Ping
President Bush is showing his socialist bent, again.
I don't like it.
He did pretty good with Soc Security, but since he was asked about the judiciary, he should have had more ammo ready to use.
Instead of just saying he opposes judges legislating from the bench, he (and all on our side) needs to start reeling off a list of the most outrageous examples of judges acting like kings and imposing for the Left what would be or already has been rejected by the people.
Judged on style, he was pretty good: animated, prickly when misrepresented, funny and well-studied.
"Good job" OR "snow-job"?
NO mention of the illegal invasion through the gaping hole called the "MEXICAN BORDER"??
No, Ill NOT give Dubya a "good job" score.
Try a "D" for "Disingenuous Drivel."
BS. As long as SS is a mandatory system, why should it be means tested? If what you put into the system bears no relation to what you get out of it, then it is just another wealth redistribution scheme that no self-respecting conservative should accept. Allowing the government to establish means testing is fraught with all kinds of problems. A person's economic situation can change dramatically, even after 62. And whatever means testing is proposed will not affect the looming demographic problem created by the huge cohort of baby boomers who will be going on the rolls in a few years. It will be our children and their children who will pick up the tab. "I got mine, sorry you can't get yours" won't sit well with those born after the cutoff date.
SS does not have to go bankrupt if some changes are made. Personal accounts linked with a reduction in the defined benefits portion of the system can put SS on a firm financial basis permanently.
But the best thing is that by means testing social security you get away from a mentality of a "universal entitlement". Once you put a dent in the fact that someone is "automatically" entitled to a certain benefit level, then you undermine support for the program.
Rather specious reasoning. The reason there is a mentality of "universal entitlement" is due to the fact that SS is compulsory and there is a specific formula, which is used to compute benefits based on contributions. Once you delink contributions from benefits, you will have a political firestorm, which will cause the politicians to bend to the popular will and be gone.
If someone is not "automatically" entitled to a defined benefit, that is when you "undermine support for the program." Who wants to pay into a system and not get any or little benefit? SS is already taxed based on other sources of income.
...and jump right back into that frying pan known as income re-distribution -- to say nothing of the government engaging in a "bait and switch" scheme with citizens. You don't get out of failed socialist schemes by coming up with more crooked socialist schemes.