Posted on 04/29/2005 9:34:43 AM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Ex-White House Counsel for Clinton, Lanny Davis, now greatly respects President Bush, and as he is now telling FOX cable News, he has “always respected Bush, especially after last night”. Bush gave his well-covered prime-time news conference last night, in which the President made comments regarding Social Security, reforms, foreign policy challenges and energy challenges, and other issues, but made no mention of probably the hottest issue in the realm of politics and of concern to a majority of Americans and that would be regarding illegal aliens and protecting our borders, especially the border with Mexico. That is a question he will never bring up, nor will any liberal “journalist” or “press” person will ever ask him. We are not suppose to even mention this issue at a prime-time news conference.
Of course, Mr. Davis’ respectful remark was in reference to Bush’s introduction of his “idea” to means test Social Security. As for anything else, such as regarding judicial nominations, Lanny has a different view. But it’s amazing how many views Davis and Bush now share. Perhaps they’ve shared these views for many, many years.
I have nothing zealous against Davis, after all he did say that Congress (and the President) were right in trying to act in the Schiavo case.
Many would say that Social Security is already a welfare program. And that it’s already under a means test.
Perhaps they are right. But now Bush is backing a means test, or adding even more of a means test if you will, to the program, and in introducing his idea he asked that if “any Republicans and Democrats” have their own plan they present it. On paper, “any Republicans and Democrats …” reads pretty nonchalant. But, there was something about the way he said “Republicans”. There was a tone, which, the way it sounded to me, I would think that Bush isn’t either one, he isn’t “one of those Republicans”, for sure. The way Bush said it, to me, he was saying it like he isn’t a Republican or Democrat. He’s “the other guy(s)”, not one of those Republicans or Democrats.
Hmmm . . .
I’m getting more sick this guy. I think the reason his polls slumped to 45%, is the same reason they slumped in the past and will do more so in the future. And that is, a goodly percentage of the negative slump is coming from those who would normally support him and fought so hard for him in the first and then second campaign – and that is the conservatives.
Sure, there are many conservatives, and all of the Bushies, who support the President. But there are many conservatives who are now labeled vigilantes by the President. A lot of these folks who, according to the President, are in the “vigilante” wing of America, are finding it difficult to support the President they helped elect, and this is being reflected in the polls even if the legacy liberal media tries to paint it as an upsurge of support for the ideas of the Democratic Party.
I don’t know what Bush really has against the Republican Party, in that by their inaction they effectively support many of Bush’s pretty liberal, or what he may think of as moderate, agenda. They aren’t doing much for his judicial nominations, that’s for sure, so I can see the President being upset about that, because overall it looks like too many of the Republicans are a bunch of wimps. The vigilante wing of America is the same wing that supports our troops, so it’s hard for such Americans who support our troops to not give the approving node to the President because these Americans understand the war on terrorism, support the President in any way they can regarding this war, and support our troops. “Support our Troops” is now pretty synonymous with “Support our President”.
So, it’s pretty much hard times these days, to be a conservative. Maybe the Republicans will get some balls and exercise the “nuclear” option. I hope so. Many conservatives hope so.
But increasingly, Bush is no longer a Republican nor a Democrat. Not to say that Republican is the same thing as conservative, or vigilante or anything like that. But, if the President isn’t even a Republican, well, it sort of spells a bad omen for conservatives.
The Republicans have been in power for many years, now. Conservatives did get the invasion of Iraq.
Maybe, or maybe not actually, this was what they wanted. They want, I want, a war on terrorism. And, conservatives want to win this war. Part of this war, is the border with Mexico. It is only part of the issue regarding the border with Mexico. For many, in fact probably most, Americans, we do not want to limit the question of the border with Mexico simply to the issue of terrorism. It’s way, way bigger than that.
But right now, of a primary concern for the President is his Social Security reform.
And because he can’t get anything done regarding this, and his polls are slipping, even though we are told he is firm on promoting privatization into the plan, which I support, which many, many conservatives support, actually the word is out he can’t get anywhere with this and he’s back tracking and now introducing means testing into the plan.
The means test works like this. Some say, it’s already there. And now, Bush wants more of it. It evolves like this, once it's introducted. First, if you are an evil rich person, you still have the money taken out of your check, but you don’t get it back later in the “plan”. You may get a little, maybe not. If you are the poor, good Americans, then you get it -- you pay less, but you get it, and you even will probably get more. If you are one of the illegal aliens, for example, who as Bush points out “do the work”, because they do the work, they get the money. Then, with the introduction of the means test, with each year, the means test expands, and creeps, and, not to the surprise of anyone, is “more needed”, and “more required”, then ever before. The means test then becomes, if you make more than 80 thousand dollars, you have the money for the plan taken from your check. It goes to those who “do the work”, but not to you because you don’t do the work. A couple years later, the means test is that if you make more than 70 thousand dollars a year, you contribute to the plan. But upon retirement, you never get any of it, nor should you. This is the “savings” that goes to those who need it, and you were only paying your fair share. A couple years later, no one gets anything from the plan, it all goes to Mexico.
Less for the rich, more for the poor. It will be called a means test. It’s one of those things that Americans, many Americans, won’t even understand in terminology. It’s like saying filibuster. Many, maybe most, have no idea what the word means. They just know it's "good", perhaps even written right in the constitution in section 12. The legacy media want to make sure it stays that way, because this kind of ignorance is good, because it isn’t ignorance, it’s just part of being an American. In fact it’s an American value. In fact, it’s a constitutionally protected right. The judges and courts will all make sure you understand your constitutional rights, because the unelected judges write the laws and enforce the laws, not representative government which is only represented by the CNN-ABC polls.
Social Security is not a welfare program. It is a means test to see if your political friends and those who are the friends of them, remain in power. It is the third rail. It is the means test.
It is your future. Your wallet. Your property tax. Your monkey. On your back.
It's called Socialist Security!
Sorry, but I think there should be means testing for social security.
Turning into one?
It's a tax to rob from one group to give to another. If this is what the Republicans have come to, there is no distinction between them and the RATS.
"Sorry, but I think there should be means testing for social security."
Then it should be called "Welfare."
I pay in the max; I will get the least because I save for retirement. Sounds like more Communism, to me, --- punish those who work and save.
I don't think there should be ANY Social Security to begin with, but since it's here, I don't think that multi-millionaires need that extra $1300 a month. I just don't. I think people on the very high end range would be happy to let it go. They're taxed on it anyway.
Look at what he had to do with education reform to get that passed.
But forcing an individual to contribute a specific amount of money for their retirement, then not giving it back when they retire, is bull$hit.
Stop the pretense, get rid of FICA, raise income taxes, and be done with it. Set up a National 401K program if you need to.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people.
-Ronald Reagan, 1964
Nice try liberals. It already is and has always been a welfare program.
Bush won't drop private accounts.
This is a brillant tactical move.
It allows the GOP to pass a bill that will ensure lower income workers get more social security, but also ensures that people will have private accounts.
Listen, I'm 26, I'd rather have private accounts, even if my guranteed (sic) benefits were reduced.
I'd rather take the risk with private accounts.
Bush has just shifted the debate.
He's a bloody genuis!
Me neither. Then let them opt out of paying FICA.
Of course Social Security should be means tested, viz guranteed (sic, how do you spell this?) benefits.
It's a welfare program ALREADY!
But with private accounts and means testing, Bush is letting people know that the current system benefits NO ONE.
SUCH A BRILLIANT MOVE!
Millionaires?
I have maxed out social security since 3 years out of the Army. I have done so because I busted my hump, working 7 days a week while risking home and financial ruin to achieve financial prosperity. Still work hard.
Have put in --- counting my part and the part my employer (which is me) would pay me, if the stupid law was not in effect --- over $100,000. I will put in many more $100,000s over my work life.
That was MY money.
Assuming normal life expectancy, I will get a -1.5 percent return on my money. I would do better burying the money in coffee cans in my back yard.
Why should I not at least get my own money back?
Oh I see...since you deem that they don't 'need' it, even though the money is theirs, you be happy to conficate it from them to give to someone else. Interesting.
I contribute the max, am not a 'multi-millionaire' and don't mind paying tax on the money when I would be entitled to get it.
Get your hands out of my pocket.
Why? Should there also be means testing for schools or any other government program?
Oops ... silly me, here in NJ, that's the effect of the current school funding system. We get to pay for Newark schools through income taxes (17,000/pupil) and yet again for our schools through property taxes (11,000/pupil)
Personally, I figure if I pay for the party, I get my share of the cake. Anything less means that somewhare along the middle of the income scale, there is an incentive to stop working harder. A recent example was posted (where, I forget) about somebody on SocSec making about 10thou/yr. If they needed more income for any reason, they hit a 100% tax rate between tax rates and SocSec reductions for excess income.
Means testing is usually a vicious hit on the middle class, a double tax on those who work and save.
Explain to me how you've put in $100,000's of thousands of dollars into Social Security.
How about, since we're 'means testing' SS, we also means test Medicare and prescription drug program too...there's a political 'winner'....
I mean, why should some elderly 'rich' get federally funded health-care, when they could buy health-care commercially on the market?
If they paid into the system they should get it out of the system. Otherwise it's a tax used to subsidize another group.
The REAL problem is that there are FEW people who are multi-millionaires who collect Social Security. Most of the people are just average Joes and Josettes who make a reasonable income and sock away something into their IRA and pay this TAX expecting to get some money back. They're really the ones that will end up paying with a reduce stippend for what will become the new welfare of the elderly.
Social Security is no longer a "retirement" system. They pay all sorts of benefits unrelated to retirement. Perhaps they should really look at that. Or, better yet, stop spending the trust fund money on other programs.
Sorry Hildy,
I fail to see why there should be any "means test" for Social Security.
With each paycheck, I am forced to contribute to SS with the presumption that I'll be lucky to even get back what I paid into the system - not to mention the loss of earnings had I been able to put the same money into a private investment account.
Now, Bush wants to make the SS payments back to me in my old age dependant on whether I "need them" or not. This decision will be done based on the judgement of some nameless beaurocrats in the future. I'm not happy.
This raises a question. Based on my doubts of the ability of future SS payments to provide for my old age, should I continue to invest in a 401(k) program, or am I only penalizing myself by saving money for retirement? Perhaps the SS program will decide my savings make me "rich", and will take my contributions to SS and give them to the people that spent their whole lives spending money on vacations and toys, rather than retirement. Can you tell me what the wise choice is, then, under the proposed plan? Will anyone be able to? If not, then where is the "security" in Social Security for me? It's now just another socialist income-redistribution plan, destined to punish those making wise financial choices and rewarding those making poor choices.
Between this and the immigration/border issue, I've never been more disgusted with the Republican party.
Fletcher J
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.