Another commentary on Social Security "Reform"

[Hyperborea]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?050124ta_talk_hertzberg

First a quote from the Wall Street Journal interview with Bush on Social Security that I think sums up his "thoughts" on the matter.

That's part of - that's part of the advice my new National Economic Council head will be giving me as to whether or not we need to - here is the plan, or here is an idea for a plan, or why don't you just fix it. I suspect given my nature, I'll want to be - the White House will be very much involved with - I have an obligation to lead on this issue - I think this will be an administrative-driven idea - to take it on. And therefore, that that be the case, I have the responsibility to provide the political cover necessary for members, I have the responsibility to make the case if there is a problem, and I have the responsibility to lay out potential solutions. Now, to the specificity of which, we'll find out - you'll find out with time.

So when does the surplus run out? It depends on whose numbers you use. What if you use the numbers that the Bush administration uses when it touts the benefits of it's tax cuts? Why doesn't it use those numbers for Social Security?

Using the assumptions of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the surplus runs out in 2052. And if one uses the economic growth assumptions that Bush's own budget office uses when it calculates the effects of his own tax cuts, the surplus runs out in - er, maybe never.

 

[Cut-Throat]

 

[charlie]

Who was it that practiced with pebbles in his
mouth declaiming against a roaring sea? .....
just because GW has pebbles in his mouth
does not mean he has them in his head. Hark
back to Ike. He had the worst syntax of them
all.

GW had enough smarts to become a fighter
pilot and graduate from a tough business
school not to mention winning two elections.

How many of you can put that on your resume?

Come on folks .... give him a little slack in the
brains department even if you hate his guts.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[Robulent Roy]

Who was it that practiced with pebbles in his
mouth declaiming against a roaring sea?

Demosthenes
.
just because GW has pebbles in his mouth
does not mean he has them in his head. Hark
back to Ike. He had the worst syntax of them
all.

They say he actually did that on purpose because it made him too hard to be (mis)"quoted" or truncated into easily edited sound bites. Don't know if that's true but as a General he knew one technique od leadership is "keep 'em guessing"

GW had enough smarts to become a fighter
pilot and graduate from a tough business
school not to mention winning two elections. How many of you can put that on your resume?

You're assuming one needs to be unusually smart to be a figher pilot. You only need to adaquate and want to. Or have a lot of money and connections to get pencil-whipped thru training and covered for. Same with running in an election and having other people do the work to get enough people to vote for you.

Come on folks .... give him a little slack in the
brains department even if you hate his guts.

He already has enough slack in the brains department and the Christian morals department, and American values department

 

[P.S.]

The medical term for this would be logorrhea.

 

[John Galt]

Well, I must agree with Charlie here, and remember,
I am no big fan of "W". In spite of what you may say
about him, he was actually quite successful in business
(yeah, I know he had "connections"). Also, as Charlie pointed out he was a fighter pilot and did graduate from a tough business school, then won handily the Texas
gubernatorial election before 2 terms as President.
Also, his personal/family life is pretty well untainted.
All in all. a "resume" very few (living or dead) can match.

He does suffer from arrogance and is certainly overly
sure of himself, but I wouldn't want anyone wishy-washy in the White House, would you? I think I cut
him so much slack mostly because his personality
reminds me of someone I know.

JG

 

[RAE]

John - wishy-washy is not the same as someone who is capable of learning from their mistakes and adjusting course to improve in the future. Based on his performance in office to date, GW is not capable of doing that, for whatever reason. Maybe he thinks that any mid-course correction would be seen as a sign of weakness. That kind of arrogance/ignorance/stubborness is not only unattractive, it can get the country in a whole lot of trouble, as we are seeing now.

RAE

 

[John Galt]

I certainly agree that we are in "a whole lot of trouble".
No argument there.

JG

 

[unclemick]

As a lifelong Democrat:

"God looks after drunkards, fools, and The United States of America." - Charles De Gaul.
.
This too shall pass is what I tell family members who are foolish enough to be Republicans.

And then - there is my ding dong sister who thinks the Pats will beat Philly in the Superbowl.

 

[johnblake]

he was actually quite successful in business (yeah, I know he had "connections")

Bush's start-up, Agusto Energy was a failure. It was sold to Spectrum, also a failure. He did manage to do well with the Texas Rangers, largely financed by taxpayers.

 

[John Galt]

To clarify, I said that "he" was successful, not necessarily the companies nor the stockholders.
And BTW, there are damn few entreprenuers without
a few failures along the way.

JG

 

[johnblake]

I don't doubt that Bush is reasonably intelligent. He's also inarticulate. I'd expect that being able to communicate clearly, verbally and in writing, would be a prerequisite for the job of president. Apparently, many voters don't think so. This fact seems to be a symptom of the same problem that many Americans (conservatives too) complain about -- a lack of fundamentals in education. Heck, the president can't even speak properly. This doesn't set a very good example for our young people.