DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
First, the noted liberal commentator, Michael Kinsley gets caught making sense...
...the plan he's [Bush] backing is highly progressive. Benefits for low- income workers would keep rising with average wages, as now, but benefits for middle- and high-income people would be geared more toward merely keeping up with inflation. This allows Bush to say that no one's benefits would be cut, although some people would be getting up to 40% less than they are currently promised. But in the swamp of Social Security politics, that is really minimal protection from the alligators.

So Democrats now face a choice: Are they going to be alligators on this one? Why Bush has taken this on remains a mystery. There is no short-term political advantage, and there are other real long-term problems that are more pressing. But he has done it, to his credit.
Was that a compliment paid to the BusHitler? Why, yes, it was. That was also, if you missed it, an admission from the left that Bush's plan is not a "cut." Now, will the media stop calling it one? I won't hold my breath...

Next, Matt Miller, writing for the New York Times no less, has this...
Under today's system of "wage indexed" benefits, every new cohort of retirees is guaranteed a higher level of real benefits than the previous generation. Workers retiring in 2025, for example, are scheduled to receive payments 20 percent higher in real terms than today's retirees. Today's teenagers are slated to get a 60 percent increase. When Democrats cry about "cuts," they mean trims from these higher levels.
A Democrat might ask: Why would we ever change this way of calculating benefits, other than from some Scroogelike desire to slow the rise in future benefits? Well, we probably wouldn't think about it if we weren't on the cusp of the biggest financial crunch in American history. But we are. And with the baby boomers' retirement looming, Democrats need to think beyond Social Security alone to think intelligently about achieving progressive goals.

Indeed, if you care about social justice and economic growth, the big policy question for the next generation is this: How do we square the needs of seniors with the needs of the rest of America, at levels of taxation that don't strangle the economy?


Those who say today's Social Security structure is sacred are arguing that our top priority - before we even consider anything else - must be to guarantee that every senior will enjoy real benefit increases in perpetuity.
The emphasis is mine. This is what I've been trying to get lefties to see for a decade: The best way for you to accomplish your pie-in-the-sky progressive social agenda is to make everybody prosper using conservative supply-side economic principles. As long as you keep stealing the money from hard working people with taxes everybody suffers and only a few prosper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Bush should've chosen to spend his political capital on Medicare first. It is both much more imminent and much more of an unfunded liability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
00ChryslerIntrepid said:
Bush should've chosen to spend his political capital on Medicare first. It is both much more imminent and much more of an unfunded liability.
Well he chose to work on Social Security (which more people were more concerned about, anyway). It doesn't matter if Medicare is a bigger problem if the people demand action on something else. Social Security was a campaign issue and Bush is trying to follow through.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Bush and the Republicans seem to have selectively applied this "acting on what the people demand" mantra.

A lot of people (probably a majority) didn't approve of what Bush and the Republicans did with regards to Terri Schiavo... but that didn't stop Bush and the Republicans from doing it anyway.

Bush also campaigned on reforming Medicare.

The people would probably demand action on Medicare first if the President and the Republican-controlled Congress put as much effort into warning us about Medicare's more immediate and more burdensome problems as they did about Social Security.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,239 Posts
00ChryslerIntrepid said:
A lot of people (probably a majority) didn't approve of what Bush and the Republicans did with regards to Terri Schiavo... but that didn't stop Bush and the Republicans from doing it anyway.
Oh boo hoo, what happened with Terri was the right thing to do. The simple fact was that it was proved that it was Terri's wish to die in a situation like that, and the current laws provided for that option. End of debate. Now there were tons of related arguments that sprung up that had some good debates but thats not what matters in this specific incident.

As for medicare, yes it needs reformed and so does social security. Maybe he should have chosen to work on medicare first, but both need done and I'm just glad hes trying to do something for the American people. My beef with his social security plan is that the whole privitization of funds needs to go, the other part of his plan is great and the only practical solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
CaptainMorgan said:
Oh boo hoo, what happened with Terri was the right thing to do. The simple fact was that it was proved that it was Terri's wish to die in a situation like that, and the current laws provided for that option. End of debate. Now there were tons of related arguments that sprung up that had some good debates but thats not what matters in this specific incident.
Your sentiment is not what I was arguing against. I'm saying that a majority of the country felt just the same way about it as you did and, in spite of that, GWB and the Republicans decided to overreach on it with a Terri Schiavo law.

As for medicare, yes it needs reformed and so does social security. Maybe he should have chosen to work on medicare first, but both need done and I'm just glad hes trying to do something for the American people. My beef with his social security plan is that the whole privitization of funds needs to go, the other part of his plan is great and the only practical solution.
Yes, the private accounts thing didn't particularly sell well in the court of public opinion. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, but they were initially touted as essential to fixing Social Security when they were, in fact, just a shifting of the money from one place to another; they didn't really fix the underlying problem(s).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Do you guys have personal retirement accounts? 401K? Anything? I do and my personal account grows much, much faster than my SS fund can ever hope to. What is the friggen problem you people seem to have with investing more of your own money in an account that will earn more and you control? Besides, it's optional. You know, choice, one of the things you libs are always going on about.

I swear, if you sheep were dying of thirst and Bush offered you a drink, you'd refuse.
 

·
Mopar or No Car
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
RapidTransit said:
Do you guys have personal retirement accounts? 401K? Anything? I do and my personal account grows much, much faster than my SS fund can ever hope to. What is the friggen problem you people seem to have with investing more of your own money in an account that will earn more and you control? Besides, it's optional. You know, choice, one of the things you libs are always going on about.
:beat:

And will it also be optional to retire your ass to a grave if your finances fall through or you spend it all before The End - you know, instead of you being a burden on Society due to your financial stupidity?

Hell, if we're all gonna' be allowed to do that then the second I turn 65 I'm taking all MY money and party my ass off 'til I'm 70 (if the money lasts that long). THEN I'll let Social Security support me even though I've contributed nothing to it. Hey, great idea RT - sounds just like a Republican ...!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
RapidTransit said:
Do you guys have personal retirement accounts? 401K? Anything? I do and my personal account grows much, much faster than my SS fund can ever hope to. What is the friggen problem you people seem to have with investing more of your own money in an account that will earn more and you control? Besides, it's optional. You know, choice, one of the things you libs are always going on about.
Do you ever, you know, read what I type? I said I'm not necessarily opposed to private accounts. I also said that, alone, they won't fix SS... which is true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
00ChryslerIntrepid said:
Do you ever, you know, read what I type? I said I'm not necessarily opposed to private accounts. I also said that, alone, they won't fix SS... which is true.
Did I name you specifically?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
RapidTransit said:
Did I name you specifically?
No. My comment was simply to avoid any misinterpretation of my stance on private accounts.

.. and when you said "you guys" followed later by "you libs", it seemed like I was part of the "you guys".
 

·
Mopar or No Car
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
RapidTransit said:
I swear, if you sheep were dying of thirst and Bush offered you a drink, you'd refuse.
It probably wouldn't be water. He'd say it was water and he might even believe that telling me it's water is in my own best interest even though he knows it's a lie - but it wouldn't be what I really need ...
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top