On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:00:16 -0600 jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net writes:
> > Jim Farmelant's latest nonsense:
> >
> > > Even if at some point they succeed in getting a
> > > Democrat into the White House, what do you think
> > > is going to happen? Probably, privatize social
> > > security
> >
> > Farmelant, you're obviously a well-read person, which is why it
> takes a
> > titanic effort on your part to be this obtuse. In case you haven't
> noticed,
> > we're in the middle of a fight to preserve Social Security, a
> fight that we
> > appear to be winning at least for the time being. But it is a
> fight that we
> > would not even have to have if Kerry had won, and you have to be
> willfully
> > stupid not to know this. If you persist in trying to argue
> otherwise, you
> > are simply not worth talking to. You are living on another planet.
> >
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> > John Lacny
> > http://www.johnlacny.com
>
> I am unsure how Kerry would have dealt with SS but I think he would
> have opposed
> privatization.
During the campaign, he said that he was opposed to privatization, but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot, since once in the White House, if so inclined, he could then have "discovered" that SS really "is in crisis," and so in need of drastic reform. He would have hardly been the first Democratic president to flip-flop like that. Indeed, in Kerry's case, as the Republicans never ceased to remind us, really is a "flip-flopper."
> He made some unclear comments about private accounts
> in the past but I don't
> think he was wedded to the idea the way Bush is and would have
> probably used opposition to
> privatization as a way to define himself. That was the direction his
> campaign took so I think
> you are probably correct that this fight would not be taking place
> had Kerry won.
>
> Don't forget after Clinton did his hatched job on Welfare he had his
> sights set on private
> accounts for SS. If it were not for scandals hobbling him I think he
> would have done it too. It
> wasn't lack of desire for private accounts that was responsible for
> failing to deliver them. Clinton
> lived on this planet too I think.
As I pointed out before, it was by the grace of Monica's BJs on Clinton, that we did not get SS "reform" under his watch.
>
> A Democrat in the White House is no guarantee for SS. I think Gore
> was hot for private
> accounts too but I would have to double check that. Doesn't Hillary
> favor privatization too?
During the 2000 campaign he said that he was against private accounts, but as VP he seems to have been pretty enthusiastic for them. Again, if he had been elected president, I think he would have "discovered" that the "social security crisis" required drastic reforms.
I think that as Carrol Cox pointed out, as long as we have a Republican president, SS is probably going to be safe, since plans for "reform," like Dubya's scheme are only going to run into serious opposition from Democrats in the Senate, who would likely wage a filibuster, if need be, against them. Once, there is a Democrat in the White House, then all bets are off. It took a Democratic president to get NAFTA, GATT, and welfare reform enacted. The same is probably true for SS "reform" as well.
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>