The Dems always have one plan. Raise taxes. Luckily it's often on somebody else, so it doesn't affect me personally.

I guess I should be more democrat friendly, but I never could bring myself to appreciate a thief just because they stole from somebody else.
[right][snapback]68115[/snapback][/right]

My new ratings scale. LB = lil bart!      Age limit? I don't remember ...
[right][snapback]68119[/snapback][/right]

So you prefer the method of stealing from the next several generations better?


[right][snapback]68121[/snapback][/right]

Stealing from the next generation was the basis of SS. Nice foundation.
[right][snapback]68290[/snapback][/right]

So does the idea of financing the transition costs with taxes queer the whole deal for you? Are you insisting that only borrowing be used?
[right][snapback]68296[/snapback][/right]

It's  borrowing now.

I'm open to some tax hikes, but not JUST tax hikes. Personally I don't see any reason other than political reality that TODAY'S seniors can't take a cut so that not only future retirees get hit. (with more taxes AND longer working lives)

If you really must increase the caps why not make it progressive? Turn it into a real welfare program and drop the charade that it's a retirement program. Means test as well.
[right][snapback]68310[/snapback][/right]

We all got the tax hikes when gas prices went up …… food too.   

Heard on NPR this morning…..

Paraphrasing:

Representatives in DC wanting Medicare and Medicaid to disperse funds to people who finally decide to quit smoking?

My question :

Was not the purpose of the lawsuit, that the states brought against the tobacco industry to alleviate the medical cost to the individual states for the people in their states who have tobacco induced breathing disorders?

What did the states do with those funds?
[right][snapback]68497[/snapback][/right]

They used them for everything but smoking related health care, of course.
[right][snapback]68513[/snapback][/right]

They used them for everything but smoking related health care, of course.
[right][snapback]68513[/snapback][/right]

Fargin' fargers and the fargin' fargs they rode in on.

After all the back-and-forth, the question does still apply: What is the President peddling on his whirlwind tour of the country?
[right][snapback]67571[/snapback][/right]

Washington -- The long-term financial condition of the Social Security system deteriorated slightly over the last year, the government reported Wednesday, and President Bush's supporters immediately said this strengthened the case for enacting a fundamental change in the program this year.

In their annual report to Congress, the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare programs said Social Security reserves would be depleted in 2041, one year earlier than was projected last year. But the trustees emphasized, as they did last year, that Medicare's financial outlook was "much worse than Social Security's," and they predicted that the monthly Medicare premiums paid by almost all Americans 65 and older would rise by 12 percent next year after a 17 percent increase this year.

The trustees said they saw a small improvement in the condition of Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund. They forecast that it would be depleted in 2020, one year later than was predicted last year.

Bush's top legislative priority this year is to transform Social Security from a government program that uses tax money to pay guaranteed benefits to retirees and disabled workers into one that allows workers to put part of their taxes into individual investment accounts.

The president concedes that personal accounts would not improve Social Security's financial condition, but he maintains that the added income retirees would receive from their investments would enable them to painlessly bear the cuts in government benefits that are needed to make the system permanently solvent.

The plan has met considerable resistance in Congress, especially from Democrats, and one of the opponents' arguments has been that the plan could remove an important safety net for the disabled.

The trustees' report did not change the financial picture much, moving forward by one year the date when the Social Security trust funds are projected to have insufficient reserves to pay full benefits. It also advanced by one year, to 2017 from 2018, the point at which benefits first exceed tax revenues.

"The report underscores the fact we need to do something," said Treasury Secretary John Snow. "The report underscores the need for legislative action."

But Democrats read the trustees' report differently, saying it showed that Medicare had much more serious problems and that Social Security would remain solvent for decades and did not have to be dealt with in a hurry.

"Today's report confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans," said Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader....

....Bush's plan faces almost unanimous opposition from Democratic lawmakers and increasing public skepticism.

Thirty-five percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Social Security, down from 38 percent in December, a March 10- 13 Washington Post-ABC News poll found. Fifty-six percent disapproved of the president's reform plan, up from 52 percent....

In their report, the trustees did not change their outlook for productivity. Their ``intermediate'' prediction expects the U.S. economy's productivity to grow 1.6 percent from 2010 to 2015 and at the same rate for the next 65 years.

Those assessments have also become part of the political debate. While Bush has cited the trustees' assumptions in his speeches, economists such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz say they underestimate the economy's likely performance.

``They're talking about a crisis as if those numbers are real,'' Stiglitz said of the Bush administration last month. ``They are made-up numbers. Totally artificial.''

Have you seen the ad from AARP?

They show a plumber looking at a drain. He declares he'll have to tear the house down.

Then the AARP voiceover says that's what congress is doing.

AARP Claims Bush's Plan Is A Homewrecker

The group's latest TV ad passes off Social Security's problems as minor; claims Bush's solution would demolish the program.

<snip>
AARP's latest Social Security ad passes off the system's serious financial problems as nothing worse than a clogged kitchen sink. It also falsely claims that creating individual accounts would "dismantle Social Security."

http://www.factcheck.org/article315.html
[right][snapback]69129[/snapback][/right]

Dueling Metaphors

Both sides are using exaggerated metaphors in this debate. Where AARP presents Social Security as having nothing worse than a stopped-up drain, the other side has depicted  it as a doomed Titanic about the strike an iceberg and sink to the bottom. Neither picture is accurate.

What would be an accurate metaphor? Since others are having so much fun with this, we'll give it a try.

The kitchen-sink metaphor is wrong because Social Security's problems grow steadily worse over time and threaten the entire benefit structure. The entire house is crumbing from within, so delaying a solution only makes the eventual repair more difficult and expensive. We would compare the problem to a termite infestation rather than a clogged sink or a sudden collision with an iceberg.

Furthermore, individual accounts by themselves don't constitute a wrecking ball as the AARP implies, any more than individual accounts alone would save the system as the President's supporters claim. It is true as the AARP ad says that substantial borrowing would be needed to create such accounts.

So we would characterize the creation of such accounts as adding a new wing to that termite-infested house, while taking out a new mortgage to pay for it. The new wing may or may not be worth the expense, but the termites are still there.

We're not sure that the image of building a new addition to a slowly deteriorating home would make a very good TV ad, but it would give a better picture of reality than either sides' ads have shown so far.

From the factcheck article above:
The president never mentions the mortgage when he's selling that new wing.
[right][snapback]69138[/snapback][/right]

From the factcheck article above:
The president never mentions the mortgage when he's selling that new wing.
[right][snapback]69138[/snapback][/right]

From the factcheck article above:
The president never mentions the mortgage when he's selling that new wing.
[right][snapback]69138[/snapback][/right]

Now that's the metaphor.
[right][snapback]69180[/snapback][/right]

From the factcheck article above:
The president never mentions the mortgage when he's selling that new wing.
[right][snapback]69138[/snapback][/right]

It's more of a refi than a second.
[right][snapback]69457[/snapback][/right]

Quit typing and drive!!
Hahahahahahaha!!!

How many times have I said something like that to cell phone users?
[right][snapback]69470[/snapback][/right]

Just blending in with the local seasoned citizens, nobody pays attention while driving down here.
[right][snapback]69511[/snapback][/right]

good friday morning

AAAUGH

FOX is running campaign ads showing a large clock with a sweeping hand ticking off the minutes…telling the American People that the DEMS do not have an alternative FIX for the SS and that they should call the congress members. Paid for by the PAC… American voters? 

No news channel that I can see is running any news on the workers who perished and or were injured at the BP explosion in TEXAS.

Wonder if the congress has allowed these corporations too much leeway in policing themselves.
At the cost of how many lives.


[right][snapback]69552[/snapback][/right]

So you have a problem with political advertisements then?
[right][snapback]69553[/snapback][/right]

I've seen steady coverage on the refinery fire ever since it happened.
[right][snapback]69556[/snapback][/right]

which news source?
[right][snapback]69559[/snapback][/right]

FOX news.
[right][snapback]69560[/snapback][/right]

Just blending in with the local seasoned citizens, nobody pays attention while driving down here.
[right][snapback]69511[/snapback][/right]

I saw more near misses and wrecks in Florida than any other state I've been in. And I avoid the state like the plague during peak season.

I would'nt be surprised if motorcycle insurance is reeeeeal expensive.
[right][snapback]69565[/snapback][/right]

They probably just have to cover funerals. It's not likely you're going to damage a car too much.
[right][snapback]69566[/snapback][/right]

ooohhh   
[right][snapback]69562[/snapback][/right]

They probably just have to cover funerals. It's not likely you're going to damage a car too much.
[right][snapback]69566[/snapback][/right]

That way if you get into an accident, it's not your fault, you weren't paying attention.
[right][snapback]69513[/snapback][/right]

That's what I thought, till I hit another motorcycle.
[right][snapback]69689[/snapback][/right]

By the way, I find in any discussion between men and women, it is best to preface a request with "If you love me, you will ...."
[right][snapback]69697[/snapback][/right]

I think insurance companies worry more about human damage than body damage. My motorcycle insurance was a pretty good deal, but I never expected to collect much on it personally.
[right][snapback]69698[/snapback][/right]

An "accident" is never anyone's fault. It's just an "accident." That's exactly why a dozen or so years back, the National Transportation Safety Board, I believe it was, advocated an end to calling traffic crashes "accidents," and calling them wrecks, crashes or collisions so as to call people's attention more rightfully to them.

Words do matter, and it was a terrific suggestion ... that has been very little followed. In that I am passionate almost to the point of rabid about these issues, I seized your little joke by way of making this comment.

If you love me, you will never again call road crashes "accidents." Of course they are not "on purpose," but most could be preventable with attention -- exactly the ingredient arebuntz joked about  -- and there are hundreds of thousands annually, at a cost of 40 or 50 thousand lives and zillions in property damage.
[right][snapback]69696[/snapback][/right]

The more you stand to collect personally, the more dead you are.
[right][snapback]69700[/snapback][/right]

And MCs are a good way to wind up dead. I always bought the minimum.
[right][snapback]69702[/snapback][/right]