GET OVER FDR!!!!!!

[A18]

Can ANY Democrat get over the New Deal?

Is THAT UNTHINKABLE to mess with something that was created by FDR?

[Joe Republic]

I'm not a Democrat, but I'll agree to this if the Republicans can get over Reagan.

[A18]

Well, please tell all your Democratic friends that Social Security does NOT BELONG TO THEM![/i]

Republicans have to pay into this thing to, and we don't want to get screwed just because some damned liberal kooks are stuck in the 1930s!

The Democrats are acting like a bunch of little kids. Threatening to filibuster any reform just because it's "their" program, and Bush isn't allowed to touch it.

[angus]

Well, please tell all your Democratic friends that Social Security does NOT BELONG TO THEM![/i]

we won.

tonight's result from Countdown (yeah, I'm bored): 

before the speech -

support privatization:  51%
oppose privatization:  24%

after the speech -

support personal accounts:  66%
oppose personal accounts:  19%

I report.  you decide 

[A18]

Hah, if only.

I do fully expect the personal accounts to pass, and of course the Democratic opposition just contributes further to Karl Rove's brilliant plan for cementing an enduring Republican majority that will last a generation or more.

But these Shira-types are a little too obsessed with the 1930s. Not quite healthy.

[Moooooo]

Did Bush mention the 2 trillion in transition costs?  I watched the SOTU, but I dont remember if he mentioned it or not.  Anyways, someone explain to me where the money would come from?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Did Bush mention the 2 trillion in transition costs?  I watched the SOTU, but I dont remember if he mentioned it or not.  Anyways, someone explain to me where the money would come from?

Bush never mentions any fact that is inconvient to him. He's living in a fantasy world.

[Jake]

Did Bush mention the 2 trillion in transition costs?  I watched the SOTU, but I dont remember if he mentioned it or not.  Anyways, someone explain to me where the money would come from?

Bush never mentions any fact that is inconvient to him. He's living in a fantasy world.

look who's talking

[Trilobyte]

The Democrats are acting like a bunch of little kids. Threatening to filibuster any reform just because it's "their" program, and Bush isn't allowed to touch it.

If someone is trying to destroy something that touches the very core of your party's beliefs, it's reasonable to stop it at any political cost. The party has no reason to exist if you can't even defend those core beliefs.

[A18]

I'm sorry, but an optional 4% of your payroll taxes is not "destroying Social Security."

[Lunar]

I'm sorry, but an optional 4% of your payroll taxes is not "destroying Social Security."

It's not a miracle solution either.

Woah.

*I support the measure

[A18]

Woah what?

[Lunar]

Woah what?

Woah, people exaggerate crap.

[??????????]

I agree. Its time to get over discussing the dead ideas of the New Steal Deal. We are over 60 years out of the depression and if you really think about it politicians are still discussing the d*mn policies of the depression.

[opebo]

Why do you people believe there will never be another depression?

[Dr. Cynic]

Social Security is not a big issue with me. I like most actors (James Coburn, Walter Matthau, just two examples) plan on working until they die. I don't plan on retirement.

[Wakie]

This isn't a "Depression-era" issue.  Instituting personal savings accounts will mean an immediate reduction in benefits for ALL current recipients to cover administrative costs.  It will also result in a big one-time spike in the market which will be followed by a MASSIVE correction.  Some idiots will begin gambling on the market with their retirement.

I agree that something must be done to correct the problems of Social Security (we only have 40 years to fix it).  But I don't think we should do it by changing the "rules of the game" on today's senior citizens who have planned their whole lives with one set of expectations.

[A18]

This isn't a "Depression-era" issue.  Instituting personal savings accounts will mean an immediate reduction in benefits for ALL current recipients to cover administrative costs.

If this were true, I would see your point, but it's not. Bush just said NO ONE at or near retirement will see ANY change. The transition costs will be added to the national debt (it's debt we're going to end up with one way or another).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People will not be allowed to "gamble" with their retirement. There will only be a conservative choice of investment options.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you that nothing should change for people at or near retirement.

[Wakie]

This isn't a "Depression-era" issue.  Instituting personal savings accounts will mean an immediate reduction in benefits for ALL current recipients to cover administrative costs.

If this were true, I would see your point, but it's not. Bush just said NO ONE at or near retirement will see ANY change. The transition costs will be added to the national debt (it's debt we're going to end up with one way or another).

What Bush said and what the truth is are two different things.  Did you see the Fortune article about these?

[Wakie]

A nice breakdown of the private accounts program ....

http://www.cbpp.org/6-18-02socsec-pr.htm