State of the Union

Deward · Post by **Deward** » February 3, 2005, 12:07 pm

I figured someone would have started this topic already.

I thought Bush started out well when he promised more funding for alternative fuels and trimming 150 programs in the government. I will interested to see what is on that list. I also liked his Pell grant promises even though I am past college.

He lost me when he started on his right wing crap though. The gay marriage ban and anti-research on fetuses made me change the channel.

Four years ago he promised alternative energy sources as well and never came through. I hope it isn't just hot air again.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 3, 2005, 12:23 pm

Other than the marraige topic... I was very impressed by this speech last night. His speaking was much better (if you get a look at his written copy, you can see they've underlined the sections of words to be spoken together).

He has gigantic balls. To call out Saudi Arabia and Egypt the way it was done, and Syria and Iran the way that was done.. in the middle of dramatically shifting US policy to supporting and putting over 300 million into Palestine....

I'm looking forward to these next few years.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 3, 2005, 12:33 pm

i watched the Wake Forest v. Duke basketball game.

It was awesome!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 3, 2005, 12:50 pm

He picked up some support in a few areas:

(CNN) -- President Bush's State of the Union address raised support for his policies on health care and Social Security among people who watched the speech, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Wednesday night.

It's a CNN poll though so who knows : )

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 3, 2005, 1:07 pm

Voronwë wrote:i watched the Wake Forest v. Duke basketball game.

It was awesome!

damn you! fucking devils for the last few years get too cocky and start fucking shit up after a good start. damn damn damn! good speech though, excespt for the gay marriage part. and the lib's are fucking stoopid for booing at his comment that social security will be in major trouble in 20 years. they all want to save the enviornment, which is good, but don't want to fucking touch social security. i say fuck social security. give me back my money and let me choose to spend it, save it, snort it, or whatever the fuck i want to do with it.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 3, 2005, 2:03 pm

Bush gave a speech last night?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 3, 2005, 2:40 pm

Well he didn't look as retarded as he has in some of his previously horrific speeches.

His financial plan (which we will see next week in more detail) looked as retardedly unrealistic as Reagan's used to.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » February 3, 2005, 3:35 pm

They have fine tuned the implant chips allowing him to speak "naturally".

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 3, 2005, 3:49 pm

It was a great speech. It had some really nice moments. The Duke game was really good too! Reddick was en fuego!

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 3, 2005, 3:56 pm

It's going to take years to reconstruct America...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 3, 2005, 5:10 pm

Lohrno wrote:It's going to take years to reconstruct America...

Fish much?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 3, 2005, 5:13 pm

I find it very hypocritical of you to call someone else a troll.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 3, 2005, 5:46 pm

Lynks wrote:I find it very hypocritical of you to call someone else a troll.

I state my opinion. You call it trolling, but 99 times out of 100, I am just speaking my mind. You want to believe I am just trolling or shirk off what I am saying as trolling, but it is not. I rarely get kicks out of saying things just to get a rise out of people.

Nice try though. WOOT I WIN AGAIN *does a dance in his underwear*

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 3, 2005, 5:46 pm

Little something called the State of the Union Address =p

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 3, 2005, 5:53 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:blah blah I just speak my mind and I dont troll blah blah

So you werent trolling here? http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=12644
or here? http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=12994
or here? http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=12608

I could go on, but I made my point though I doubt you can process this information.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 3, 2005, 5:55 pm

Seriously midnyte, you do troll A LOT.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 3, 2005, 7:35 pm

I consider just about everything he said irrelavent, considering the only actual promise he has made good on in any of his previous State of the Empire addresses is the funding abstenance based sex education. He has basically gone back on every other promise made at this speech the last couple times out and I don't see him changing the pattern as a second term president. I did find it amusing that Osama wasn't even mentioned once (compared to the tons of times he got mentioned last two times) and that he got booed by partisan dems when he started rolling out his vague Social Security privatization plan.

The only value the speech has at all is for people like Midnyte to be able to achieve erection for the next couple weeks while rubbing one out to the Fox Propoganda Network's analysis of it. That and of course, the Daily Show lampooning it to death....

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 3, 2005, 7:51 pm

Lynks wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:blah blah I just speak my mind and I dont troll blah blah
So you werent trolling here? http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=12644
or here? http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=12994
or here? http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=12608

I could go on, but I made my point though I doubt you can process this information.

No

No

and No

In 1, I was pointing out how two faced many here are when they only complain about America, when there are many autrocites going on every day by other governments.

In 2, I was dead serious. Unfortunately, too many herre are too scared to see or speak the truth that a very small percentage of non-blacks give two shits about MLK Day. I simply put forth a suggestion that I think would help bring a larger part of the populace together on such an important day and topic.

In 3, I was trying to counteract the constant negative portrayls of what was going on in Iraq by the media and too many people on these boards focus in on the negatives. It's kinda been my theme for a long time now. Starting to get it yet?

Any more questions? I thought not.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 3, 2005, 7:56 pm

rofl I think your theme here has always been blind partisanship.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2005, 7:56 pm

It was an OK speech. The moment near the end where the mother of the dead soldier hugged the female Iraqi guest was kind of nice, even if it was just fabricated political bullshit.

The Social Security stuff is retarded. Seriously. Social Security will be running a surplus for another fifteen years. Under most projections it won't run out of cash until 2042. Even then, if we cut benefits to 75% of what we pay out now, the system would remain solvent until 2080.

The private savings accounts are bullshit too. The government takes a management fee of 3%. Typically, investment in a mutual fund will require a .5% to 1.5% management fee. This 3% is also on top of inflation (which typical investments are not), meaning that the actual fee is more like 6-7%.

The projections that I've seen indicate that, if one were to pay into the personal retirement accounts for their entire lives, they would be receiving an $8,000 payout at retirement, split up into an annuity and delivered in small chunks.

The actual projections could change drastically based on the actual legislation that is crafted (the numbers now are estimates) but it doesn't seem likely to really accomplish anything at all, in terms of the long-term solvency of the system or the amount of benefits paid to retirees. Especially because (theoretically) benefits paid out to those who choose not to buy into personal accounts will be only moderately changed, if they are changed at all.

I don't really have a huge problem with the proposal (as long as I can decline to buy in) but it really accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Midnyte: I don't give a fuck about MLK day. I also don't give a fuck about labor day, veterans day, flag day, or president's day. I am white. What does this mean?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 3, 2005, 8:10 pm

On number 1 Midnyte, you started attacking the left even before we could react to it. I call that trolling dimwit.

Saying you arent a troll is as ridiculous as saying you aren't a bigot when we proved it so many times.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 3, 2005, 8:11 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Fish much?

Just a very strong likelyhood especially with all the power and clout Bush has...I hope I'm wrong.

Was there any talk of restoring our ties with the rest of the world, and diplomacy?

Was there any talk of getting our troops out of the quagmire?

Given his promise to halve the defiicit, how is he going to do it with our military spending being so huge, and current tax cuts standing as well as the trillions of dollars needed for changing over Social Security?

EDIT: Added substance to my "Troll"

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 3, 2005, 9:06 pm

Sueven wrote:
Midnyte: I don't give a fuck about MLK day. I also don't give a fuck about labor day, veterans day, flag day, or president's day. I am white. What does this mean?

Nothing. It means you don't put much personal thought into those days. I'm okay with that. I'm not like the others who would label you because of this. It's your right not to give a shit.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2005, 9:13 pm

I argue that most white Americans are like me, and that the apathy displayed by white America toward MLK day is far more a product of general apathy toward holidays, rather than a product of an inability to identify with a holiday honoring a black man.

I would further argue that black America cares about MLK day only marginally more than white America, basically because black people don't really care about holidays any more than white people. This has been my anecdotal experience, although I could know a group of white and black people who comprise an inaccurate cross-section of the population.

I'm using the terms "white" and "black" America simply to refer to the portions of the population that are white or black.

Do you disagree?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » February 3, 2005, 10:18 pm

Sueven wrote: The Social Security stuff is retarded. Seriously. Social Security will be running a surplus for another fifteen years. Under most projections it won't run out of cash until 2042. Even then, if we cut benefits to 75% of what we pay out now, the system would remain solvent until 2080.

The 2042 date is when the "trust fund" is supposed to run out. Trouble is, there aren't really any tangible assets in the trust fund. Currently, the money that comes in for Social Security is greater than what is needed to pay out benefits. In theory, what is left over goes into the trust fund. The problem is, we have a unified budget. So all the money that comes in for taxes all count as reciepts, including those from social security. Compare that to all spending, and you can see if you have a surplus or a deficit. Other than 1998-2001, we have been running deficits for 35 years or so (with some deficit years going back further). If the government runs a deficit, then there can't be any money to put in the trust fund. The government does put a special bond in there I believe, but it is essentially just an IOU written to itself. Basically a promise to tax or increase debt in the future. Social Security's basic problem is structural, it relies on current beneficiaries being paid by current workers. The problem is that people are living longer (problem with SS at least, people living longer in general terms is a good thing), and there are fewer workers supporting those on SS. Meaning the tax burden on current workers continues to grow and SS continues to eat up more and more of the budget (although it is growing slower than Medicare, which is an even larger problem).

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 3, 2005, 10:25 pm

my understanding is that SS has a huge amount of money invested in Treasury Bonds. And i mean huge.

all of the projections that they talk about the shortfall in 2040 or whenever completely ignore the revenue that would come from that in 2025 or something.

also the very premises of the assumptions that the economy will slow down because so many people leaving the workforce relative to the amount to be supported does not support the notion that investing the money in the stock market will outperform it so dramatically.

regardless, trust me I would LOVE to invest my FICA in mutual funds. L-O-V-E.

but i'm not going to need SS when I retire. Will the people that do need it (and the reason it exists in the first place) be better off with a privatized investing strategy?

Hard to say. This smells of a huge windfall for the financial services industry. Huger than the last 4 years has been for the Petrochemical Industry.

PS: Exxon/Mobil posted the largest quarterly earnings in Q4 2004 of any American company EVER.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » February 3, 2005, 11:20 pm

Voronwë wrote:my understanding is that SS has a huge amount of money invested in Treasury Bonds. And i mean huge.

The bonds that SS is invested in are not normal treasury bonds, and since the government is also liable for them, they don't really equate to any real asset.

From p199 of Analytical Perspectives of the 2005 budget.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... f/spec.pdf

The assets in the trust funds are special purpose financial instruments issued by the Treasury Department. At the time Social Security or Medicare redeems these instruments to pay future benefits not covered by future income, the Treasury will have to turn to the public capital markets to raise the funds to finance the benefits, just as if the trust funds had never existed. From the standpoint of overall Government finances, the trust funds do not reduce the future burden of financing Social Security or Medicare benefits.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 4, 2005, 3:15 am

I'm enjoying how the politicians are trying to portray this as a program in crisis. That 2042 date they keep throwing around is a worst case scenario. The congressional budget office (whatever it is called) had a pessemistic prediction of a date sometime in the 2050s. You better find a solution to this problem right now or 50 years from now you'll have reduced benefits!! This bullshit is nothing but a money grab IMHO.

If you really want to save SS then stop the government from stealing money from it.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 4, 2005, 4:40 am

It's funny, until Bush got around to trying to fix SS the general consensus was that is was fucked up, but suddenly everything is different now. I guess you're just supposed to talk about trying to fix it, not actually do something about it.

President Clinton: “This Fiscal Crisis In Social Security Affects Every Generation.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98 )

President Clinton: “[F]irst, And Above All, We Must Save Social Security For The 21st Century.” (President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99)

President Clinton: “So That All Of These Achievements – The Economic Achievements – Our Increasing Social Coherence And Cohesion, Our Increasing Efforts To Reduce Poverty Among Our Youngest Children – All Of Them Are Threatened By The Looming Fiscal Crisis In Social Security.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98 )

President Clinton: “Now Is The Time To Strengthen Social Security For The Future. … We Can And Must Accomplish This Critical Goal For The American People.” (The White House, “Presidential Statement On Social Security,” Press Release, 4/23/99)

President Clinton: “But Because A Higher Percentage Of Our People Will Be Both Older And Retired, Perhaps Our Greatest Opportunity And Our Greatest Obligation At This Moment Is To Save Social Security.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98 )

President Clinton: “f You Don’t Do Anything, One Of Two Things Will Happen. Either It Will Go Broke And You Won’t Ever Get It, Or If We Wait Too Long To Fix It, The Burden On Society … Of Taking Care Of Our Generation’s Social Security Obligations Will Lower Your Income And Lower Your Ability To Take Care Of Your Children To A Degree That Most Of Us Who Are You Parents Think Would Be Horribly Wrong And Unfair To You And Unfair To The Future Prospects Of The United States.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98 )

President Clinton: “And Above All, To My Fellow Baby Boomers, Let Me Say That None Of Us Wants Our Own Retirement To Be A Burden To Our Children And To Their Efforts To Raise Our Grandchildren. It Would Be Unconscionable If We Failed To Act, And Act Now, As One Nation Renewing The Ties That Bind Us Across The Generations.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98 )

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 4, 2005, 4:51 am

Forthe wrote:I'm enjoying how the politicians are trying to portray this as a program in crisis. That 2042 date they keep throwing around is a worst case scenario. The congressional budget office (whatever it is called) had a pessemistic prediction of a date sometime in the 2050s. You better find a solution to this problem right now or 50 years from now you'll have reduced benefits!! This bullshit is nothing but a money grab IMHO.

If you really want to save SS then stop the government from stealing money from it.

2042 is one of the best case scenarios. 2080 is a ridiculous pipedream and everyone knows it. Everyone (who has taken the time to learn) also knows SS needs to be changed dramatically. The only possible reason I can see for the left to oppose the change is so they can try and do it after 2008 and take the credit for it. They know the system isn't solid as much as anyone else.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 4, 2005, 6:11 am

Way to talk out of your ass!

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » February 4, 2005, 9:20 am

Voronwë wrote:but i'm not going to need SS when I retire. Will the people that do need it (and the reason it exists in the first place) be better off with a privatized investing strategy?

As the system currently stands, if you need it or not is not an issue, you get it.

Personally, I am not that wild about private accounts. Also, even if they are implemented they won't really address the problems over the relatively near term (next 20-30 years or so).

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » February 4, 2005, 9:35 am

Forthe wrote:I'm enjoying how the politicians are trying to portray this as a program in crisis. That 2042 date they keep throwing around is a worst case scenario. The congressional budget office (whatever it is called) had a pessemistic prediction of a date sometime in the 2050s. You better find a solution to this problem right now or 50 years from now you'll have reduced benefits!! This bullshit is nothing but a money grab IMHO.

The 2042 is also, as I pointed out earlier, basically assuming there is some tangible asset in the trust fund. There isn't. With a unified budget any of the dates talked about are really kind of beside the point. Social Security receipts are lumped in with all tax receipts and we are still running deficits. And the structure of Social Security combined with the demographics of the country (particularly looking forward to the not too distant future when the baby boomers start retiring) means that Social Security is going take up an increasing share of the federal budget. Whether or not it is currently in crisis is debatable, but it is an ongoing financial problem that eventually needs to be addressed

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 4, 2005, 10:17 am

Brotha wrote:It's funny, until Bush got around to trying to fix SS the general consensus was that is was fucked up, but suddenly everything is different now. I guess you're just supposed to talk about trying to fix it, not actually do something about it.

President Clinton: “This Fiscal Crisis In Social Security Affects Every Generation.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98 )

President Clinton: “[F]irst, And Above All, We Must Save Social Security For The 21st Century.” (President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99)

President Clinton: “So That All Of These Achievements – The Economic Achievements – Our Increasing Social Coherence And Cohesion, Our Increasing Efforts To Reduce Poverty Among Our Youngest Children – All Of Them Are Threatened By The Looming Fiscal Crisis In Social Security.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98 )

President Clinton: “Now Is The Time To Strengthen Social Security For The Future. … We Can And Must Accomplish This Critical Goal For The American People.” (The White House, “Presidential Statement On Social Security,” Press Release, 4/23/99)

President Clinton: “But Because A Higher Percentage Of Our People Will Be Both Older And Retired, Perhaps Our Greatest Opportunity And Our Greatest Obligation At This Moment Is To Save Social Security.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98 )

President Clinton: “f You Don’t Do Anything, One Of Two Things Will Happen. Either It Will Go Broke And You Won’t Ever Get It, Or If We Wait Too Long To Fix It, The Burden On Society … Of Taking Care Of Our Generation’s Social Security Obligations Will Lower Your Income And Lower Your Ability To Take Care Of Your Children To A Degree That Most Of Us Who Are You Parents Think Would Be Horribly Wrong And Unfair To You And Unfair To The Future Prospects Of The United States.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98 )

President Clinton: “And Above All, To My Fellow Baby Boomers, Let Me Say That None Of Us Wants Our Own Retirement To Be A Burden To Our Children And To Their Efforts To Raise Our Grandchildren. It Would Be Unconscionable If We Failed To Act, And Act Now, As One Nation Renewing The Ties That Bind Us Across The Generations.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98 )

You're exactly correct. That is the only reason Democrats are now trying to say SS isn't really that bad and Reps are making it up. The Dems will lose a very crucial scare tactic if the Reps actually pass a fix.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 4, 2005, 11:00 am

Read again shit for brains. Democrats aren't saying its as bad as they thought, they said Bush's plan sucks ass and won't fix anything.

Go back to reading 101 or stop wawtching Fox news.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 4, 2005, 11:19 am

lynks... didn't you learn anything from john kerry?.. constantly yammering that one solution won't work, while NOT PROVIDING AN ALTERNATE SOLUTION, will get you no where.

If you listened to Bush's speech, he is also very OPEN to what changes are made, "every option is on the table"... he is forcing the issue, but it is the job of the bipartisan congress to actually agree upon WHAT changes to make.

Bush's plan is simply to FIX social security -permanently-.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 4, 2005, 11:22 am

So you should try any solution, no matter how bad it is, and try it solely because its different? Ya, thats a great idea.

Democrats are willing to talk about it, but this solution won't cut it.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 4, 2005, 11:24 am

It's hardly 'ANY' solution... there are goals and requirements that must be met, and studies and research that must be done to determine the correct way... these things will be done and a comprehensive solution will be agreed upon.

this solution won't cut it

and you base this claim upon what?... like i said, the 'solution' has not been decided upon yet... only the goal that it be taken care of.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 4, 2005, 11:27 am

I agree with that, but my post was to call Midnyte out by saying he was full of shit when he said Dems don't think its bad. He was talking out of his ass as he usually does.

I base that claim on what I read. The average Joe can't handle his money. I know what you are thinking now, "if they cant, then its tough shit for them", but thats the wrong attitude. If they can't save, chances are their life would go down the shitter and now you have an increase in poverty, which has a correlation to crime.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 4, 2005, 11:34 am

you wont have to worry about the average joe managing his money.. because the private accounts can only be invested in a very limited and safe set of investments, expected to receive 6-7 times the rate of return the current SS system gets.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » February 4, 2005, 11:42 am

Wait... Why the fuck is 2042 the cut off date? Isn't the government further in debt than its ever been in history? Where exactly is the money that's going to last until 2042?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 4, 2005, 11:42 am

Lynks wrote:I agree with that, but my post was to call Midnyte out by saying he was full of shit when he said Dems don't think its bad. He was talking out of his ass as he usually does.

.

Nope. Many Dems have understated the problem, because the Reps ahve actually chosen to do their job and do something about it instead of just talk about it.

Many have mentioned about how it isn't to go bankrupt until 2040, and that their are more important issues he should be focusing on. Therefore discrediting his efforts and trying to make sure the public won't feel he has done something important.

Nice try again. Boy you are 0-3 this week.

Keep em coming loser.

"Social Security faces a challenge, not a crisis," Rep. Sander M. Levin, Michigan Democrat, argued recently.

"[President] Bush is attempting to convince Americans that a crisis exists with Social Security so he can advance his ideological agenda, no matter the consequences," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Democrat.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 4, 2005, 11:45 am

Post the names of the Dems that wish not to discuss the problem please. For every 1 you post, I shall post 3 that say the opposite of what you are.

And sorry to bring you back to Earth, but saying you won then running off without a counter argument, then giving yourself a couple of high fives isn't you winning.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 4, 2005, 11:53 am

Niffoni wrote:Wait... Why the fuck is 2042 the cut off date? Isn't the government further in debt than its ever been in history? Where exactly is the money that's going to last until 2042?

The Social Security program works on a simple premise... The people who are alive now, are paying the benefits of those collecting NOW. 50 years ago, there were 16 workers for every 1 retiree.... Now there are THREE workers for every 1 retiree.

It is expected that in 2018, the system would take in less money than it needs to pay out in benefits... resulting in a shortfall, increasing every year, and by or before 2042 the system would be completely defunct.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 4, 2005, 11:58 am

Chmee wrote:
Voronwë wrote:but i'm not going to need SS when I retire. Will the people that do need it (and the reason it exists in the first place) be better off with a privatized investing strategy?
As the system currently stands, if you need it or not is not an issue, you get it.

Is there an annual income cut off set up where those people don't receive the benefits? I thought there was a proposal some time ago that would state if you earned over $70k in retirement, you would no longer be eligible for benefits. I don't remember it ever being implemented though.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 4, 2005, 11:58 am

which is why they are probably going to have to raise the FICA cieling above $90,000 so that more money comes in.

I've already heard Republicans admit this will probably be part of the solution.

Though Bush says it is unequivocably off the table.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 4, 2005, 11:59 am

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said she was eager to work with Bush to make sure Social Security is solvent into the next century.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., ...I will work with him (Bush) to find a fix for Social Security, but the private accounts do not do that,'' Nelson said in a phone interview.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., ... Clearly we need to address the long-term problem of Social Security, but his reported plan is not the right thing to do,''.

Your first quote doesnt say its not bad, its saying Bush is making the topic out of proportion.

Now this is the part where you discredit everything and run off and say you're 0-4 looooooseerrrr

Edit: Even found some Republicans against it. I found this one very funny

Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., opposes Bush's plan.
"When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then," he told The Washington Post.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 4, 2005, 1:21 pm

It's official, 15 people are mindless plebs on this board (early estimates!)

You agreed with Bush 100%? Please die. Really, you wanna do more good for the world? Kill yourselves. Right now.

Before you do any more damage.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 4, 2005, 1:22 pm

Lynks wrote:
Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., opposes Bush's plan.
"When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then," he told The Washington Post.

Would surprise me if that idiot gets re-elected, or maybe he doesn't care.

That was a very irresponsible thing to say.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 4, 2005, 1:32 pm

Lynks, find me a Democrat who's said the program is in "crisis" recently, like Clinton and others used to throw around on a regular basis. Thanks.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a couple, but the urgency is clearly gone.

Of course they're going to give vague, lukewarm support to "fixing" SS, but nothing is going to come of it.

VeeshanVault

State of the Union

Did you approve of Bush's address?

State of the Union