Who can manage money?
The boys' over at thereisnocrisis (TINC) latest talking point is that the Republicans have shown by their tax cuts that they can't handle money. They cite The Economist as saying that it's because of tax cuts. They conclude that this shows that Republicans can't be trusted to handle privatization.
1) I'd like to know what article is cited in The Economist. TINC isn't exactly objective about reporting what other people have to say.
2) What tax cuts? They passed a tax deferral. Once they actually cut - or even control - spending, I will be willing to agree to call the marginal rate cuts, "cuts". I agree that the Republicans have shown that they can't handle money ... any better than the Democrats.
3) However, given their interpretation of the Economist, and given the stipulation on Republican fiscal responsibility, the proper point that can be made is that by privatizing SS, they are explicitly giving control of our money away to us.
It's an interesting sleight of rhetoric to imply that by changing SS, they are being "[trusted] with the trillions that flow through Social Security." In the current system, those trillions are entrusted to whoever controls Congress and the White House; in the proposed change, you are being trusted with some of your own money (radical, eh?).
Incidentally, a while back they claimed that they were going to charter an investigation of the Cato Institute to find out whether there were evil corporate interests behind it. News Flash: Cato lists its sponsors, many of whom are successful, wealthy executives. Heck, it was founded by one. Can anyone say ad hominem? Meanwhile, I am curious as to who would pump enough money into an "ad hoc" website that they can afford to produce and air commercials?
1) I'd like to know what article is cited in The Economist. TINC isn't exactly objective about reporting what other people have to say.
2) What tax cuts? They passed a tax deferral. Once they actually cut - or even control - spending, I will be willing to agree to call the marginal rate cuts, "cuts". I agree that the Republicans have shown that they can't handle money ... any better than the Democrats.
3) However, given their interpretation of the Economist, and given the stipulation on Republican fiscal responsibility, the proper point that can be made is that by privatizing SS, they are explicitly giving control of our money away to us.
It's an interesting sleight of rhetoric to imply that by changing SS, they are being "[trusted] with the trillions that flow through Social Security." In the current system, those trillions are entrusted to whoever controls Congress and the White House; in the proposed change, you are being trusted with some of your own money (radical, eh?).
Incidentally, a while back they claimed that they were going to charter an investigation of the Cato Institute to find out whether there were evil corporate interests behind it. News Flash: Cato lists its sponsors, many of whom are successful, wealthy executives. Heck, it was founded by one. Can anyone say ad hominem? Meanwhile, I am curious as to who would pump enough money into an "ad hoc" website that they can afford to produce and air commercials?
Labels: politics
<< Home