What A Rich Nation Should Really Be Doing About Social Security

[dweller]

by Gar Alperovitz

Listening to the debate between the Administration and even its most adventurous critics one would imagine that
only an extremely limited range of Social Security options are even conceivable. One would also imagine that we live
in an extremely poor society which is ultimately going to have to find ways to squeeze its seniors financially or
somehow we will all perish. The truth is radically different.

This is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. A serious progressive strategy should go far beyond the
current debate by building upon this self-evident fact. It should affirm the goal of a truly bountiful–rather than
penny-pinching–future for its citizens when they retire. Here is the ball to keep your eye on:

If the United States does merely as well in the 21st Century as it did during the difficult depression and
war-dominated 20th Century, we Americans will be producing the equivalent of approximately $1 million a year for
every four people by century’s end–and the top 1% of households will be making an estimated $9-10 million. Clearly,
if we so choose, we can afford a very, very generous plan.

Oddly so far just about the only people who seem to recognize the obvious reality that a rich nation will be able to
afford more rather than less as technological progress continues are a couple of maverick (but very high placed!)
conservatives. Thus:

more ideas here

dp

[randr]

1. The Bush Mantra

All for one
and one for ME

[kcwayne]

2. Except for the fact that the US is being transformed into a third world

country before our eyes.

The US cannot produce products that can compete in a world economy as long as the labor cost is the primary differentiator in pricing and profitability. As such, our trade deficit will continue to soar, and our economic viability will deplete in direct proportion to the loss of raw materials (such as timber and scrap metal) that we export grow scarce.

As third world nations catch up to us in the ability to deliver high values services in engineering, medical, legal, and financial, and they are well down the path in this area, what is left for us?

We won't see rising productivity and product output as the author of this ridiculous opinion suggests. We do need to work out a long term solution to keep SS funded, because the population demographics in conjunction with the stripping of assets from this country make the future very uncertain.

[tom_paine]

3. That would be a Rich, FREE Nation, however, this is Amerika we are

discussing and as such, a Tyrannical One-Party Orwellian Totalitarian Nation, will continue to do what it's been doing, rob and steal and defraud and lie.

Amerika, Land of TV and Home of the Virtual Slave...

[unblock]

4. if the 21st century is as good as the "difficult" 20th century??

from the point of view of america increasing it's overall wealth, the 20th century was not at all "difficult". in fact, it was a virtually uninterrupted bonanza. the wars we had were not on our soil (with the exception of pearl harbor, 9/11, and a few stray nazi subs) and often led not only to increased world prestige, but also provided an economic boom that usually lasted well past the war itself.

in any event, the 20th century took us from a fragmented, isolationist country with a limited infrastructed to a humming economy that's completely dominating the world economy.

we're simply NOT going to have another century that good to us.


that being said, we certainly are in a position to do better as far as social security goes. the banana republicans want nothing but to take us back to the ugly beginnings of the 20th century.

[buzzard]

5. Have a look at this article a d let me know what you think, it paints

a far different picture and one which I believe is closer to the truth.


http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FRA501A.html

[dweller]

7. i've read it, and have read like before

and believe much of what it reports as true, esp. in regards to the current SocSec troubles. Of course, some of the details will be argued by others here as supporting republican talking points, but i've not seen the evidence that it's not true.

thanks for the link.
dp

[MojoXN]

6. I GOT IT!

I just figured it out. No, seriously. If America collectively spurned Bushy's tax cuts in perpetuity, it would probably go a long way toward providing for America's elderly and infirm for at least a few years. Now, if we could get the money back that was pissed away for two long term, occupational wars, so much the better. That'd be another few years. Finally, we could seize all of the personal assets of Bushy and his corrupt bunch of Fuckheads, and invest them in Creative Technologies, the company that makes oil out of anything, or a promising fusion research organization. When the company goes public, we take those millions (that have turned into tens of billions by then) and further fund Social Security. What do you think? Now if we really wanted to get serious, we'd confiscate the assets of all the big money Bushy donors. They can get by with siginificantly less if they can afford to drop hundreds of thousands of dollars on Bushy. All their wealth combined would probably fill the gap, provided it was judiciously handled by a competent (non-Republicunt) steward. Hmmph, perhaps one day I'll be vindicated.

MojoXN