Hey look TA ( Team Assface) looks like you spoke out of your ass again.

I guess he saw how well it worked for Clinton and could not resist.

 

Brad's a Libertarian! Hey buddy, your party lost badly in the last election

Bush is a Republican. Not Libertarian. Mike is right.

 

yeah yeah yeah. shows what you know.


i pulled the bush handle. and thankfully, there's a lot of pissed off whiny helpless people for it.

 

mike may be wright, but he's right about exactly squat.

 

I still don't know what you are so scared of that you would throw out your principals on the scope of Government to gain safety. Vote for a welfare president to protect you from what?

Why are you so scared Brad?

 

i'm afraid your "scared" tactic is lost on me mike.


try another angle.


i simply don't like social programs. certainly at the minimum without limits. i don't want to pay for you, or anyone else.

when this country was fair and square stolen from the indians, there was no insurance. you went out in the woods and made a life for yourself.

there was no "backup check" in the mailbox. you survived, or you didn't.

 

If you don't like social programs, you'll hate Bush's prescrition drug plan. $17 trillion dollars worth of lost self responsibility.

The Democrats and Republicans would both rather spend your money for you. People are afraid of the Democrats doing just that and most of their social programs are shot down, like Clintons National Health Care. The Republicans seem to be effective at getting their spending and welfare plans passed. Hopefully congress will do a better job of controlling the fool this term.

 

i'm sure bush had rather shoot you (and people like you) in the face.

but, he is a politician after all.

 

As usual, you are short on facts. SS was established specifically to provide Americans guaranteed continued income after age 65. It clearly was originally intended as a retirement program, because it only paid benefits to the worker. Bastardization later on changed it to a survivor benefits and disabliity program.

SS operates on contributions, not taxes. It has nothing to do with the deficit. The Trust Fund is fully funded by surplus contributions until about 2018 or so, which makes it a perfectly valid strategy to set in place reforms that address the issue of contributions shortfall within the next 12-14 years.

You love bashing Republicans like Bush, but you should be reminded that it was Reagan who passed SS reform that first changed the retirement age, and Clinton who abolished RET for retirees who continued to collect a paycheck along with SS benefits. Just about every other president, senator and congressman has been scared shitless to touch the SS third rail.

 

I don't like the idea, but a plan similar to it has been touted by every democratic candidate you were willing to pull the lever in favor of.

 

I know you voted for Bush knucklehead but I'm telling you that your views fall more under the Libertarian umbrella than Republican. Check out the Libertarian party platform on their website. Your last few comments have convinced me of this.

 

i'm a fiscal conservative, and a social libertarian.


i'm a republican when it comes down to elections.

twit.

 

Your a niche within a splinter group. Congratulations.

Bush is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. How does he represent your view again?

 

It was supposed to be a supplement to what you had already saved or a saftey net if you hadn't saved. It also didn't start unless you outlived the life expectancy at the time, as you stated. Now it is a planned comfortable retirement for 10 to 15 years based on todays life expectancy. You get much more than you pay in if you live as long as expected.

So if SS is self funded and running at a surplus till 2018, wouldn't Bush be better off addressing his prescription drug plan which will create even bigger deficits and start doing so next year?

I like the Democrats for their incompetence more than their motives when it comes to fiscal policy. They couldn't get squat for spending through a republican congress. Bush has had a blank check. He has used it without discretion. Clintons dumb National Health plan never passed. Bush passed his crap. Right on the tax payers heads.

The retirement age is still 65. Reagan is dead. So he really didn't do any reforming in his lifetime did he? Like Bush, he put it off on future generations. And good on Clinton for eliminating a tax that discouraged people from working for fear they would lose their welfare checks. At least they can be productive while they collect.

Nobody from either party has been really willing to bite the bullet and bear any costs during their admin. That probably won't change. Bush has already said he plans to defer all the pain until he is long gone. Just like he always does when it comes to fiscal responsibilty. He even wants special accounting. Ken Lay tought him well.

 

so.................... was that a cut and paste job?

 

Here i was thinking Brad was a splinter in a niche group.

 

yeah.