Well, there is so much misinformation on this topic that it's unlikely there will be any changes.

Democrats love to say that even down the road, there is enough social security funds to make 70% of the payments. So, heck, lets just go with that since you think that's such a great deal. The Democrats support cutting social security benefits by 30% in the future. I wonder how that'd stand up to an opinion poll...

You mean to say that not having a plan, and not having a plan that is estimated to cost $2 trillion dollars to implement the non-plan, has the support of 38% of the people? Holy shit! What morons these people must be. Coming from a red state, I am always stunned at those who suck the guts out of public assistance programs yet who support the idiot son of George Bush and all he does.

In the mean time our economy slowly does nothing. Thank god there is no inflation. If you combined the increases in retail prices at all levels without a corresponding increase in my purchasing power along with that darned inflation, things would be truly bleak. As it is we just seem to be having an increase in the costs of goods and services without a corresponding increase in their value, which leads to lowered purchasing power with the few dollars I have. Oh yeah! Thank God there is no inflation.

But thank goodness things are going so well in Iraq, what with democracy and all. Brand USA is trudging right along.

Muck, muck, muck. That 70% number is based on pessimistic numbers, and it kicks in in 2042. If projections in, say, 2017 tell us that we'll have only 70% benefits in 2042, we'll probably want to do something. Until then, I'm okay with just spilling some Republican blood onto the Third Rail of American Politics.

muck as long as the poll you propose includes the fact that Bu$hco's "plan" will cut your guaranteed benefits by 40% plus adds trillions of dollars of debt and deficit for your kids and grandkids to pay off.

But hey who cares, only the "average" person is expected to live within their means. You see I have a hard time when those wealthy rethuglicans in the Republican lead goverment. You see those republican leaders love to talk about "personal responsibility" and "personal ownership" all the while running up massive foreign financed deficits and debt (after blowing through supluses and raiding the Social security trust funds first) to describe the need to pass the Corporate Loan Shark Protection Bill. Do you see the disconnect muck.

muck don't you ever get tired of trying to defend these republican imbeciles? At least when democrats are wrong people here don't blindly try to always defend them...they call it them like they see them.

Democrats love to say that even down the road, there is enough social security funds to make 70% of the payments. So, heck, lets just go with that since you think that's such a great deal. The Democrats support cutting social security benefits by 30% in the future. I wonder how that'd stand up to an opinion poll...

That "down the road" is 40 years from now, as Matt points out.

Today, right now, as we speak, needing immediate attention: The job creation engine is busy spewing forth low wage jobs without benefits. Real unemployment is over 10%. Education is becoming priced out the reach of average people. 43 million don't have health care plans. The government is giving away $1 trillion in corporate welfare this year alone. Environmental and energy policy is a joke. Iraq is a quagmire.

You're correct. We really need to foucs on a possible problem 40 years from now.

You're correct. We really need to foucs on a possible problem 40 years from now.

Should be read as: We really need to focus on a problem that won't occur until 40 years from now...or the like.

That's another thing Democrats love to say. That Bush's plan creates a $1-2 Trillion shortfall. But then the Democrats ignore the shortfall of doing nothing, which is around $10 Trillion.

Maybe Democrats like larger deficits. That could be. I wouldn't rule that one out.

Our economy is between 3-4% GDP. It's called a Goldilocks Economy. Not too hot, not too cold. Just right! Inflation is very tame. In the WSJ page 2 friday, there was an article about how the average net worth of Americans is at an all time high. So... JOHN KERRY WAS WRONG! Imagine that...

And imagine the thousands of dollars that Chimpyboy is adding to your debt. Your shit gets old, Muck.

Mucktroll wakes to find his position is opposed by a large majority of America and his president succeeds only in increasing the opposition at every turn. Muck, you are in the minority, by a bunch. Put a cork in it.

Muck, you are blowing smoke once again on the Social Security shortfall. It is not "around $10 trillion"; the trustees themselves say it is $3.7 trillion. Making Bush's tax cuts permanent and the cost of his corporate welfare Medicare drug benefit is over five times that cost. In other words, Bush's own policies have cost us an additional $19.2 trillion whereas the Social Security shortfall by the Trustees' own estimate is $3.7 trillion.

The CBO now estimates that Social Security will be unable to pay full benefits in 2052, ten years later than previously estimated. Even then, the CBO says that Social Security nearly five decades from now will still be able to pay 80 percent of benefits by doing nothing.

The cost of making the tax cuts permanent for those making over $1 million a year is also greater than the cost of the Social Security shortfall.

Try again.

Muckdog said
"Our economy is between 3-4% GDP. It's called a Goldilocks Economy. Not too hot, not too cold...."

If the economy is doing so well (or at least medium)... Why are there more layoff's scheduled? Why are there wage freezes going on?
Why are thousands of jobs being exported outside the country?
Those crooked book numbers mean nothing to the average joe American. Today he/she is doing worse than he/she was in the past four/ five years...Eventually the pocket book will speak and when it does .... whoever is in power will not be for long.

muck you should know better, you have got to be kidding with that WSJ story talking about average net worth as a sign of something grand in the economy. You are kidding... right?

Muck here is how it works (this is just a very simple example).... 2 unrelated people in the same room have an average networth of 1 million dollars in 2004. In 2003 these same two people had a networth of only 900,000 dollars.

However look what happened in 2004. One person in that room now owns nothing of value(no stocks/bonds, 401K's, no home, or car-uses public transportation) and is now currently unemployed and has just gone through all their savings looking for a new job after a medical illness forced him to quit his current job. The original scenario sounds impressive doesn't it and the average networth of the same 2 individuals actually went up but only one person actually is doing any better the other is actually doing worse despite the gains in average net worth. Muck it's the details, the devil is always in the details.

Just wondering Did that same WSJ talk about those 4 million added to the poverty rolls? No, what a surprise? How about those 11 million added to the uninsured health insurance rolls? How bout the millions that have declared bankruptcy? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer muck, those numbers citing net worth mean nothing given stated as you just did. And my educated guess is that if the real estate bubble burst big trouble to come in the average net worth gains you proudly trumpet.

And in case you didn't realize it muck, John Kerry isn't the president so why are you still campaigning and running against him.

Steve:

Your last paragraph in the blog report is absolutely on the mark.

"Perhaps the issue of trust, on the part of voters who see nothing but stage-managed appearances before Stepford crowds, and member of Congress, who have seen fellow members targeted by the White House after cooperating on tax cuts and Iraq has finally caught up to Bush at a time when he needed credibility the most for his main domestic priority. That would be poetic justice."

Thanks.

Jonathan

Here's Senator Chuck Hagel's Plan to fix Social Security.

Interesting, raising the retirement age to 68 and reducing the benefits for early retirees...

If the economy is doing so well (or at least medium)... Why are there more layoff's scheduled?

There are always layoffs somewhere.

Why are there wage freezes going on?

Wages for Americans have been increasing.

Why are thousands of jobs being exported outside the country?

Because educated people in other countries are willing to do some of the work for less money than Americans are willing to. If somebody in Detroit wants to build hubcaps for $50 an hour, but somebody in Singapore will do it for $5 an hour, the job is going. This has been going on for decades.

Those crooked book numbers mean nothing to the average joe American. Today he/she is doing worse than he/she was in the past four/ five years

That's not true.

Muckdog,

You are an idiot or a stubborn ass-hole who cannot comprehend reality.

I don't know even where to begin to "ejucate" you, to use favorite word of our dear beloved El Presidente.

Just look at the evidence:
- The federal deficit is at a record level (due to the idiot son's tax cuts).
- The states cannot make ends meet.
- The trade deficit is at a record high.
- The dollar is at a record low against the Euro and other currencies.

Jonathan

You are an idiot or a stubborn ass-hole who cannot comprehend reality.

A little from Column A, a little from Column B.

I figure the American People have gone about as far as they're willingly going to go with the President's pro-business/pro-upper class policies. Never mind that the Democrats are not only ignoring the looming solvency problems with Social Security but are offering no alternatives; the fact remains that the public are instinctively rejecting these reforms because neither side is being honest about them.

But something will eventually have to be done.

In the meantime, George W. Bush will benefit politically from at least appearing to be committed to reform (e.g., individual, bequeathable accounts). It shows some nerve, which people respect. It also shows the Democrats to be obstructionists, which people do not respect.

It's true that this partial privatization scheme doesn't add to the system's solvency, but it's equally true that reforms done now will be cheaper than ones done later.

[T]he fact remains that the public are [sic] instinctively rejecting these reforms because neither side is being honest about them.

No, the public is rejecting these [reforms] because they don't believe that the GOP actually wants to save Social Security. That's because the GOP has never, ever liked Social Security, and although they've gotten more clever about hiding that dislike, the public--though stupid--still isn't that stupid.

Matt,

I agree with you.

Them red-staters don't like gummint, but they sure like their Social Security. For many of them, they are too stupid and ignorant (like Muckdog -- what an appropriate name that man has given himself!) to go out and earn a decent living.

Jonathan

It seems to me, that just about everything George Bush tries to put forward is shot down. It appears that he is truly a lame-duck, afterall. The man has absolutely no credibility. He has lied to the American people too many times, and is now having to pay the price. I for one, will never believe that he won either our 2000 or 2004 elections, and constant opposition and unfavorable polls just further reflects this theft. Stick a fork in George Bush. The majority of the American people are done.. with him!

It seems to me that I read somewhere that 636 million dollars of Social Security has been spent by the Bush Administration in the last four years. Just imagine how much more of it they can spend in four more years. It seems to me, that the Bush Administration is a major contributor to our Social Security problems...and these are the people who think they can fix the problem. Go figure!

Nobody likes a grammar-fag, Davis. If I sometimes slip into British verb-noun agreements, I hardly think it's going to impair your understanding of what I've written.