Posted on 06/14/2005 4:50:36 PM PDT by QQQQQ
Edited on 06/15/2005 12:14:44 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Do young people vote though?
In general the people who are most apt to be receptive to this plan are people under the age of 35, and they do not make up the bulk of people that turn out to vote.
This is not to say they won't in maybe 15 years, but with the Supreme Court on the line, I'm not so sure it's something I want to risk today
Series?
"Because the only reason, the only reason that Richard Shelby was able to defeat Jeremiah Denton back in 86 is because Denton had voted for the Reagan SS plan, and that formed pretty much the entire basis of the Shelby campaign that year."
And I'd bet my last dollar that if Rick Santorum is defeated, SS will have been the reason.
That was '86; this is a new century. We need new ideas. Social Security the old way is a loser; cannot be maintained.
i am the same way. too many people lose purpose when they quit working altogether.
i am not saying i'll stay singing them old smokey factory blues, but marshalling at a local golf course is on the agenda.
also hoping my kids make their millions and decide to take care of dear old dad in his golden years.
alas, i fear when the time comes, they may just shove a soup bone up my rear drop me off in the woods and hope the wolves drag me away. ;-D
My father quit working when he was 65. It drove him nuts, and his attitude went downhill. A friend of his asked for help, soon my dad was back to working full time, and was back to being happy. He worked another 8 years until he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and was only around for a month after that.
There is something that is very useful in politics, the strategy of, know which way the wind is blowing.
And more importantly, not doing something that puts you at a political risk in the next election. Once we get our judges confirmed, and the SC taken care, by all means, move ahead. By that time, alot of people who oppose the plan will be dead, so we don't have to worry about them voting against us.
But right now, we are not blessed with this luxury, and we are all aware how just one appointment can change the future of the country
My argument is, getting good judges confirmed takes precedence over this. We have 20 years to get this issue settled, we only have a maybe 10 year period (if lucky) in which most of the next generation Supreme Court will be constituted
Its all about being strategic.
Sorry, I didn't realize with a majority I'd have to choose. So what's important to you?
Because the only reason, the only reason that Richard Shelby was able to defeat Jeremiah Denton back in 86 is because Denton had voted for the Reagan SS plan, and that formed pretty much the entire basis of the Shelby campaign that year.
It's not 1986.
Speaking of which, do you know who said this:
There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much.
Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pastel shades.
Man, I'm bummed..I read the headline and I thought...
The Republicans did not win a majority by saying to America
"Elect Republicans, and we will privatize Social Security", because we both know that as far as 2005 goes, it's political suicide. We won the election of 2004 because of the WOT and character issues.
I'm not saying it will be this way in 2015, but today, it still is, and this is not the time to give the Democrats an issue to use against us.
And there are many Republicans, like Shelby, who are never going to give in on this issue, not until numbers become more favorable.
In an ownership society, more people will own their health care plans, and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We'll always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account -- a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.
In all these proposals, we seek to provide not just a government program, but a path -- a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own life.
All of this hoary DUm/MSM acid voodoo can be traced back to the opening salvo.
On the weekend after Bush unveiled his idea, a DUm/MSM on ABC's "This Week", stated without a trace of irony that the chances of success for personal accounts were dependent on how much "...the Democrats want to create new Republicans".
Polls issued by the MSM telling the story the MSM wants.
Scrap them.
I know of no one except government junkies & activists that oppose private accounts as outlined by the President. The majority support them. Letting polls make up fiction to be spouted as gospel isn't something I'm going to stand for any longer.
Republican Senators in Washington need to understand something. Raising our taxes, increasing spending, and raising the retirement rate to finance a system that will end up exploding when the people who's backs it breaks reach retirement age without the inclusion of private accounts is NOT A WINNING STRATEGY! You idiots!
Give us back our money to invest so we have something rather than nothing 50 years from now! Good grief. You spineless unprincipled wimps.
I really don't care if you add items to the package I find undesirable, short of taxes. I draw the line at that. So long as private accounts are part of the deal. If you cannot do that, then LET IT BURN TO THE GROUND.
So what if the MSM hates you. So what if you aren't invited to their cocktail parties. You don't see them inviting the people that elect you to those cocktail parties, do you? So who's more imporant? And who SHOULD be more important? get off your overpayed butts and start representating the people that elefted you rather than your oversized egos.
Yes, I know who said that, but I also know something else.
I live 30 miles west of the Florida state line, which means, any ad that is run in Florida will be run on our stations because we share a media market with Pensacola.
And I do not recall a single Bush ad run in Northwest Florida which touted the merits of Social Security Privatization
"Congress critters should also raise their age to 69 for their government pensions"
Here, Here!!!
I second that
Why are you working so hard to make the case that Social Security needs to be preserved and that Bush didn't mean it when he promised it would be among the forefront of issues for his second term?
Hey Senators, how about you find a real solution to this abortion you call a retirement plan, and we won't start a civil war.
It is worth remembering that Congress did something right after the FDR experience - and instituted term limits for the presidency. It is too bad the voters in the states didn't insist that there be term limits for congressmen as well.
I'm not arguing it needs to be preserved PERMANENTLY
What I am arguing is, we could do it now, but we would seriously risk losing Congress next year, and therefore, it is smarter to wait until we can drum up more public support for this (say post 2012) so we don't have to worry about any political backlash
I support getting rid of it entirely, however, I don't want us going into the 2006 elections as the party that wants to "eliminate Social Security", it sends a bad message.
I understand this mentality of holding onto power when you've got it, I just don't agree with it.
If you throw out your principles to hold onto power what good is the power? You end up as a RINO, a Democrat-Lite. Worthless and pathetic. And you've sold out the people who supported you, but then tell them they have to continue to support you because the alternative is worse.
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.