Say Anything Blog

Since this seems obvious and nobody’s pointing it out: what Bush wants to do isn’t privatizing social security.

When the gubmint takes your money and tells you what you can do with it, that ain’t private.

What he’s offering to do is nationalize the stock market.

Joshua,

You just don’t get it, do you?  When Harry said, “most of us,” he was speaking in the universal, not the individual, sense.  Most of us do, but he doesn’t.  Didn’t then, doesn’t now.  You’re obviously misreading the quote, you partisan hack...{/sarcasm}

Regards…

What the President is offering is better than what we have now.

Patently false.  Between 60-70% of us will see a cut in benefits under the AWOL George plan.  The rest will see benefits as they are currently.

Once more, SS is not a retirement plan.

What the President is offering is better than what we have now.  If I had my way social security would only be a safety net for those who need it.  The rest of us would keep our money and establish our own retirement plans.

Sadly, that’s never going to happen.  At least this way we get to exercise a little more control.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

A cut in guaranteed benefits, yes.  What you’re not counting is the money we will be allowed to invest, which will return more in interest than the current SS program.  In short, most Americans will get more out of social security than they’re getting now.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Bush has tied himself to the saddle of the dead horse sinking in quicksand that are his morphing SS plans.
That horse stinks and those that grab the reins will go under with him.

"Allowed to invest”?! Ack. How gracious of them to ALLOW us to invest our own money in a set of gov’t-picked securities.

Of course, I have every confidence the selection of said securities will be entirely based on their historical performance and not at all on the political inclinations of the fund managers or owners. Ohio and rare coins, anyone?

What you’re not counting is the money we will be allowed to invest, which will return more in interest than the current SS program.

So, you’ll guarantee everyone will see a greater return on their money than that provided by SS?

Because if you are, there’s no solvency problem with SS.

LTM-

Nice try. Obviously you haven’t read one line of the FNC interview in question. I’ll save you the trouble. Reid was indeed referring to himself when he gave an okay for putting the money into the stock market. Your semantics arguments simply don’t hold water.

While Reid’s approval wasn’t of a plan exactly like the current GOP plan, it was an endorsement that explicity conflicts with his current language in 2005.Partisan politics without a doubt.

And by the way, I like how you pick one quote of the five to harp on (unsuccessfully albeit) and look the other way when you can’t think of some semantics related cop out on the other four. Nice work and better luck next time.

LTM was being sarcastic…

Aaron,

I was?  *grin*

Regards…

I suuuuuuuuuuuure hope so… hehe