Let's be Doug's focus group, ya'll & Bitchy asides

[pms]

>This is what I routinely do.  
>
>But there's more: it was the conservatives who originally insisted that
>SS *NOT* be an investment vehicle.  It's very important to make the
>point that it wasn't a liberal plan to set things up this way -- it was
>the result of negotiations in which liberals got the plan through, but
>not in the form they originally envisioned.
>
>-- 
>Paul Rosenberg
>Reason and Democracy
>rad at gte.net
> 
>"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
>

Paul, are you saying that the Dems originally wanted SS to be invested in
the market?

There is a certain kinda Japanese, kinda public ownership feel about the
plan. 'Course they can turn anything into a disaster, and this situation is
ripe.

And to Maggie- sorry can't find your post now.  I know about the raise in
jobs after these last mi. wage increases.  I'm just saying that within
Alan-world, this could make sense.  AG probably knows that with the
advances in tech, MNC"s are feeling like they have a new advantage over
workers.  But what I really meant to say, is that we don't know how things
would shake out, and neither do the Big Cigars really.

The whole idea that giving people more money to spend is good for
capitalism is older than Henry Ford, or whoever, but the BC's don't seem to
care usually.

Personally, I think $10 an hour is the minimum subsistance wage that should
be allowable. And that, at the very least, every working stiff should have
health,dental, and inlimited IRA deductions, with SOMEONE matching the
contributions.

Off for another Friday double. 

Have fun-p