drown you and your family. When your friend suggests you fix the faucet, you punch him in the nose for being disloyal. Then you move out of the house and buy some expensive land where some day someone might build a bigger house that doesn't have faucets.
The truth is, personal accounts will not even come close to making Social Security solvent.
Clearly I misunderstood the purpose of the Social Security debate from the get go. I thought that privatization was proposed as a means to alleviate the solvency problems. But now, outside of Social Security going bankrupt(which in and of itself is a debatable proposition), we're being told two things. The first, which the estimable Mr. Graham said above, is that privatization isn't going to address the solvency problems. The second is what Shrubya told us at the SOTU. He said that personal accounts are a better deal. This leads me to think that perhaps the debate is not about Social Security per se, but about how to provide a "better deal". ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME?
I can see it now. The debate will turn from "my plan will solve the Social Security crisis" to "my plan is a better deal than Social Security. If you oppose it, you're an obsturctionist, you don't want to give people a better deal! Why do you hate old people?" Meanwhile, competent and sensible economists both left and right have shown that the supposed better deal is a load of hooey, and the "cisis" continues.
In Shrubland, if your faucet leaks, you scream bloody murder that the ensuing flood will drown you and your family. When your friend suggests you fix the faucet, you punch him in the nose for being disloyal. Then you move out of the house and buy some expensive land where some day someone might build a bigger house that doesn't have faucets.
posted by jayinbmore at 10:24 AM
<< Home