We hold these truths to be self evident….
After not being able to hear the state of the union address I had to listen to AM talk radio as I usually do for the recap. For the most part it sounded like a very positive and motivational speech with what some people are saying George Bush looking the most confident he has seemed in a long time. Of course the curmudgeon democratic party had to piss on the parade and bitch and moan about everything because they are sore losers. A side note, I previously heard a setup for a report on FOX to the extent of Bill Clinton agreeing with Bush on the Social Security plan (YEAH!) and why. I missed the report but was intrigued by the idea that Bush and Clinton had somehow agreed somewhere in their plans. So today I am driving to work when Rush points out that in Clintons second term he mentioned the need for private accounts of social security and the same democrats who were sucking lemons during the state of the union last night were exploding in applause. Hmm that’s just funny, once again proving that Democrats do not have a platform other than “whatever the republicans are doing we are planning to do the oppositeâ€. And by planning I mean we will say that everything they do is wrong and we have a better plan but will never divulge it hence making the American public think that we do have a solution when really all we plan to do is lower taxes and cut spending everywhere to make it seem like we are doing something *coughcoughClintonmilitarycuts*. Pick up some other gab about this on Literal Barrage.
February 4th, 2005 at 7:42 am
Clinton wanted to use 15% of Social Security to invest in the private industry. Actually, bot W and C wanted to let that be an option for each individual person. This would kind of mean that you would actually see the money you invested. I wouldn’t magically dissapear into some old fart’s hands. (I’m talking about our politicians, not grandma and grandpa-they don’t really get that much either.) Bush only wants to let us invest 4% or something like that because it is more safe. When Clinton suggested this the Republicans probably didn’t like it because it was too much money, but now the Dems think doing it at all is wrong.
February 4th, 2005 at 10:09 am
I haven’t been following the proposals. The President says he wants to allow us to invest 4%. 4% of what exactly? I thought I heard 4% of our retirment taxes? Hopefully I’m wrong, but it just seems like in the end it’s hardly anything at all.
But one “brilliant” Democratic leader actually said something that I believe. This leader suggested that in reality, Bush and the conservatives want to end social security altogether. I think that’s the end goal, even though it is probably not achievable.
February 4th, 2005 at 10:21 am
I am a cheap selfish pig bastard explitive adjective blah blah blah. As I see it, it is my money let me invest it how I want. If people do not want to “worry” about their retirement accounts, their money gets stuck in a stable index that will give them 3% or something small. I want the ability to work with my money like I work with my 401K and make the most out of it under my own control. Oh yeah and I don’t want my money going to other people who aren’t putting in as much as I am into the American Dream. DAMN FREELOADING HIPPIES!!!
February 4th, 2005 at 10:50 am
All they need to do is keep raising the age you have to be to collect social security. That way, you’ll be dead before you can get your money back. Oh, wait, they already did that. So, basically, they take the money and give themselves raises.
February 4th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
That’s exactly how it was founded. The age for benefits was a few years above the average life expectancy.
I personally have no qualms with increasing the age. That’s especially true if I can control a greater percentage of my money.
When the government effectively removes so many of the safety nets they have set up, people may start to actually worry about their financial state.