It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's funny. The guy who made the plan, Roosevelt, didn't think privatization was a bad idea, but a necessity.
What planet are you from? You have to pay the federal tax, right? But that's your money, right? And why aren't you allowed to use drugs? It's your life, after all.
If you drive a car, you MUST get insured against liability. Just in case. Of course, by your logic, this is wrong -- you take a gamble with your nest egg if you are sued for damages, so why and who cares?
Not having the ultimate safety net will mean that a fraction of the population will be destitute. This we can't allow to happen.
There are how many people w/o medical insurance in this country? One example what happens when things in essential services go private. Now, if you don't have that insurance and your wife has a kidney problem (hopefully curable), what the heck do you do. Many working people cannot afford it.
You are SO wrong.
Meia Matters: Distorting FDR: Bennett and Hume claimed father of Social Security system wanted privatization
James Roosevelt Jr: Hume's "outrageous distortion" of FDR "calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation"
Originally posted by FredT
Kudos to Boxer, Pilosi and the rest of the misinformation Democrats for muddying up the waters enough to kill any chance of reform.
Q: "How is the new plan going to fix Social Security?"
"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost
drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the
table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price
increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being
considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers,
affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get
what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has
been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look,
there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are
calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of
prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise
based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that
would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how
fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that
growth is affected, it will help on the red."
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I guess it's easier to insult Bush instead of giving an actual argument...
If posting his exact defense of how his plan to save Social security will work is perceived as an insult, you have bigger problems than Bush bashing.