You're making an assumption that may be unwarranted: that Shrub has enough self-knowledge to admit someone else might do a better job than he can do.
Charlie Self "I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush
J. Clarke responds:
Yes, well...I'm a near lifelong Independent--Republican for the first two elections, then I started recalling the bullshit that floated around. I thought Clinton was a major PITA and a damned fool, but he was at least capable of thinking when his one-eyed mouse wasn't controlling him. Shrub...?
Charlie Self "I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush
*blush* sorry, I do get on the soap box once in a while.. lol
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
That's the curse of being cowardly ... you must always live in fear that someone is going to kick your ass if you don't placate them, no matter what they do to you.
well, then your person lost, right? same thing...
That's all anyone can hope for...
I don't support a lot of what's going on right now, and I think we should have kicked ass in Iraq and left... but I support our troops wherever they're sent... (though not necessarily supporting who sent them or why they went)
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Well said... If ya can't respect the man, at least respect the office...
If you look at before and after pictures of presidents, they all look like hell in just 4 years... not a job I'd want....
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Yeah, in 1991. The fact is, we committed acts of war and occupied Iraq for the whole time since. We just did it from 20,000 feet. The death on the ground contined amid the outrage of most of the muslim world The US seemed invulnearble until 9/11 The Gulf war has been going on, coming up on 13 years.
Actually I'm suggesting that the seat is hot enough that he'd rather be seeing someone else get burned if he could get out of it without appearing to be running away.
Hey, Hillary has _two_ eyes. Oh, that wasn't the mouse you meant was it. Never mind.
-snip-
Mathematical calculations aside, even I know that 3 million outta 120 million ain't much.
Just like we'll "fix" social security by cutting the intake and gambling.
Never did see any adminsitration so blatant about talking outta both sides of their mouths.
-snip-
Hey! I thought we didn't elect presidents that a way! You sure didn't bring it up 4 years ago. Hmm. Wonder why...
Have yourself a merry little weekend.
GO EAGLES!
Renata
The other "solution" is to increase the intake by raising/removing caps and running up the national debt even faster as every dollar in the SS trust fund represents one dollar of national debt. Not to mention the fact that every FICA tax dollar that goes into the trust fund will be matched by an additional income tax dollar with interest for other folks to pay (double taxation) since the feds spend every trust fund dollar in the year it was collected. Currently, something in excess of over 40% of the national debt is this intra-governmental debt. In case you don't remember, this type of accounting - creating shell corporations to transfer debt to and then counting that debt as an asset - is what some ex-Enron execs are being prosecuted for.
And for the liberals part, they trash GWB for recognizing the problem and trying to take some steps to correct it - all the while while moaning about the national debt. The way the law is currently written, eliminating the national debt would require eliminating the SS and all other trust funds as well as every other type of government bond.
So, be careful who you accuse of talking out both sides of the mouth.
- Doug
Shrib's "solution" does not address this problem (the raiding of the SS trust fund and replacing it w/IOU's).
Renata
Under current law, the fund must buy those IOUs with every excess dollar - there is no choice, and if you wish to call it "raiding", it has been the law since the inception in 1935. Just out of curiosity, what would you have the trust fund buy in place of government securities (IOUs)? Old FDR suggested it be transitioned out of this somewhere around 1965 into self-supporting annuities. So far, we're only 40 years late. And since you're against "raiding" as I am, the Democrat plan proposes to raise or eliminate withholding caps so as to be able to "raid" at a faster rate and buy even more IOUs.
- Doug
But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?
... which are often even more orthodox.
Why is it that your kind will always imply that if someone doesn't respect Michael "Never met a fact I wouldn't distort" Moore, that they must then somehow be in bed with Rush?
The fascist right wing in this country was very comfortable pretending that Clinto was not its president.
Thy all appear to age quite a bit. The only exception that I can think of is Regan, maybe Eisenhower as well. One of the realities that promote that is that a high percentage of presidents are in the age range when people often visibly age quite a bit, even without the influence of a presidency.
... and that is exactly what every prez from Nixon on up has done vis China, what Regan did vis Lebanon, and what GWB II has done with China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
- while increasing the problem by another 1-2 trillion dollars but refusing to recognize it as additional gov't debt.
While GWB II's heart bleeds for the SS debt 20-30 years from now, he is busy bankrupting us NOW with huge deficits that down the road will make SS look like a cake walk. This concern about SS debt is false, like virtually every other pronouncement, action, and supposed concern of this administration.
I do agree with you that SS is just a shell game. SS is fundamentally a welfare program couched in terms of a retirement program to make it acceptable. It is this that rankles right wingers, not the fact that it is heading towards debt status.
Heh. Perfect example. I respected the office then too, _and_ felt/feel strongly that he wasn't worthy of it.
When was Regan President?
Well sure, he was bald to start, wasn't he? The most visible change seems to be that the hair goes white.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.