Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Putin's wisdom, was GWB at it again..

Expand Messages
  • Terminus Technicus
    ... another Slovak interview re the Blava Summit yesterday, this time with Putin and in flawless Russian, to a careful question about human rights, Putin said
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ... another Slovak interview re the Blava Summit yesterday, this time with
      Putin and in flawless Russian, to a careful question about human rights,
      Putin said that big Western democracies also have problems in this area, and
      that he doesn't go around picking on it... Hmm, wonder what he'll say to GWB
      when he does his little private talk (if the does...)

      M
    • James Kirchner
      ... No, come to think of it, you didn t say it was good. Sorry for the oversight. ... That is if they don t tailor the plan in such a way as to provide for
      Message 32 of 32 , Feb 28, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 08:27 AM, Michael Grant wrote:

        > On Feb 27, 2005, at 9:40 PM, James Kirchner wrote:
        >
        > > Beyond that, you're going to have to explain to me why a society-wide
        > > flow-through redistribution scheme is good.
        >
        > Why would I have to do that--did I say it was good?

        No, come to think of it, you didn't say it was good. Sorry for the
        oversight.

        > I was just pointing
        > out that those who complain about the poor "return" they're getting on
        > their SS "investment" are implicitly leaving two generations of seniors
        > in the lurch.

        That is if they don't tailor the plan in such a way as to provide for
        the seniors and the very poor while the thing is being fully
        privatized. They're going to have to. Once you've got a Ponzi scheme
        going, it's hard to call it off without a lot of people suffering.

        > My personal view is that SS should probably be cut back and turned into
        > a pure anti-poverty program to provide a minimum decent level of
        > sustenance for those who need it. Everyone else probably *can* do
        > better with real private-sector investments, not pseudo-private
        > "individual accounts" in a gummint system.

        I agree with you there. But it sounds to me as if Bush really is
        proposing really private individual accounts but under intense gummint
        scrutiny. I just hope the scrutiny is intense enough and that no one
        throws a wrench into it. We've already had that bad savings & loan
        failure, in which, contrary to what some claim, the banking regulations
        were in place to prevent catastrophe, but certain people in Congress
        threatened the inspectors and prevented them from enforcing the
        regulations. Account holders lost a lot of their savings, and those
        Congressmen merely got written reprimands.

        Jamie


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.