Hey, who you call'n backwards!

"These people are motivated by a vision of the world that is backward and barbaric,"

This is how GW describes the Iraqui insurgents. I'm sure he meant muslims in general but I won't go there in this rant. It seems to me that the same could be said of Mr. Bush and his cronies. Let's take stem cell research or abortion rights or gay marriage rights...depending on where you're standing, aren't his views backward and perhaps barbaric to some? Certainly Mr. Bush should resonate with the insurgents' very strong desire to mold a society where everyone looks, prays and behaves exactly the same way (as long as it their way).

The theological societies that exist in the middle east, after all, are exactly the model that the neo conservatives aspire to isn't it? Different religion...same god...same conformity guidelines. I see very little difference between the righteous muslims and righteous neocons in this country. Both are scary. I observe however, that our neocons are ten times more deadly than the insurgents.

So as not to perpetuate this view in my own mind, I'd like to acknowledge that not all conservatives are fanatics. Further, being conservative can have great benefits- especially where financial matters are concerned. Just don't let your life depend on one.

Am I a conservative?

I just about drove off the road while listening to Dubbya's latest Social Security "bail out" plan. I can't tell anymore whether he's leaning port or starboard. Let me explain.

His first attempt was to privatize a part of social security. While I didn't, and still don't agree with this after losing half of my net worth in the market, I could at least understand why a conservative would invent such an approach. Afterall, what would be more consistent than to dump a huge amount of tax collected cash into the hands of large conservative busnessmen? The Bushie's last idea is so diametrically opposed with this original view that it makes you wonder. Let me explain.

The current proposal would implement a graduated benefit based on some income test that would result in low income folks (less than $35K) getting more money and people who make more than 90K losing 50% of their benefits. If you're between these two figures, in other words, you are in the middle class, you get to lose aroung 35% of whatever benefits you were expecting. Doesn't this look like a liberal welfare program? Well, it does to me. I'm not totally opposed to the concept here but I'm surprised the Republican's aren't.

It seems to me that the problem with Social Security is that we have a baby boomer generation about ready to retire (if they can) and the current base won't be able to support them. Now, the current administration predicts the system will have to reduce benefits by 2040. That's 35 years from now. Without doing any real analysis, wouldn't you think that by 2040, many of these boomers will start to die off- effectively reducing the total number of folks supported by social security? This should normalize the system or even improve it. Remember that you can't collect social security without severe penalites until your 65 or so. Anyway, much of what's being said doesn't seem to add up. All I know is that the current administration has a serious case of schyzophrenia.