tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402968.post110746155286214516..comments2023-09-08T12:09:18.913-04:00Comments on The Mint Julep: State of the Union ReactionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402968.post-1108283025239182732005-02-13T03:23:00.000-05:002005-02-13T03:23:00.000-05:00The reason social security never came up in the el...The reason social security never came up in the election is because it is politically very dangerous. To tackle social security is a pretty risky task, and many people would have thought him crazy if he announced his intentions about social security during the race. Now that he's reelected, Bush can focus on the issues that he cares about. If Bush cares about Social Security, then it is a priority. As for being a lame duck...don't forget that the Republicans have a large majority in congress right now. You are right, the social security will be a difficult set of legislation to get passed, but by no means should you write Bush off as ineffective on accounts of being a lame duck president.CCJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01028931387440166761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402968.post-1108279026853993562005-02-13T02:17:00.000-05:002005-02-13T02:17:00.000-05:00No matter what figures anyone uses, it is difficul...No matter what figures anyone uses, it is difficult to conclude that Social Security reform is truly a priority matter considering the state of both domestic and foreign affairs.<br /><br />If this were a real issue, why didn't this come up as priority in the President's campaign platform or debates? It's not. There's just not much more this lame duck is going to be able to get through congress.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402968.post-1107792777650817232005-02-07T11:12:00.000-05:002005-02-07T11:12:00.000-05:00Using your numbers it most likely does not fit the...Using your numbers it most likely does not fit the definition of bankruptcy. However, I would imagine that Bush is relying on different figures to support his "bankruptcy" statement. Regardless of this minute detail, the real point is that Bush thinks SS needs a major overhaul while the Democrats don't. Both parties are going to come up with figures that support their own beliefs, and neither will accept the other's figures.<br /><br />As for the booing/noing...my point was that they raised their voice...regardless of the exact words that they were using. You are right, Jim, they did use the word "no" instead of "boo." In my haste to post I had that wrong. Anyway, their vocal opposition is what really got me.CCJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01028931387440166761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402968.post-1107757070272898972005-02-07T01:17:00.000-05:002005-02-07T01:17:00.000-05:00The Democrats did not boo. They were saying, "No"...The Democrats did not boo. They were saying, "No" to the claims that the president was making. It was actually refreshing to me that someone "called" him on a misleading statement. The so-called liberal media, however, said they were disrepecting the president by booing, a rather prejudicial statement.<br /><br />"The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy...For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat. And by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt." This implies that there will be no money for anybody after 2042. It's true that by 2018 more will be paid out of the system than will come into it, but because of the Social Security Trust Fund (from where the government will somehow come up with that extra $200 billion), there is enough to pay current levels of benefits until 2042 or 2052 depending on whose numbers you use. After that, the ratio of payers to payees will support 75-80% of current benefit levels if NOTHING is done AND if the economy grows as slowly as the most pessimistic estimates of the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office. I don't think this fits the definition of "bankruptcy."Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.com