Feeding the 'Crisis'(It was all a Dem lie)

The Washington post ^ | 2-4-05 | E. J. Dionne Jr.

[backhoe]

backhoe, backhoe, backhoe,,,,How many times I got to tell you that using the Democrat's own words against them is mean-spirited....AND it's an ATTACK! I thought you knew the rules.

Well, I had to take a break from my usual routine of forclosing on widows, starving small children, and tossing Grandmaw into the snowbank... I'll try to get with the program!

[hinckley buzzard]

"You'd never know that the shift the former representative from Minnesota described would lead to a substantial cut in future benefits."

A good example of how liberals imbed lies in their words without coming right out and uttering a false declaration.

From his urbane and sophisticated writings, you'd never know that EJ Dionne is totally addicted to illegal child pornography and is thought to be downloading reams of such material which he keeps in a special locked filing cabinet. A further question is why the Washington Post would hire not only a child pornographer but a man who, it is heard, cruises the back streets of DC looking for sleazy crack 'ho's on Saturday night.

See how easy it is if you're a liberal?

[daviddennis]

I think it's worth repeating my Slashdot post based on the same subject:

Imagine that there was an insurance company that sold annuities.

Today, they announce that they're sorry, but that money you put in isn't enough and they'll only be able to pay 80% of promised benefits.

Would you be:

(a) Grateful as heck that they could pay anything at all, the poor dears

(b) Storming their headquarters building with pitchforks.

How about if they implied in all their advertising materials that they were saving the money you contributed up for your future, but they were actually using it to pay current beneficiaries, and that's why their return on your investment was less than zero?

(a) You were happy that they forced you to save something just because then you might have something instead of zero

(b) Storming their headquarters with pitchforks and homemade atomic weapons.

Now, what if the government told you that you were REQUIRED to put your money into this bad insurance company, because They knew what was good for you, and you were just a pathetic loser who couldn't be trusted to invest your own money?

Would you be:

(a) Happy the Government was taking care of you

(b) FURIOUS that the government was forcing you into a lousy deal, with no recourse whatsoever?

I don't know about you, but when it comes to Social InSecurity, I'm selecting choice B all the time, and have been ever since I started paying SI taxes for the first time. (It didn't help that I was self-employed and had to pay HUGE SI taxes).

SI was a good deal for the last generation, because our population was growing. It's nothing but a giant Ponzi ripoff for THIS generation, because Mr Ponzi has no more investors; with slowing population growth, there are no more new investors to pay benefits.

Bush's proposal may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now. For that, President Bush deserves our sincere thanks.

I'm still disgusted by Social Security, but President Bush is at least trying to make it less of a ripoff, when nobody else has had the guts to do it.

D

[carlr]

Very insightful way of summarizing the current system.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This guy is not being honest. Comparing the shortfall against the GNP instead of comparing it against SS revenue is changing the rules in mid-play.