And the reform is? Retire later and pay more fica?

Pity, though I must say I was beginning to wonder how removing 4% of every young person's SS contibution would contribute to SS solvency. But the retirement age will be raised to 70 and the benefits will have to be cut no matter what. For God's sake just get on with it and FUCKING DO IT! Every day's delay ensures that it'll be even worse when it finally does happen!

PS - Our slattern ionicare girl looks like Anna Nichole Smith on a bad day.

But I still want to eat the shorts of our T shirt!

But I still want to eat the shorts of our T shirt girl!

(Sorry, I was distracted.)

Dance on the bones till the girls say when.

Josie - Steely Dan

Ace, The democrats have already said that they will not move forward on social security, even though we caved on private accounts. The reason they give is that Republicans have said that they are hoping at some point to re-open the issue of private accounts.

(From Brit Hume's show yesterday.)

It's like I said a month ago over on my site: can someone explain to me how this is a good deal for *anyone*?

Perhaps that's the compromise everyone wants, where everyone gets equally screwed.

Some reform, that.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Sleep om the beach and make it
Throw down the jam till the girls say when
Lay down the law and break it
When Josie comes home

Yes!

"where everyone gets equally screwed"

Dave, I'd be willing to settle for that.

Bush has not backed down on personal accounts as evidence by his speech today. This is the same old media that is spinning a position that they like.

Master of None, so would I, but for once it'd be nice to have a political solution that actually, you know, *benefits* everyone equally.

I know, I know-- I'm a dreamer that way.

The meltdow in SS will hurt the poor the most. Middle-class and the wealthy know SS is a shit-deal and save their own money.

As usuall, the Dems will screw the poor and the dumb bastards will thank them for it.

We have stacks and stacks of blank restraining orders and we are not afraid to use 'em.

A lot of good they'll do you when you're wrestling with a concrete block and some easily obtainable a tough to trace nylon rope at the bottom of the Passaic River.

Now get in the van. My friend needs some lovin'.

Oh, and put one of these on. He's got lots of them.

The Ionicare & T-Shirt Girls - Don't get teste!

This is a thoroughly typical example of why I was opposed to the filibuster agreement. The Democrats aren't interested in collegiality, or reciprocity, or in being a halfway responsible opposition party--they just want to take down Bush.

Until the Dems learn that mindless, knee-jerk obstructionism comes with a heavy punitive cost, nothing is going to bring them to the table, on Social Security or anything else. And if that means screwing over their constituents on Social Security, education reform, or whatever... Well, you know the saying about omelets and eggs.

Do you spell your name spongeworthy or spoogeworthy? This is a legal form, ya know.

And we don't care how many your friend has, there's no way we'll be seen in those shirts.

And we don't care how many your friend has, there's no way we'll be seen in those shirts.

Speak for yourselves.

Dave,
Here's an OpinionJournal piece by John Fund that discusses the proposed legislation. If I'm understanding it correctly the idea is to bring back the lockbox on SS surpluses in the form of individual accounts. From a certain perspective bringing back the lockbox is the equivelant of putting lipstick on a pig but it seems to me that it's also a savvy method of undercutting current Dem opposition and reintroducing accountability into the picture by pulling back the curtain on surplus SS spending and eliminating that nifty government trick of borrowing from itself. With individuals holding onto the t-bills it's far more likely that surplus spending will be properly scrutinized by both the citizenry and the government.

Not my ideal situation, mind you, but it's better than nothing and IMO it seems to do a good job of setting the stage for future SS battles.

The Ionicare & T-Shirt Girls

Well, which is it? Our T-shirt babe looks like she's never done anything wrong in her life. Anna Nicole looks like a High Mileage car.

Bush's problem is he came out with a half-baked plan and as usual was too pig-headed to listen to people that said it was badly flawed but fixable.

Lindsay Graham tried, saying that the 4% cut in FICA taxes would create a 2 trillion unfunded liability and that the only way to get that money was to borrow from the Chinese, raise FICA rates, or end the exemption of FICA enjoyed by wealthy people once their income goes over 90K or by "special classes" of Americans exempt from SS all together. Bush ruled the latter two out as "tax increases" on his wealthy pals, and said China money was the solution. Even if the Chinese wanted to, along with theJaps, it is difficult to see them sinking 2 trillion into a another country's pension system going backrupt and where that country was proposing putting less money towards it in order to play the Stock market.

The Dems pointed out that he was going to cut benefits for younger workers, rely on their "individual accounts" to make up for losses, but at the same time hold them responsible for repaying all the 2 trillion in China loans, plus the interest.

Bush's plan made no sense to either Republicans or Dems, but until recently the Reps were blocked by Bush, their Congressional leadership and the "No Taxes Ever" fanatics from presenting a complete plan that would replace Bush's and Grover Norquists's pride and joy.

It also didn't help that the Stock Market has sucked under Bush.

The Dems didn't say a peep on the principle that when your enemy is digging their own grave, it is prudent, not to mention loads of fun - to just watch.

I would be perfectly happy never to pay FICA again, and simply chuck all of it into my mutual funds while never asking for a SS check. They can keep what I've paid since age 16 for their trouble. Unfortunately that's not an option.

I'm glad we're not getting stuck with "personal accounts".

Here's what personal accounts would have meant. It would mean that we're still on the hook for paying old people their benefits today, and we'd also have more of our own money placed off limits for any purpose but retirement. We'd get hit twice, and maybe have our "personal" accounts to make up for it if we lived long enough to touch it.

What we need are benefit cuts, pure and simple. There's no reason for the retired population to ever place more of a burden on us than they do right now - as their numbers grow, they'll have to take less per person rather than let the burden on taxpayers grow without limit. And we'll have to plan for lowered benefits in the future, and pay for current retirees the way we do now, but at least we'll have the use of all of our money to use or invest as we see fit in the meantime to prepare for it - and we can do better on our own than with the "personal" account investment rules.

Your site is exactly the kind of sites which make the net surfing so fun. About a year ago I started: http://www.wnyprogressreport.wnymedia.net/?p=2 , quilt Your fabric yoyo