Washington, DC-15 May: (LR) Rep Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), House President Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minorities leader Charles Schuer (D-NY) and other Democrats of Congresses are conducting a rail and news interview before a body. Care and drug recipe in Rayburn’s legislation in Rayburn Room in US Tapitol. The Democratic Democratic Group urged the majority of Senate Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the strengthening of health care and reduce the cost of prescription drugs for the Senate. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Getty pictures
Social security does not go bankrupt and that is the problem. It means that politics does not work for Republicans to continue their social security selection.
As for the Democrats, what Republicans cannot do towardall in the name of selection. Since they still perceive as a worker’s party, they can “go with unique” to China “in social security, where Wall Street Republicans are not. All this, as well as politics, makes sense.
For one, the Democrats are more prone than the Republicans to mourn the gap of wealth. Except that a large driver of the latter can be found in the wealth difference between the annual income and the annual acquisition of shares. It is followed by an opportunity for the Democrats to say that they aim to enable Americans to enhance their long-term options of wealth and retirement through the ownership of the W-2 Income.
For two, think where some of the most valuable companies in the world hatch: blue states like California Loom Large. Last month, three companies in California (Databricks, Anthropic and Openai) were estimated at $ 100 billion, $ 185 billion and $ 500 billion respectively. And while all three are private companies, they will become public over time. It is followed by an opportunity for the Democrats to boast on the basis of their voters about the remarkable business that takes place in blue states and to combine it with the choice for voters of all strips to eventually gain exposure to all this innovation.
For three, on the contrary, conventional wisdom, “Wall Street” has lost a long time the democratic as it is. Think of Goldman Sachs, undoubtedly the most important investment bank in the world. When creating the choice of Americans to leave social security in favor of private accounts that can be transferred to spouses, spouses, children and grandchildren, the Democrats will have some of the most capable names in funding to help them sell their vision in the media.
Then consider what increased exposure to shares between the democratic vote for democratic politicians would mean. They could be more pre-operations precisely because their basis will potentially evolve in a more super-business way.
This is important, as businessmen such as Titans such as JP CEO Morgan Jamie Dimon describe themselves as “few democrats” in the way a frustrated Dimon did during Barack Obama’s presidency. If democratic voters have a higher percentage of their wealth exposed to US businesses, then democratic politicians can become more favorable to businesses in a way that thanks both voters and business interests. Paraphrasing John Kerry during the 2004 democratic presidential election, “you can’t love jobs and hate work creators.”
This brings us to the choice. Notice that “privatization” never mentioned this piece of opinion. With good reason. There is no privatization to talk. Proper legislation would merely allow Americans to leave a social security program that simply exposes theoretical individual social security accounts (see Flemming v. Nestor If you are doubtful) on the US dollar, in relation to the true ownership of the world’s largest businesses, many of which are based on the Bluest of Blue States. What is the point, or should be.
Not only are the Democrats unique to “go to China”, it is difficult to see where his policy to harm them, especially because Republicans should either vote with the Democrats for choice or to look like congenital socialists. Democrats should “go to China” not because they should, but because the votes are there.
