Dear WaPo: Social Security is NOT an entitlement program
have i mentioned lately that i'm thoroughly disgusted with the washington post...?
social security is a retirement program and a social safety net, not an entitlement program... calling it an entitlement program is loaded with connotations which, of course, is precisely the reason they use the term... the basic concept of social security is sound and does not need lobotomizing... and it CERTAINLY does not need to be slowly bled to death by grafting personal retirement accounts on to it... keep social security and make it work... there's a lot of folks out there (including me) who need it...
the wapo's shilling for bushco ideology as per usual is getting incredibly old... stick a sock in it, would ya...?
"the president failed to get traction not least because democrats were doing their best to scare voters into thinking that their retirement checks would be confiscated," is the basest of lies... you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that one of the items on the very top of the bush agenda since he and his criminal posse illegally usurped power in this country has been to destroy any implied or explicit social contract... the trophy that they want on their mantel is the social security program, mounted and stuffed... you can be sure that the bushies are going to pull out all the stops so they can make the trip to the taxidermist BEFORE bush leaves office on 20 january 2009... Submit To Propeller
Tweet
social security is a retirement program and a social safety net, not an entitlement program... calling it an entitlement program is loaded with connotations which, of course, is precisely the reason they use the term... the basic concept of social security is sound and does not need lobotomizing... and it CERTAINLY does not need to be slowly bled to death by grafting personal retirement accounts on to it... keep social security and make it work... there's a lot of folks out there (including me) who need it...
the wapo's shilling for bushco ideology as per usual is getting incredibly old... stick a sock in it, would ya...?
Yesterday an e-mail sent out on behalf of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, dismissed Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s comments on "privatizing" Social Security, adding that this policy has been "soundly rejected by the American people."
The Social Security reform that President Bush pushed last year involved personal retirement accounts. But it did not involve "privatization": The accounts, which were to be optional, were to be designed and administered by the government, with no opportunities for Wall Street salesmen to foist enormous hidden fees on unsuspecting workers. Besides, the idea that the American people rejected Mr. Bush's plan is only half true. The president failed to get traction not least because Democrats were doing their best to scare voters into thinking that their retirement checks would be confiscated.
In his speech Tuesday, Mr. Paulson did not say that he wanted to reintroduce last year's administration proposal. Instead, he said that his approach would be bipartisan and that he aimed to address entitlements because "when there is a big problem that needs fixing, you should run toward it, rather than away from it."
"the president failed to get traction not least because democrats were doing their best to scare voters into thinking that their retirement checks would be confiscated," is the basest of lies... you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that one of the items on the very top of the bush agenda since he and his criminal posse illegally usurped power in this country has been to destroy any implied or explicit social contract... the trophy that they want on their mantel is the social security program, mounted and stuffed... you can be sure that the bushies are going to pull out all the stops so they can make the trip to the taxidermist BEFORE bush leaves office on 20 january 2009... Submit To Propeller
Tweet
posted by profmarcus at
8/04/2006
