<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shock Therapy: The Big Lie</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-the-big-lie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-the-big-lie/</link>
	<description>a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:29:32 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: AJ Nasreddin</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-the-big-lie/#comment-8802</link>
		<dc:creator>AJ Nasreddin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-the-big-lie/#comment-8802</guid>
		<description>I got a letter from the folks at Social Security some years back. It seems that because I moved abroad and was out of the system, they wanted to inform me that if I didn&#039;t work and contribute for 30 years, I wouldn&#039;t qualify to recieve payments from them in the future! What social security is that? Imagine some poor dude who only worked for 29 years - he basically looses anything he put in and will probably retire to the street.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I got a letter from the folks at Social Security some years back. It seems that because I moved abroad and was out of the system, they wanted to inform me that if I didn&#8217;t work and contribute for 30 years, I wouldn&#8217;t qualify to recieve payments from them in the future! What social security is that? Imagine some poor dude who only worked for 29 years &#8211; he basically looses anything he put in and will probably retire to the street.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deadbeat</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-the-big-lie/#comment-8775</link>
		<dc:creator>Deadbeat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-the-big-lie/#comment-8775</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Social Security was set up as a self-funding program. It’s currently running multi-billion-dollar surpluses. Its finances and benefits have nothing to do with the general budget, or didn’t, until Alan stuck his paws in. Is he senile? Doesn’t he remember what he did and said in 1983?&lt;/i&gt;

Actually it was LBJ that &quot;unified&quot; the budget in 1969.  Prior to 1969, Social Security was not considered part of the general fund.  In order to understate spending on the Vietnam War, the Democrats put forth a scheme to &quot;unify&quot; the budget.  The pie chart that is published by the government makes it appears that &quot;social spending&quot; is 1/2 of all government spending.  This is a sham and a charade designed to deceive the public.

Therefore while there is a lot of writers focus on Bush and the Republicans there needs to be an analysis of the role the Democrats are playing.  In fact in 1994, Robert Reich, as head of the Labor Dept under Bill Clinton, projected that Social Security was headed for bankruptcy.  He projected that over the next 75 years the U.S economy was going to grow at a rate  of 1.5%/year.  A rate that was 0.4% &lt;i&gt;below&lt;/i&gt; the Great Depression rate of 1.9%/year.   The average of the previous 75 years was 2.5%/year.  Even at a modest growth rate of 2.2%/year, Social Security is fiscally sound.

This was exposed by Doug Henwood of Left Business Observer at the time however the media and many Democrats still claim that Social Security is in &quot;crisis&quot; or going bankrupt. 

Both parties has designs on screwing the working class out of the Social Security.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Social Security was set up as a self-funding program. It’s currently running multi-billion-dollar surpluses. Its finances and benefits have nothing to do with the general budget, or didn’t, until Alan stuck his paws in. Is he senile? Doesn’t he remember what he did and said in 1983?</i></p>
<p>Actually it was LBJ that &#8220;unified&#8221; the budget in 1969.  Prior to 1969, Social Security was not considered part of the general fund.  In order to understate spending on the Vietnam War, the Democrats put forth a scheme to &#8220;unify&#8221; the budget.  The pie chart that is published by the government makes it appears that &#8220;social spending&#8221; is 1/2 of all government spending.  This is a sham and a charade designed to deceive the public.</p>
<p>Therefore while there is a lot of writers focus on Bush and the Republicans there needs to be an analysis of the role the Democrats are playing.  In fact in 1994, Robert Reich, as head of the Labor Dept under Bill Clinton, projected that Social Security was headed for bankruptcy.  He projected that over the next 75 years the U.S economy was going to grow at a rate  of 1.5%/year.  A rate that was 0.4% <i>below</i> the Great Depression rate of 1.9%/year.   The average of the previous 75 years was 2.5%/year.  Even at a modest growth rate of 2.2%/year, Social Security is fiscally sound.</p>
<p>This was exposed by Doug Henwood of Left Business Observer at the time however the media and many Democrats still claim that Social Security is in &#8220;crisis&#8221; or going bankrupt. </p>
<p>Both parties has designs on screwing the working class out of the Social Security.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hannah</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-the-big-lie/#comment-8700</link>
		<dc:creator>hannah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-the-big-lie/#comment-8700</guid>
		<description>Correction:  The link for reference 6. was inadvertently duplicated at reference 9.  The correct link for reference 9 is: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/iraq/main580998.shtml</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correction:  The link for reference 6. was inadvertently duplicated at reference 9.  The correct link for reference 9 is: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/iraq/main580998.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/iraq/main580998.shtml</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
