There's now intense discussion about Social Security.  It is deserved.  BUT what will 
be the VEHICLE to carry any conclusion/recommendation forward, the Democrats?

I understand that Clinton was going to undermine SS along the lines Bush will be 
suggesting, but his impeachment saved the day and we gained time.  Now, GWB is going 
to have to move fast, as the major economic crisis could come as early as next year 
and not later than 2007, as fossil fuel supplies diminish (to be reflected in dramatic 
price rises).  If I am correct, at best there are certain oil fields scheduled to come 
on line by 2007, but nothing important thereafter, thus my reference to 2007.

Paul Z.

*************************************************************************
Vol.21-Neoliberalism in Crisis, Accumulation, and Rosa Luxemburg's Legacy
RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Zarembka/Soederberg, eds, Elsevier Science
********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka


Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, on 11/05/04:

>What will happen is that Team Bush and House Republicans will offer a FULL
>FIX of Social Security; then, Democrats in the House and Senate will make
>a counter offer of HALF A FIX.  They will wrangle, and they will pass a
>60% FIX, as "a genuinely bipartisan reform of Social Security."  The
>Democrats will come back to unions and non-profits and tell them that they
>SAVED Social Security from the RADICAL RIGHT. Union and non-profit
>bureaucrats will quietly protest to the Democrats in private, but when
>leftists raise the issue in public, union and non-profit bureaucrats will
>turn around and defend the Democrats from us.  Fast forward to 2006.  The
>Democrats, as well as union and non-profit bureaucrats, tell voters that
>they SAVED Social Security from the RADICAL RIGHT and exhort them to vote
>for Democrats to SAVE Social Security from the RADICAL RIGHT AGAIN.
>Voters are unimpressed.  The Democratic Party loses more seats.  Repeat
>this cycle several times, and Social Security will be gone -- not with a
>bang, but with a whimper.
>--
>Yoshie

Reply via email to