Cutting social programs means lower taxes, which means higher take-home pay, more investment, higher rates of employment, fewer low-paid jobs being outsourced, all of which will lower the unemployment rate.
True, but you have to realize too, that though your federal taxes may not be used for social programs, a society is only as good as it's weakest members. How do you think these will be taken care of? Cuts are being made in areas where they shouldn't ....areas that have proven results...like the COPS program that helped reduce crime. You'd think in this age of international terrorism and homeland security that we'd want to have more first responders on the front lines every day. Oh, the government wants that so they can claim the credit, but they are too beholden to big business to make them pay for it. Instead it falls back to the middle and lower class working folks who take the hit in local taxes and property taxes. Unfunded mandates still cost money.
Also, I constantly hear the government talk about it being "our money"....well, it is...but it's an insurance program, not an entitlement program. The plan that seems to make sense to me is to encourage additional retirment savings by giving tax breaks above and beyone what IRA's and 401K programs already qualify for. Leave the Social Security safety net in place for when another World Com or Enron screws people out of the money they've invested in "secure" companies they won't have to eat catfood and drink their own urine.
Mr. Bush has been hollering about the crisis in Social Security since his failed run for congress in 1978. Sure, it needs some adjustments, but the reported crisis is quite simply overblown.
As far as working multiple jobs to make it, well, I've been there when I've had to be. I am now in a position to save some money for retirement with only working one job....that takes alot of time every week....but I like knowing that a safety net is there.
I still don't see how the job numbers are all that great when our job creation still is at a negative balance since 2000. Our job growth rate hasn't even kept pace with the population increases. Long term unemployment claims are still through the roof....and the figures don't take into account those who have dropped off the unemployment rolls because of exhausted benefits.
Do I think that this is Bush's fault entirely? no. But I do think that his flippant view of the effects of his policies don't help the situation. Having such a huge trade deficit isn't helping either...and now we're looking at a budget that doens't take into account the ever mounting costs of the war or the transitional costs of this proposed "fixing" of social security (to the tune of about 2 trillion bucks). Oh, sure, I guess we can keep mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren to the Saudis and the Chineese....but we'll be dead, so who cares, Right?
Ern