Social Security

[Mathews XT Man]

I got a kick out of the "left" hissing and shouting when "W" said we have to revamp SS. You know....ITS NOT THEIR MONEY!!!! God forbid we put some in an account that actually will come back to US!!! After all.....this was only meant as a "supplemental" income, not a way of life!! Now, the fact less money is going in, smacks of the fact that the lives that abortion has killed...45 million and counting!!..... Thats quite a substantial workforce that will not pay into SS one cent.!!! Guess the "LEFT", who pushed for abortion on demand..... shot their foot again!!!

[Norm Sauceman]

If those who hissed, himmed and hawed had to rely on Social Security like the rest of do, it would have been fixed already.. You can put that one in the bank for sure.

[dg]

Yep sure did. I'm in agreement that something has to be done. Alot of the elected officials there don't want to rock the boat knowing it will take major revisions (which usually means not a popular choice with the voters) to bring about a better resolve. I gotta hand it to "W", he does what needs to be done whether it pi$$es folks off or not.

[oldksnarc]

And nothing's being said about the money raided from the social security account to be spent by the government to pay their bills. And, as I recall, most of that was taken out by the dems - the same ones that balk at fixing the system.

[Mathews XT Man]

yes!! GOOD point oldksarc, exactly what I was thinking, although I did not say it!

[wtnhunt]

[ QUOTE ]
If those who hissed, himmed and hawed had to rely on Social Security like the rest of do, it would have been fixed already.. You can put that one in the bank for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

You better believe that.

[G-Daddy]

I can't understand why so many people are getting bent our of shape by a proposed change that will be
V O L U N T A R Y! ! ! !

[Strut10]

Yeah. It tickled me to hear the moaning, too. Know why?? I'll tell you why. Re-vamping SS is not W's idea. It's not even a Republican idea. The Democrats came up with it years ago. In fact, Slick Willie (in 1997) proposed the same kind of idea about personal savings accounts. Willie even went farther and suggested allowing up to a 15% deferral (over 3 times what Bush is proposing). Know what the difference is?? Unlike any Democrat politician in recent history, George W. Bush is all about "substance" rather than "symbolism". The Dems can talk about it so they ensure their re-elections. But never intended to do anything about it. Heck..........taking money away from the government's control and giving it to the rightful owners (we the people) might eliminate some fat beaurocrat's job. Perish the thought!! It doesn't matter what Bush tries to do, the Dems will do their darndest to insure he fails, no matter what the cost or who the end-result victims are. All the while shooting themselves in the foot. Maybe if someone would tell the Democrats that.... hey.....there's tax revenue to be had by privatizing SS!! Maybe then they'd step up to the plate. A Democrat never met a tax he didn't raise...........err...........create...........umm .............I mean like.

[slugshooter]

Here is the problem with what Strut10 has proposed, when Clinton was President, who controlled Congress, the Republicans, the Republicans were too worried about impeaching him for getting a BJ than they were about revamping Social Security, I am surprised anybody got anything done back then because the Republicans were surely not going to try to pass any laws that Clinton had proposed. Now we come to today, Republican Congress, Republican President, it will be very easy to get a revamped Social Security plan through Congress and on W's desk if all the Republicans are for it, especially, if it is as you say, Clinton's idea, well, if that is true then it needs to come to light that it was his idea and not something the Almighty Bush came up with, I mean, come on, the group of them would have stood up and cheered the other night if W had stood up there and recited the ABC's. You guys complain about Boxer and Kerry not falling in line by not handing Condi a vote like everyone else just because everyone knows she will get confirmed it's called conviction. I seem to remember Clinton having some trouble getting people confirmed in Republican Congress's, was it because they weren't qualified, no, it's because they were Democrats, petty , yes, but it's a continuing cycle. At least the Democrats never shut down the government because they didn't agree with the Presidents budget, at the mastermind of that partisan BS is planning on running in '08, Newt Gingrich, which, I am not even remotely worried about him even coming close to occupying the White House.

[OJR]

I think everyone is missing the point about Bush and what he is proposing with social security. When the democrats talked about it, they were not going to do anything about it, so all it was was hot air!

The BIG problem for the democrats now is that they have seen that when Bush proposes something he is going to go after it! That right there scares the holy-tar out of the democrats!

[Strut10]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone is missing the point about Bush and what he is proposing with social security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Not me. Re-read my post, OJR.

[ QUOTE ]
When the democrats talked about it, they were not going to do anything about it, so all it was was hot air! The BIG problem for the democrats now is that they have seen that when Bush proposes something he is going to go after it! That right there scares the holy-tar out of the democrats!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Said that.

[Mathews XT Man]

{I think everyone is missing the point about Bush and what he is proposing with social security. When the democrats talked about it, they were not going to do anything about it, so all it was was hot air!}
OJR.....That was kinda just taken for granted, I think we all know that, didnt think i had to say it.

[OJR]

Just a reminder to those on the left! They forget pretty quick!!!

[stevebeilgard]

you're WAY off base, slugshooter. quit listening to the liberal rhetoric, and pay attention to history. clinton was impeached for lying under oath. rember? lying under oath. not lewinski. for the paula jones trial. AND, the judge that had him arrested was a liberal democrat judge that HE appointed to the bench. you can only change historical facts to the un-informed.

[slugshooter]

And what did he lie about? Having an affair, which IMO had no bearing on the case at hand. It's a cause and effect situation. If he hadn't messed with Lewinsky he wouldn't have gotten impeached, the Republicans hated him, he gave them an opening, even they should have known it wouldn't have resulted in him being convicted so they wasted a lot of tax payer money. The official reasoning might be lying under oath, but the real underlying reason is because he messed around with Lewinsky. He never would have gotten impeached, and who goes to trial over an affair anyway, nobody, there is no constitutional law against it, if there were, 75% of our Presidents would have been impeached.