Or my favorite. Failing to plan is planning to fail.
I see another sellout coming on...
Tom
Max Sawicky wrote:
> Big difference is Bush's plan is a 'carve-out.'
> He uses payroll tax revenues. Gore's does not;
> it's a new tax cut.
>
> Gore's is not terribly different from what Clinton
> proposed two years ago. This did have the danger
> that a system of private accounts linked to tax
> revenues potentially made it easier administratively
> to privatize Soc Sec. On the other hand, it was a
> pretty straight-forward redistribution of wealth.
> Not huge, but progressive in its own way.
>
> the potentially depressing effect of such policies
> on employment is a separate question, and in light
> of recent experience not very compelling, since
> employment has been so high in the face of significant
> deficit reduction.
>
> Most people have nothing in the way of wealth other
> than homes, vehicles, household durables, and Soc
> Sec. Many don't even have bank accounts and end up
> paying more for simple financial services. the issue
> of those with no saving or bank is important and should
> not be left to the Demonaderepubs.
>
> mbs
>
> Anyone notice that Gore is now changing his tune again on the
> privatization of social security? Moving more towards the Bush
> position. Only Gore wants to use federal matching funds? Gorebush.
> Anyone got the details.
>
> Here's an interview by Doug's competitor the Bob Kuttner of Ralph Nader,
>
> http://www.prospect.org/archives/V11-15/kuttner-r-conversation.html
>
> Tom Lehman