[OT]America. The land of the not-so-free (economy)

[Randy Edwards]

   Dana, I too tried to keep out of this thread, and likewise failed.

 >> As far as Social "Security", it's socialism at its finest.

   I suppose that label is supposed to automatically and magically smear what 
is the US gov'ts most popular and widely supported social program.  Socialism 
or not, millions of Americans love and count on social security.

 >> It was a failed system from the start,

   Based on what?  Social security has been wildly successful and stable.  It 
has always been hated by the right wing of the country.  The undermining of 
social security started when LBJ took what was a separate tax and payment 
program and integrated it into the main federal budget as part of LBJ's 
efforts to hide the costs of the Vietnam War.

 >> as now millions have come to rely on a system that is fundamentally
 >> not sustainable 

   This conveniently ignores the reality that several presidents have raided 
the social security trust fund to pay for things like military increases, the 
S&L bailout, and general budget deficits.

   But even after that, social security is easily sustainable.

   The bottom line is that social security has no real problems -- this is a 
fake "crisis" designed to privatize the system and to pump money into Wall 
Street.

   As researched by one journalist, "In 1994, the system was supposed to go 
bust in 2029, a mere 35 years from the date of prediction. Now, it's supposed 
to go bust in 2042, 38 years down the road.  According to the 
[Republican-controlled] Congressional Budget Office, using a more realistic 
model, the trust fund will run out in 2052, and even then it will cover 81 
percent of the promised benefits."

   We could "fix" social security easily.

   By revoking ONE-FOURTH of Bush's tax cuts or by just keeping the estate tax 
(the "death tax" in the Republican propaganda language), we could guarantee 
social security out past the end of the century.

   But of course, those solutions don't address the "real" problem -- the 
desire by the right to privatize what is the gov'ts most widely supported 
social program and to pump the money into corporate coffers.

 > If you're not aware, the Heritage Foundation is quite staunchly
 > conservative,

   I think that's an understatement.

 > Again, sorry to keep the thread going, I just wanted people to be aware of
 > who the Foundation really is.

   That's the key.  With the increasing concentration and monopolization of 
various "public interest" groups and the corporate mass media, it's critical 
to know who is behind the scenes setting the agenda.

 Regards,
 .
 Randy

-- 
"Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we 
choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose 
between Tweedledum and Tweedledee." -- Famous American socialist (and blind 
person) Helen Keller, 1911