SS & HC

[26 X World Champs]

By all accounts SS is not in any sort of crisis. It will be solvent for at least 37 more years!

Republicans have always been against SS, since the day FDR introduced it. They've wait 60 years to get rid of it. Now that the Republicans control the White House & Congress they are attempting to create a crisis that doesn't exist in order to get their agenda done.

Privatizing in and by itself does nothing to alter the economics of the program. It does put people's money at risk, instead of SS being a guaranteed payout privatization creates risk.

The Republican Fear Machine is in full attack mode, again. I also remind everyone that in 1978 President Bush stated that without SS privatization SS would go belly up by 1988. He was wrong then, and he is wrong now.

His buds make money on privatization. His buds do NOT make money on HC reform, it would cost them money. What a surprise then that Bush has no interest in fixing the real part of government that is in crisis.

 

[Pacridge]

By all accounts SS is not in any sort of crisis. It will be solvent for at least 37 more years!

Republicans have always been against SS, since the day FDR introduced it. They've wait 60 years to get rid of it. Now that the Republicans control the White House & Congress they are attempting to create a crisis that doesn't exist in order to get their agenda done.

Privatizing in and by itself does nothing to alter the economics of the program. It does put people's money at risk, instead of SS being a guaranteed payout privatization creates risk.

The Republican Fear Machine is in full attack mode, again. I also remind everyone that in 1978 President Bush stated that without SS privatization SS would go belly up by 1988. He was wrong then, and he is wrong now.

His buds make money on privatization. His buds do NOT make money on HC reform, it would cost them money. What a surprise then that Bush has no interest in fixing the real part of government that is in crisis.

Welcome to Debate Politics!

"By all accounts SS is not in any sort of crisis. It will be solvent for at least 37 more years!" I disagree and I think most elected officials on both sides call the situation a crisis that needs to be address.

"Privatizing in and by itself does nothing to alter the economics of the program. It does put people's money at risk, instead of SS being a guaranteed payout privatization creates risk." I agree. I've seen nothing that shows me how removing funds from s cash strapped system makes that system more solvent.

"The Republican Fear Machine is in full attack mode, again. I also remind everyone that in 1978 President Bush stated that without SS privatization SS would go belly up by 1988. He was wrong then, and he is wrong now." I don't even know what to make of their statement. Could you please clarify?

Finally, while I try not to fall into the ABBB (Any Body But Bush) logic, I do subscribe to the ABBTY (Any Body But The Yankees) Go Sox! Actually, go anybody except the Yankees :mrgreen:

 

[Pacridge]

No no, you misunderstand. I was only using that site as a reference for bonds being used to pay back the general funds. Not the numbers.

And I still contend that government bonds are worthless. As long as we have a deficit every year, then our government is bankrupt. So how can the bonds hold any valure.

Huh? I misunderstood that you were using this source only to partial provide evidence. The rest of the site is to be disregarded? I was only suppose to take from your post that you were trying to state the Social Security surpluses are going to the general fund. And I was suppose to pay no attention to the fact that the cite you sourced misstates facts and twisted several stats? Yeah, you're right I missed that.

And I say US Government Bonds hold value. People, including myself, have for years invested in T-bills and they have been considered to be one of the more stable investments.

And if your government is bankrupt somebody better tell all these foreign governments that are currently loaning us all this cash.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

"By all accounts SS is not in any sort of crisis. It will be solvent for at least 37 more years!" I disagree and I think most elected officials on both sides call the situation a crisis that needs to be address.

Thanks for the welcome! While I agree that there are issues in SS that need to be worked out, there really isn't a crisis. The dictionary defines crisis as:

cri·sis

1. A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point.
2. An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change.

For Mr. Bush to spend the next 60 days traveling the US promoting privatization is a bit weird, especially since he has never actually proposed an actual plan. The time and energy being expended seems disproportianite with the reality of the situation. Why not address the Medicaire/Medicaid issues first, as that subjedct is far more vital to most Americans vs. SS. I just can't believe that if it ever came down to the worst case scenario that nothing would be done and people would stop receiving SS.


"The Republican Fear Machine is in full attack mode, again. I also remind everyone that in 1978 President Bush stated that without SS privatization SS would go belly up by 1988. He was wrong then, and he is wrong now."

I don't even know what to make of their statement. Could you please clarify?

In a story written in 1999 the following was written about Bush:

According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper’s little office "maybe five or six times. He’d sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We’d argue over Carter policies." Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("a misuse of power," he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves.

The link to the whole story is here:

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1175

You can also Google "Bush Social Security crisis in 1978"

Finally, while I try not to fall into the ABBB (Any Body But Bush) logic, I do subscribe to the ABBTY (Any Body But The Yankees) Go Sox! Actually, go anybody except the Yankees :mrgreen:

Where do you live? I live in Manhattan and I grew up in the Bronx, so the Yankees truly are my 'home' team. I love baseball, and I love the Yanks/Sox rivalry, there's nothing else like it in sports. The Red Sox definitely got the Yanks in 2004, so now it's 26-1 since the Babe changed uniforms.

The Yanks almost made it last year, getting twice to within 3 outs of the World Series despite having really bad starting pitching. The Yanks also set a record for their home attendance last year, and also led the Majors in road attendance, so I think it's safe to say the owners of other teams love the Yanks when they visit their city?

I also think sports in general is better when there are teams to 'hate.' Dynasty teams make sports better, don't you think?