Use jimmie/jimmie for the login/password.

(courtesy of http://www.bugmenot.com/ )

[:"green"] Dr. Stern's speech, given during a ceremony at which he got the prize from the Leo Baeck Institute, a center focused on German Jewish history, was certainly provocative. The fascism of Nazi Germany belongs to a world so horrendous it often seems to defy the possibility of repetition or analogy. But Dr. Stern, 78, the author of books like "The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology" and university professor emeritus at Columbia University, has devoted a lifetime to analyzing how the Nazi barbarity became possible. He stops short of calling the Christian right fascist but his decision to draw parallels, especially in the uses of propaganda, was controversial.

"When I saw the speech my eyes lit up," said John R. MacArthur, whose book "Second Front" examines wartime propaganda. "The comparison between the propagandistic manipulation and uses of Christianity, then and now, is hidden in plain sight. No one will talk about it. No one wants to look at it." [/]

Being a student of history has it's benefits...and it's fears...This article is one that sends shivers up my spine. Same tactics that Nazi's used to gain control of the political system, the religious right is doing the same.....
And this will prolly be denounced as fear mongering....I say this ahead of time for all you who disbelieve....For shame....

Kennedy Accuses Bush of Hyping Problems
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) accused President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday of hyping concerns about the nation's retirement program just as he did on Iraq (news - web sites) and urged Democrats to stand up to the "politics of fear."

The leading liberal voice in the U.S. Congress, Kennedy said Democrats, who lost the race for the White House for a second time in a row, must do a better job promoting their basic unifying values without mirroring Republicans in order to rebound from last November's election defeats.


"We have an administration that falsely hypes almost every issue as a crisis," the Massachusetts Democrat said in a speech prepared for delivery at the National Press Club. "They did it on Iraq, and they are doing it now on Social Security (news - web sites)."


"They exploit the politics of fear and division, while ours is a politics of hope and unity," Kennedy said.
Yahoo News source

Yes, there are plenty of economic commentators noting that Social Security is in nowhere near the level of crisis the Administration is protraying, and also noting that the privatisation solution being suggested will actually make the situation worse - for everyone except investment bankers, and maybe even for them...:

" ... Privatization wouldn't even begin to reduce the budget deficit until 2050. This is supposed to be the answer to an imminent crisis? While we waited 45 years for something good to happen, there would be a real risk of a crisis -- not in Social Security, but in the budget as a whole. And privatization would increase that risk."

"We already have a large budget deficit, the result of President Bush's insistence on cutting taxes while waging a war. And it will get worse: a rise in spending on entitlements -- mainly because of Medicare, but with a smaller contribution from Medicaid and, in a minor supporting role, Social Security -- looks set to sharply increase the deficit after 2010."

"Add borrowing for privatization to the mix, and the budget deficit might well exceed 8 percent of G.D.P. at some time during the next decade. That's a deficit that would make Carlos Menem's Argentina look like a model of responsibility. It would be sure to cause a collapse of investor confidence, sending the dollar through the floor, interest rates through the roof and the economy into a tailspin."

To get an idea of how much the government would need to borrow to cover the costs of privatization: The Social Security actuary says an inflation-adjusted $4.7 trillion over 40 years.

Surely without argument everyone would agree that the real problem with social security has always been the continual raiding of the social security fund by Congress to balance the general budget by spending the surplus in the social security fund instead of saving it for its intended use. This leaves funding for social security benefits coming solely from those who are currently working and paying into the fund. When the point comes (as it is expected to in about 15 years) when there are not enough people paying into the fund to pay the present benefits owed to people in social security, then the pyramid scheme will collapse.

Congress never should have been allowed to steal money out of the social security fund in the first place. Bush is trying to fix the fundamental problem by dedicating at least a portion of the social security fund so it must be saved for its intended use. This will force Congress to stop raiding the social security fund to balance the general budget. Nobody likes to go on a fiscal diet, and that is the source of most of the opposition to Bush's attempt at meaningful reform.

If you agree that money paid into the social security fund should stay there and not be used for anything else, then how else do you believe we should achieve this reform? Bush is actually trying to phase it in, and not make Congress go cold turkey all at once.

Actually I disagree that the real problem is Congress raiding the Fund.

The real problem is Congress spending money it doesn't have. This forces it to borrow. It may as well borrow from SS as from anywhere else.

In 20 years from now either (a) Congress will owe SS the money or (b) SS will have place the money in shares and other assets. If the later, then the need to sell those assets will drive the price down and SS will still be underfunded. To sell you have to find a buyer.

So, 20 years from now, the taxpayers have to either (a) pay taxes to repay the loans owed SS, or (b) buy the shares etc SS is selling.

In either way, 20 years from now, the money has to come from the taxpayers.

There is a simple solution - and it will be followed. The taxpayers will inflate the paper wealth of the retirees out of existence, will tax their physical assets out of existence, and will use high labor and goods prices to extract their physical wealth. The taxpayers will decide then, as today, the standard of living they are prepared to support in the retired generation.

Why do you think hospitals and retirement homes are so expensive?

/Bevin

Bevin said:

Quote:

---

Actually I disagree that the real problem is Congress raiding the Fund.

The real problem is Congress spending money it doesn't have. This forces it to borrow. It may as well borrow from SS as from anywhere else.

---

That looks like the same thing, to me.

Quote:

---

If you agree that money paid into the social security fund should stay there and not be used for anything else, then how else do you believe we should achieve this reform? Bush is actually trying to phase it in, and not make Congress go cold turkey all at once.

---

Very easy,Ron. You pass a law that says that the SS funding is not to be used except for SS. That means, it is kept out of the US budget and is in a budget of it's own.

The Congress would simply borrow from elsewhere - or print money and cause inflation.

There are two different issues here, both big problems:

1. Congress spends more than it gets outside SS

2. SS as currently structured is not viable once the baby boom retires

/Bevin