What ownership society?

[yesthattom]

http://www.robertreich.org/reich/20040901.asp
Robert Reich clearly explains why the “Ownership Society” that Bush is pushing is a trick.

The notion is to expand private ownership through more tax cuts on capital investments, tax credits for saving, and privatized Social Security.
Sounds nice, but here’s the problem: The Republican rhetoric assumes most Americans can save and invest. The reality is, most Americans are deep in debt. Before they can join the “Ownership Society” they’ve got to pay their credit card bills, their rising variable-rate mortgages, and their auto loans. After that, there’s no money left because jobs are in short supply and wages are stuck in the mud.

Translation: Owernship Society: It’s a member’s only club, it would be ethical if it was a plan to bring MORE people into the ownership society but instead its just a plan to lock people out and help people that are already in!

Comments

[mcl.livejournal.com]

More succinctly, Bush neglected to point out a fundamental truth: in an ownership society, there are two classes: The owners, and the owned.

Americans, being Americans, like to envision themselves the owners, forgetting all the while that most of them are in fact the owned.

Not Buying It

[dballing.livejournal.com]

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not voting for the Shrub in November, but I'm sorry to say that on this point, Bush is 100% right.

It is your responsibility to prepare for your own retirement, not the government's responsibility to play Mommy for you and make sure you put money in your piggy bank.

If you can't control your debt, that's a self-responsibility issue. Lots of us, myself included, have been mired in debt and realized that we had to take corrective measures to our spending habits, and alter our perceptions of what "makes us happy". You're welcome to borrow to make your life happy "today" but I'll choose "saving to make my life happy when I can't earn money."

If you can't make that choice, that's your own concern, really.

Re: Not Buying It

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

It's a lot harder to make that choice if you've lost your job or slipped into poverty, though, like so many people have during the last 4 years. Some people really have frittered away their money, but some people did save and then had to spend it all to keep paying the rent, their medical expenses, etc. When you've been unemployed for over a year and your spouse has chronic illnesses that preclude working, for example. Sometimes shit really does just happen, and it seems like more shit's been happening in the last 4 years than in the prior 8.

Re: Not Buying It

[marmota.livejournal.com]

If you can't make that choice, that's your own concern, really.

That sounds suspiciously like the libertarian/republican "Got mine, up yours" flavor of social compassion.

On one level, certainly a high degree of personal responsibility is called for. However, on the level in question, providing at least the absolute basics of social support is the measure of the compassion of a civilization. Oddly enough, the Republicans seem to have no problem with using tax dollars to bail out *corporations*, but they start screaming bloody murder if anyone ever suggests helping *people*.

What's truly sad is that it's not just an unwillingness to provide social mechanisms to bring people into the "ownership society" at work here, it's actively obstructionist policies to widen the gap. A true war on poverty is also a war on wealth. Somehow I can't imagine either party really going for that, but at least the democrats pay some lip service to the principle.

Re: Not Buying It

[dballing.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, the Republicans seem to have no problem with using tax dollars to bail out *corporations*

You'll get no argument from me that this is wrong, wrong, wrong. The government shouldn't be in the business of bailing ANYONE out.

However, on the level in question, providing at least the absolute basics of social support is the measure of the compassion of a civilization.

I hate to break it to you but the Ponzi scheme known as "Social Security" isn't the answer.

Re: Not Buying It

[(Anonymous)]

Your logic is good for some wonderful magical imaginary plan that Bush isn't supporting. Bush's plan, if you read it, is "I've got mine, see ya, sucker!". Your plan is "Let's help bring people into the ownership society." Sadly, I don't live in your magical imaginary world.

Oh wait... the Kerry's plan actually strives to empower the lower and middle class to help them break into the ownership society!

Re: Not Buying It

[kathdem.livejournal.com]

I think there's another component that's not being mentioned anywhere, which is education...financial education. Most middle class people (myself included) were taught to "get a good job, and save money." That was the sum and substance of it. We are thrown into these "good jobs" with absolutely no idea of what to do with this 401k thingie, or just how important it might be to us someday.
And that's the middle class - the other socio-economic groups have different ingrained habits and behaviors that are even harder to overcome or re-learn. The rich teach their children much differently. Yes, I'm sort of quoting "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," but I believe it's true. So, any economic platform, IMHO, should include an educational component.
Finally, I really think there is a small portion of any society that very simply cannot, and will never learn to, help themselves. I always feel like the Republicans believe everyone can be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - but I don't think everyone can. And, even if you can, like hammercock says, sometimes shit does happen.

Re: Not Buying It

[cos]

One the one hand it sounds like you have a fundamentally different worldview than the one that I find rational, so it's hard for me to figure out how to answer your comments - it's not that I disagree with you, it's that I don't see what you say as being directly relevant (you might have the same reaction to what I think about this subject).

But the much simpler, easier to address impression I get from your comment is this: It sounds to me like you only read, and are only responding to, the excerpt Tom put in his post. Have you read the entire column?

Re: Not Buying It

[dballing.livejournal.com]

I read the whole article, and very little of it did I agree with. Taxing "success" is not the answer. We should be encouraging people to succeed, not penalizing them for doing so with higher taxes.

A fairer system would tax total wealth, and it would be administered nationally. Revenues could be distributed to communities on the basis of population...

I mean ... wow, if that isn't a wonderful rephrasing of "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability," I don't know what is, and we saw how well that system worked in practice.

The sooner we accept that the current Social Security system (which, if it wasn't run by the Feds, would meet every determining factor for an illegal Ponzi scheme) is basically destined to failure, the better off we as a society will be. We have a responsibility to those who are "in too deep" to the current system, and won't have an opportunity to make other plans, and we should bite the tax-bullet for that for a few years to come, but someone needs to have the balls to stand up and say "If you are $X years old or younger, you are not going to collect Social Security, you should start making alternate plans starting today."

It sounds to me that what the Shrub is proposing with privatizing Social Security goes a long way towards accomplishing that final result, which, to me, is a good thing.

Again, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not saying that Bush is right on much else, but simply that on this, I agree with him. :-)