|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
10-03-05, 07:33 PM | #21 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
i'd accept the gao's take on SS over anyone else in Washington. |
|
13-03-05, 07:55 PM | #22 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
|
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa
Did someone type non-partisan and GAO in the same sentence?
Yea, and I believe in the tooth fairy too. In fact I once wrote a letter to Santa ~~~ U sillie people need to grow up and look around a bit.
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink: |
14-03-05, 12:30 AM | #23 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Thanks for the link, TK. It didn't contain the comptroller's testimony but the report itself is informative. What I find interesting is that the report does not conclude one way or the other on Bush's specific plan and only goes so far as to say, "Some degree of implementation and administrative complexity arises in virtually all proposed changes to Social Security. However, the greatest potential implementation and administrative challenges are associated with proposals that would create individual accounts." This is weak language that doesn't actually say that this type of reform is a bad idea, just that it requires some hard work to impliment (maybe that is bad, if you're an elected official). But obviously, when Walker sat before an audience of congressmen, the opinion he expressed was meant to stir things up more than the report itself.
Weed out the spin and you find that the GAO agrees with the president on one key point: they both recognise that if something is going to be done then it needs to be done soon. When Walker said, "Social Security does not face an immediate crisis, but it does face a large and growing problem," he basically repeated what Bush said in his state of the union address but without the same sense of urgency. There's really no excuse for Congress to drag its feet on this one. When asked if private accounts would solve the problem, Walker says little more than "maybe," which is understandable. I don't believe in quick fixes and gimicks either, but private accounts could help in conjunction with other reforms. The only other suggestions so far are tax increases and benefit reductions. This early in the debate we shouldn't be limiting our options to just those three proposals. If anything we need more options to talk about, more people need to come forward and make suggestions, even if they think they're stupid ideas. It's called brainstorming, and nothing should be ruled out at this stage. In the report's conclusion it says, "It would be prudent to move forward to address Social Security now because we have much larger challenges confronting us that will take years to resolve. The fact is, compared to addressing our long-range health care financing problem, reforming Social Security should be easy lifting." In other words, this isn't such a big deal after all if Congress would only stop the pointless arguing and fix the problem. If some think the President's plan isn't so great then they should come up with alternatives. Hell, there are three or four ideas in this very thread that are worth some consideration. But if the Democrats are just going to pout and refuse to work the problem, make suggestions, and participate then those people really don't belong on Capitol Hill, do they? Time for these men and women to earn their keep, I say. If they have legitimate concerns then those need to be brought to everyone's attiontion. If they think it's too risky then they need to do the math and show everyone their work. The President might be wrong on this one, the point is that nobody knows for sure. |
16-03-05, 11:03 PM | #24 |
Push "winky" ! Push!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: north
Posts: 3,529
|
It took the world 200 years to reach a 1 billion population mark.
In the next 50 years we are going from 6 billion to 11 billion. the aging are starting to outnumber the young and it only gets worse. |
22-03-05, 01:43 AM | #25 |
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
|
Social security on e-bay
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002 "I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003 |
22-03-05, 02:29 AM | #26 |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
LOL..nice one !
|
30-04-05, 07:12 PM | #27 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
anybody still following this? if you live in the US, you should be:
Quote:
according to the prez, fixing SS means changing the rules in the middle of the game. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042801044.html |
|
30-04-05, 11:17 PM | #28 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Being the prez means making compromise after compromise just to make a few minor improvements to the system, and that rule will never change. For now the system works. The creators of SS did the math and their projections for its future have proven to be very accurate. While social security has been a helping hand people can rely on, it was never intended to be a crutch that people depend on; the moment that occurs it'll mean that SS has outlived its usefulness. Its creators knew it couldn't last indefinitely, in fact they knew its life expectancy from the start. So if the rulse are to be changed now then it is because they must be changed, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As for being f*cked: like I said before, they've already taken that money from me and I'm not going to miss it. |
01-05-05, 07:40 AM | #29 | ||
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
you are correct: it was never intended to be a crutch but by means-testing it, the Prez seems to be trying to cast it as such. you are also correct about compromises needed to govern, but this president is not famous for his ability to compromise. his "compromises" on SS will not be based upon consensus for the greater good, but rather concessions to the political realities of this wildly unpopular agenda he is pursuing. based on his track record for veracity, one also has to question his motives: why SS now? why not, f'rinstance, attempt to fix Medicare, which is certainly a crutch and is almost broke right now? why not fix the prescription drug plan, who's cost the administration completely lied about, and is arguably the biggest welfare program ever created? why not address the record high energy costs, rather than reward the oil companies with a $200 million tax break (as he has done in his new budget) at a time when the oil companies are reporting record profits? because this President has 2 constituencies: the religous Right and his corporate campaign donors....and virtually everything on his agenda is designed to please one or the other. you'll notice the main feature of his plan to "fix" SS is account privatization, which according to every single analysis, will not do a thing to make SS more solvent but will be a huge Xmas present to the investment industry. go figure. edit: interesting quote from Warren Buffet: Quote:
|
||
01-05-05, 11:20 AM | #30 | |
===\/------/\===
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
WOW! r u for real? do you work for the investment companies? |
|
01-05-05, 01:02 PM | #31 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Which investment companies would those be?
Look, I can invest in stocks with or without the help of the government, I can retire in comfort with or without the help of the government. It's still a non-issue to me, but it seems to be very important to the president's detractors. I find it hard to disagree with the things knifey writes, but I don't understand why people are so passionate about this. Maybe it is because I'm only 24 years old and for most of my life the Democrats have controlled the federal budget. I'm used to the government taking money and wasting it. But if the government is willing to give me some degree of control over how my money is wasted then I'll be happy to have it, and if not then I don't really mind. |
01-05-05, 04:15 PM | #32 | |
===\/------/\===
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
I feel betrayed, used and angry, not just by this adimin, but all of them. |
|
01-05-05, 04:42 PM | #33 | |
Keebeck Canuck
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Close to a border of LUNATICS
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
The result of this, More than a year waiting to have a critical surgery, doctors are sick and tired to tell patients that they will have to wait more than 6 month because the list is full. That is why we keep loosing our doctors to US interests. They are sick and tired to see how the system works and they cannot put up with it, so they just leave to a place they can give better care to those who have the money. Maybe you don't mind on how are things are going toward the SS in your country but I sure as hell mind as to what is happening in my country about this. Beside, nothing is ever secured, even private companies that shut down after 80 years of operation, even tho it was private funds and a private company, even tho some ppl had been working there for 40 years and have contributed to fund their future re... they got fucked and lost all their money and security without even a notice that the company was going bankrupt. That is why a REER regime is more appealing to me. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|