Zuckerman: Why Bush is Wrong on Social Security

[BlueInRed]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/278301p-238324c.html

<snip>
Why Bush is wrong
His Social Security reforms are neither 'social' nor 'secure'
. . .
Of course, the idea of Bush's "ownership society" is to change the relationship of Americans to government so they look less to Washington than to themselves (and, just maybe, vote more Republican). No doubt some Americans could build savings and more wealth and have a nest egg for retirement. No doubt there is value in savings and self-reliance, planning ahead and increasing distance from the government. But there are other values in the very title of the program - Social Security. "Social" surely implies a contract to help manage poverty among the old and to know that our society provides a minimum income for all in the retirement years. And "security" means buffering the harshness and cruelty of the markets so the well-being of the elderly is not dependent on shrewd stock picks and hot mutual funds.

Privatization thus gets things upside down. Social Security was not meant to re-create the free market; it was intended to insure against the vagaries and cruelties of the market and to permit Americans to count on the promise that the next generation will take care of them in their old age.
<snip>

[mikehiggins]

1. MY EYES!! MY EYES!!!

I must be going blind

Zuckerman publishes a sensible, reasoned criticism of Chimpboy's Social Security lunacy?

The Daily News????

Lock the doors and windows! Armageddon approaches!

[BlueInRed]

2. LOL!

I know, I was shocked too!

[Calvinist Basset]

3. Amazing

Unbelievable.

[simcha_6]

4. It all depends on your perspective

Verdad, eso.  So much of the debate on social security is
based on our perception of social security.  If you think of
it as the government taking your money and giving it back
later, then yeah, you should get to do whatever you want with
your money.  But really, the point of social security is to
keep a vulnerable segment of the population afloat so as not
to burden society.  I was in Azerbaijan this December and the
streets are filled with old ladies.  Most are beggars.  The
lucky ones have made their own brooms with brambles and are
employed by the city to sweep the streets.  Social security
ensures that the old aren't forced to take these desperate
measures.  Under that logic, we could make huge changes to the
system; say, tax all income, not just the first eighty
thousand dollars, or for all people with pensions over sixty
thousand dollars a year, have them be off of social security,
etc.  We need to frame the debate to show what social security
is before we can debate how it should be structured. 
Unfortunately, capitalism ("individual greed moderated by
a powerful but not overly zealous government", I think
Arthur C. Clark defined it) tends to get people too selfish to
side with us on this one.  Que lastima.  

[KoKo]

5. MORT ZUCKERMAN! OMG.....I'm fainting away...here! n/t

[marcologico]

6. I think what he's really worried about is the deficit, but who cares.

This does not bode well for Chimpster.

[BlueInRed]

7. Agreed n/t