Giuliani Moves to the Right
[Guest post by DRJ]
Earlier today, Rudy Giuliani announced new positions in two areas that should please conservative voters.
Speaking at the Club for Growth, Giuliani recanted his support for McCain-Feingold and rejected a hike on Social Security taxes:
“Stepping up his efforts to win over fiscal conservatives, Mayor Giuliani today repudiated his past support for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and ruled out a tax increase to save Social Security.
“It’s one of the many occasions on which I could point out to you I’m not perfect,” Mr. Giuliani told members of the conservative Club for Growth this morning, referring to his backing of the 2002 bill that placed restrictions on campaign spending. The bipartisan legislation was spearheaded in part by a Republican rival of Mr. Giuliani’s, Senator McCain of Arizona, but it is reviled by many conservatives — including the Club for Growth — as an infringement of free speech.
“I make mistakes, and that has turned out to be a big mistake,” the former mayor said after a speech at the group’s conference in Washington.
Mr. Giuliani also made clear he would not support a hike on Social Security taxes as part of a reform of the financially-strained retirement program, putting to rest concerns raised by the Club for Growth after he refused to eliminate that option in an Associated Press interview.
“I would rule out a tax increase for that purpose, or for any other purpose,” he said. “I think a tax increase would be very damaging to the American economy.”
Thompson and Romney are scheduled to speak at the same conference this afternoon and are expected to make similar promises. Good.
— DRJ
Giuliani’s two best assets are his willingness to concede where he has erred and to frame issues where his personal opinion is different than that of some conservatives in a way that proves his belief is not a threat to their’s. Refreshing and seems to be keeping him in the front runner position.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:10 amHe is best poised to draw moderates from the Democrats in large numbers.
VOR,
I think it’s a fallacy to believe Giuliani will pull in any centrist Democrats other than Hillary haters. However, IMO Giuliani has 3 strengths: He’s the front-runner, he’s articulate at framing and responding to issues, and he’s tough. When it comes to a Presidential campaign, toughness is especially important because it means the candidate will take a stand on the issues and get into the fight. All in all, I think Giuliani’s and Hillary’s best features are their toughness, which is why it would make such an interesting matchup.
DRJ (67ced6) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:20 am…the financially-strained retirement program
A program that is generating tens of billions of surplus dollars a year for the government is “financially-strained?”
alphie (99bc18) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:23 amAlphie — its “financially strained” in an actuarial sense. While it has a current substantial surplus, it also has huge unfunded liabilities to future recipients that are backed by nothing more than a promise to pay — just like thousands of home buyers who took out sub-prime loans to pay for them.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:47 amDRJ,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:49 amWe may just have to agree to disagree. Hillary has pretty high negatives. If he pulls some of those it is my opinion, the numbers are significant. He also complicates her electoral calculus greatly.
On the other hand if it is Thompson or Romney I think those “anti-Hillary” voters will sit out the election.
I have crossed paths with Rudy Giuliani professionally on a couple of ocassions. The guy is incredibly impressive in person. He has the ability to speak before a group yet from his presentation make it seem like he is addressing each member of the group personally — that is a skill that any trial lawyer who wants to succeed must learn to perfect, and Rudy did so long ago.
Its interesting that in the biography done of him, “Prince of the City,” there are several comments about how he was not a natural campaigner the first time he ran for Mayor and lost to David Dinkins. But, when he ran the second time he had acquired those skills.
While DRJ doesn’t think Rudy will attract any Dems other than the Hillary-haters, I would suggest that the Hillary-haters may be a much larger slice of the Dem. party than one suspects.
Over at NRO Campaign Spot there is a post up that Hillary is under-polling the “generic” democrat against Giuliani by 11 points — Rudy loses to “Democrat” by 12 points, but right now Hillary leads Giuliani only 49-48.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:53 amIt also has trillions of dollars worth of government bonds in the vault to cover any shortfalls in the distant future, wls.
The only “solution” to the Social Security “crisis” the neocon’s proposed is that we give the current surplus to their Wall Street cronies so they could buy…government bonds with it.
That plan got about zero popular support.
These bumper sticker slogans like “financially-strained” remind me of spent shell casings from a war that was lost long ago.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:53 amVOR & WLS,
I don’t have a crystal ball that tells me how people will vote so I’m happy to agree to disagree. While it’s true that Hillary’s negatives are high now, when it’s time to vote I think disenchanted Democrats will be more likely to sit out or grit their teeth and vote D than R. People don’t cross party lines to vote for someone they aren’t sure about. They cross over to vote for someone they can’t resist.
DRJ (67ced6) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:00 pmThere are no “bonds” in the “vault” alphie. Congress and Presidents have spent excess SS receipts for a couple decades now. SS is a government agency, and the gov’t doesn’t issue Treasury Bonds to itself.
All that exists is a realization on the part of Congress that at some point in the future receipts from SS will be outpaced by the obligation to pay. Those checks don’t come from the SS Admin., they come from the US Treasury. Congress will then have to appropriate more and more money each year to meet the obligations of the SS Admin., while at the same time learning to do without the excess revenue from SS that it now feels free to spend. That means it will have to take money from other programs to make up difference between SS receipts and SS obligations.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:03 pmDRJ — my point is that Rudy is an endearing guy in a campaign format. He gets bareknuckled when governing — not necessarily a bad thing.
The first time many moderate Dems are going to take a good look at Rudy — assuming he is the nominee — is going to be in debates, likely with Hillary.
And he’s going to kill her because he’s a brawler unlike anyone she’s had to contend with in the Dem debates.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:06 pmwls,
Can you explain why Social Security’s bonds are “worthless,” yet the government bonds Bush is selling now to pay for his Iraqi social experiment aren’t?
Both represent claims against our children’s income.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:06 pmWLS,
I wasn’t trying to argue your points, just amplify on them. I’ve never met Giuliani but your description of him sounds right to me. In addition, I’d rate Giuliani as my second choice and I’ll be glad to vote for him if he’s the nominee.
DRJ (67ced6) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:12 pm#7
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:20 pmThe Social Security administration projects their “surplus” will be depleted by 2042 – when your 39 years old. So when you get a job, plan to start saving for an alternative retirement plan.
Can you explain why Social Security’s bonds are “worthless,” yet the government bonds Bush is selling now to pay for his Iraqi social experiment aren’t?
He’s talking about where the money comes from to pay them off. From the standpoint of figuring out how to pay for SS once payouts exceed receipts it’s indistinguishable from no bonds being there. Either way you need to come up with trillions of dollars.
Gerald A (6b39c1) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:28 pmwhoopie.
See Dubya (f7706f) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:33 pmGerald,
Are you saying the U.S. government will stiff retired Americans but not the Chinese Central Bank?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:42 pmCan you explain why Social Security’s bonds are “worthless,” yet the government bonds Bush is selling now to pay for his Iraqi social experiment aren’t?
Social Security has been a direct transfer of funds program since its inception, Staunch Brayer. There were never any “bonds.” (Don’t even try to deny that it is a direct transfer, unless you can explain Ida May Fuller.)
It was viable in the beginning because many people died before ever collecting it. The average life expectancy was under 65, which is why that particular age was set. At the start, seven or more people paid for the benefits of each recipient.
Problem is, not the average life expectancy is now nearly 80, and the number of people paying in per recipient is now down around three to one. Combine higher life expectancies with lower birth rates (not to mention the tens of millions of potential Social Security taxpayers aborted over the last 35 years) and you have the financial strain that Social Security is now experiencing. (Keep in mind I haven’t factored in variables like Social Security fraud by undeserving recipients, or under-the radar IOUs slapped on by various elected officials with money-grabbing hands.)
Paul (d71395) — 10/17/2007 @ 1:02 pmAlphie @ 11.
There are no SS “bonds.” SS payments to beneficiaries are an item of non-discretionary spending in the federal budget. The SS revenue now being received is spent on SS payments, and the excess is spent wherever Congress wants to spend it.
When the aggregated payments exceed the SS (FICA) revenue, then Congress will have to appropriate money from income tax receipts to make up the shortfall.
Congress can reduce this payment obligation by 1) reducing benefits or 2) means-testing benefits. Both would reduce the amount of revenue needed to pay the SS obligations — the obligation would simply be less.
A Treasury Bond, on the other hand, must be paid upon maturity at its face value. Not doing so is a default. If the gov’t were to default on the bonds it has issued, investors would quit buying them, would begin selling other gov’t bonds at a discount which would drive down the price of the bonds and make new bond issues impossible.
If the Cong. reduces SS benefits, it will piss off a lot of old people, but that’s about it.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 1:07 pmAlphie @ 16.
Since retired Amercians buy a lot fewer bonds than do foreign banks, I would say that if the Gov’t had to chose to pay one or the other, it would pay off the banks first.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 1:09 pmAmerican life expectancy was lowerr when Social Security began mostly because infant mortality was much higher back then, Paul.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/17/2007 @ 1:11 pmOf course, the US government will never default on its bond repayments as long as it can print money and the US economy remains afloat. And if that ever changes, the world won’t be worrying about bond repayments.
DRJ (67ced6) — 10/17/2007 @ 1:14 pmWLS@19
The SS ‘bonds’ are a little more real than you give them credit for being; they represent the fact that under current law, the gov’t is obligated to pay out current SS benefits until they run out. In other words, if current law is not changed, then we will pay out benefits even when they exceed SS income until the ‘bonds’ run out. At that point, benefits will be reduced to match SS income.
Since changing SS law is so politically challenging, it will be difficult to avoid paying off the SS bonds, though I expect benefits to be cut and/or SS taxes to be raised long before all the SS bonds are redeemed.
MattJ (ed1f7b) — 10/17/2007 @ 1:32 pm1. The Social Security Trust Fund is effectively part of the federal government; therefore the government is issuing bonds to itself, and will eventually pay itself back with money from other sources (taxes). There is no economic savings involved. In private accounts company stocks and bonds would be backed by investment in productive assets. (If private accounts only bought government bonds, it wouldn’t help – except that they would be owned by individuals and eventual benefits could not be reduced arbitrarily.)
2. Politics aside, those who did not live in New York 10-15 years ago tend not to appreciate the degree of personal force that Rudy Giuliani can generate. When he walks out on the floor of Madison Square Garden people feel the electricity up in Blue Heaven. It will have an impact.
Mahon (15e701) — 10/17/2007 @ 1:45 pm“And he’s going to kill her because he’s a brawler unlike anyone she’s had to contend with in the Dem debates.”
-WLS
Gimme a break.
Maybe you’re naive enough to think that Clinton isn’t whip-smart.
Maybe you’re naive enough to think that Giuliani’s got nothing to hide, and nothing to be afraid of that’s already in the open.
Maybe you’re naive enough to think that electoral debates decide elections (as opposed to…something el$e)
But there’s no way you’re so naive as to think that HILLARY CLINTON isn’t power-hungry enough to hit below the belt. I don’t like Clinton as a candidate, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that Giuliani (or ANY Republican candidate, for that matter) will have an easy time beating her in the general election.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 10/17/2007 @ 1:51 pmThe Hildabeast will do an excellent job beating herself since only “true believers” can vote for a candidate that has two positions on every issue. Combine that with a reputation and performance as one of the most arrogant and inept politicans ever seen in DC and you have a blundering candidate who is so weak a first term senator is mounting an impressive challenge.
As for Rudy’s positions, well if it is impressive to admit his errors then Clinton must have been the most impressive president we’ve ever had. Course I prefer my candidates to remain firm in their beliefs and not change them every hour.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/17/2007 @ 2:08 pmAmerican life expectancy was lowerr when Social Security began mostly because infant mortality was much higher back then, Paul.
And this changes my argument how?
Seven to one vs. three to one and dropping, Staunch Brayer.
Paul (d71395) — 10/17/2007 @ 2:50 pmMattJ — so I’m correct. The obligation to pay the SS “bonds” (there is no such thing — its simply a line-item in the federal budget) is a matter of political — not legal — obligation. To the extent that Congress could muster the political will to reduce benefits, there is no legal impediment to doing so.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 3:02 pmLeviticus — its one thing to debate among a group of people with whom you agree on 95% of the things being “debated” and the only differences are on the margins.
Where has Hillary ever been engaged by a political OPPONENT? Not when she was in the WH.
Rudy, on the other hand, spent 8 years engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the combined forces of the NY Dem. establishment, the Manhattan media elite, and the NYC permanent bureaucracy — and he won, hands down, no contest.
The difference between Hillary and Rudy in the way they will be received by the greater electorate is that Hillary is ice cold and difficult to like. Rudy, on the other hand, is incredibly ingratiating.
Hillary is/has been calculating in her approach to her entire LIFE.
Rudy is much more a “seat of the pants” guy.
I can’t wait to see how the new book on Hillary is received — coming out next week I think. Not sure what the title is, but a portion of it on the Gore-Clinton dynamic leading up to the 2000 election was excerpted in Vanity Fair.
Why I think Hillary will ultimately fail is because she has the approach of her husband without his political skill.
And, the Dem. party is about to consume itself again in a “Burning Ring of Fire.” I’m working on a post about that right now.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 3:10 pmWLS,
The Social Security bonds are real.
They are kept at the office of public debt.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/17/2007 @ 3:35 pmAlphie — they are “real” only to the extent that they are a marker, an “IOU”. They are not marketable, and cannot be redeemed other than by the government against itself. Since the government is both the obligor and the beneficiary, the interest is merged in a legal sense. They exist only as a bookkeeping entry.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 4:23 pmMaybe Congress should allow the Social Security bonds to be sold lke regular government bonds, wls?
That would clear up some of the confusion.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/17/2007 @ 4:26 pmWLS,
voiceofreason (b58fd1) — 10/17/2007 @ 6:25 pmI look forward to your post. Loosely related but I think that the GOP should try to avoid putting too much stake and going to the mat about scandals, fund raising and the like. In my opinion it is a better strategy. I think she can be beaten on the issues and if the GOP candidate can at least be seen as above the fray he will draw more voters.
Scandals involving the Clintons particularly are so byzantine that it is difficult to accurately capture the meat of the issue without sounding like someone with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
I like Rudy and from what he has shown so far this seems to be the tactic he is taking.
I’m not suggesting the scandals be forgotten and forgiven but the best way to stop future ones is to deny her the white house.
whether there are bonds or not, the g’ment has no legal obligation to pay benefits. they could vote SSA out of existence and keep the money
Flemming v. Nestor
chas (27fc3d) — 10/17/2007 @ 6:29 pm“And, the Dem. party is about to consume itself again in a “Burning Ring of Fire.” I’m working on a post about that right now.”
-WLS
Why don’t you write a post about Larry Craig’s landslide reelection while you’re at it?
DRJ’s right: we’ll grit our teeth and vote for Hillary Clinton before we vote for a fucking joke like Giuliani. I don’t think anyone’s too enamored with the results of the current Seat-Of-The-Pants Presidency.
Leviticus (9a014d) — 10/17/2007 @ 6:41 pmchas — that’s my point exactly. There is no part of the onerous impending SS burden that Congress could not fix with a simple majority vote in both houses. Its only an “entitlement” until Congress says its not an entitlement.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/17/2007 @ 6:41 pmWLS:
Nice post but are you aware that even the Supreme Court has said there is no obligation on the part of the government to pay social security benefits.
SSA is a complete joke. Anyone could do three to four times better annually by investing in utility stocks, compound this over a thirty year period and your talking 6 figure differences, high six figures. No wonder munipalities given the opportunity to opt out in the 80s took advantage of this clause.
SSA is just a means of income redistribution at the expense of the middle class.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/17/2007 @ 6:50 pmThis is a man who openly and defiantly cheated on his wife and the mother of his children, not once, but twice. This is a man who supports so called “rights” which legalize acts by medical professionals to rip babies from the wombs of their mothers.
I am quite certain that if Satan visited us in the form of man that he would be “incredibly impressive in person” and have the “ability to speak before a group yet from his presentation make it seem like he is addressing each member of the group personally” and have the “skill that any trial lawyer who wants to succeed must learn to perfect, and Rudy did so long ago.” In fact, Satan would probably come in the form of a trial lawyer turned politician.
If you want to complete the destruction of the Republican Party by driving out the pro-life, conservative Christians, then by all means, descend further into pragmatism and secure the nomination of this monster to the Republican ticket.
Jerri Lynn Ward (bf2d8c) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:05 pmI can’t imagine why anyone would fall for this. It’s intelligence-insulting enough that Rudy pretended to flip-flop on the partial-birth abortion ban, but now he’s flip-flopping right in the middle of his campaign.
I’m going to have an interesting time talking to some Rudy supporters about the nasty things they said about John Flipper Kerry three years ago. Consistency? What’s that?!
Alan (f1706f) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:11 pmwls,
It’s true Congress could kill Social Security, but why would they ever do that to such a popular government program?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:19 pmpopular or not its an entitlement that is running out of money, bonds or whatever they have in the file cabinet it aint got much time left.
chas (27fc3d) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:28 pmHow do people forget that before 9/11, Rudy’s political career was considered over because of the selfish, capricious cruelty that he visited on his sick wife? You think that won’t come up in the national election? You don’t think Hillary has plans already in place to exploit Rudy’s pratfall? Hillary was a woman hurt by a husband who couldn’t keep it in his pants. Rudy is a man who hurt his wife because he couldn’t keep it in his pants (and Rudy was considerably worse than Bill). Hillary could be the Ice Queen and there is no way that Rudy wins the personality contest. Not with the way that the
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:30 pmDemocrats work.
They won’t, Staunch Brayer, because too many Americans think Social Security is an Constutional entitlement birthright.
Its been the third rail of politics for decades, which is why no one in either party dared touch it until now, when it has become painfully obvious that it will collapse under its own weight.
Paul (d71395) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:31 pmDoc,
You beat me to it. If the Republicans nominate Giuliani they’ll be handing the Presidency to Hillary on a silver platter. I’ll go even further than you and say that Giuliani is nothing more than a sadistic, passive-aggressive thug who doesn’t have a tenth of Hillary’s balls. When she starts making the going tough for him he’ll wuss out just like he did in 2000.
Pre-emptively: Yes, I know about his prostate cancer which did not prevent him from parading his mistress in his wife’s face.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:38 pmHillary may have extremely high negatives, and some Democrats will abstain because of her–but Rudy has some pretty high negatives himself, and the leaders of the religious right may persuade their flock to abstain as well because he’s not enough of social conservative for their taste. And there are more religious right types who might abstain then there are Democratic Hillary-haters who might abstain. And when it comes to the personal issues, Hillary can legitimately say she didn’t divorce her guy at a time when only the Pope would have said she had no right to divorce him…in contrast to trigamous Rudy. And she’ll be able to pull in people because she’ll be able to draw on her husband’s popularity. And I suspect he’ll be offering all the political advice he can offer her. After all, becoming the first First Husband would be a goldmine for restoring his reputation.
kishnevi (0937a1) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:53 pmBeyond that, Rudy seems to be position himself as the continuator of all the Bush policies in regard to Iraq and in regard to civil liberties. Plenty of people will vote for Hillary because they see her as the lesser of the two evils (although there actually isn’t much difference between them on those matters.) There are lots of negatives available in his days as mayor. Remember how he wanted to get a special exemption to stay on as mayor after 9/11? I’m sure Hillary is already dreaming up ads to run against him in a general election.
I don’t think the evangelicals are quite as monolithic as Dobson would like to believe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/us/21evangelical.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
As for the abortion issue, why are so many afraid to let conservative judges overturn it and return it to the states and the Pre Roe status? I think the ardent pro-choicers and pro-lifers are not as confident that when put to the citizens of each state to address, the issue will be settled in the way they wish.
voiceofreason (b58fd1) — 10/17/2007 @ 7:57 pmVOR,
chas (27fc3d) — 10/17/2007 @ 8:04 pmwhere’d you get the idea cons are afraid to let judges overturn it? is that in the link you posted? i know i’d love for judges to overturn it. it was a terrible judgement and needs overturning.
The prolifers want 1) Roe v. Wade overturned which will do nothing more than return the issue to the States; 2) a Right to Life Amendment which will require two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and 35 States to ratify it. It’s the pro-abortionists who want the decision to remain in the hands of five old lawyers.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/17/2007 @ 8:07 pm*38 States*
nk (6e4f93) — 10/17/2007 @ 8:12 pmNk:
Nice comment. Its a shame we see the judicial branch of the government believing they can overturn the decisions of the executive and legislative branches. No matter where I look I can’t find this power in the Constitution, nor the power to be the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution or the laws of the land.
Vor seems to believe abortion on demand could be passed s a right by Constitutional amendment. Fat chance. Thats why the left fears allowing states to decide anything as the founders intended.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/17/2007 @ 9:22 pmThomas and Chas,
No one knows what the states would decide. I doubt that an amendment allowing unfettered abortions or outlawing it completely would be passed. I think instead that legislation would be passed at each state that dealt with the issue much better than the SC could.
voiceofreason (b58fd1) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:13 pmBut that sort of compromising would be something the ardent pro-choice and pro-life wouldn’t welcome, in my opinion. It would also eliminate one of the central campaign issues of both parties for the last 35 years.
You are kidding, right? Last time I checked, dead infants don’t pay Social Security tax, then or now.
Xrlq (6c2116) — 10/18/2007 @ 3:04 amAre you saying the U.S. government will stiff retired Americans but not the Chinese Central Bank?
No that’s not my point. The program is a mess actuarially and needs to be changed to avoid a disaster for future taxpayers and the economy. The bonds don’t change anything from the standpoint of where to come up with cash to pay future benefits. They would have to raise taxes or borrow even more to pay the bonds off as they come due.
Gerald A (bdfba2) — 10/18/2007 @ 6:54 amAs far as social security goes I think the best way to slow the bleeding would be to raise the eligibility age to 67 and 70 effective for all boomers born after 1955. Raise the eligibility age 12 months every fifteen years after that. Then engage whatever “task force” to design the changes needed to transition to a more private account type deal.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/18/2007 @ 7:24 amAnd I was born after 1955.
Regarding Rudy’s “special exemption” to stay on after the end of his term: it was a long-existing provision of the NYS Constitution that office holders could have their terms extended by 90 days in the event of public emergencies. So: a) it wasn’t something Rudy just thought up, b) it was limited to three months, and c) it probably would have been a good idea (maybe Ground Zero wouldn’t still be a big hole in the ground if someone had taken things in hand early on.) This hardly makes Rudy into Napoleon. Read Prince of the City.
Mahon (15e701) — 10/18/2007 @ 7:37 amYou are kidding, right? Last time I checked, dead infants don’t pay Social Security tax, then or now.
XRLQ, go back and read #17, and you will see why Staunch Brayer’s point is irrelevant.
Paul (d71395) — 10/18/2007 @ 9:43 amThis is patently untrue. There’s a higher percentage of people over 65 now than there was in 1935.
While it’s true that infant mortality has gone down, and that has affected the average life expectancy at birth, it is not the only thing that has affected life expectancy. Life expectancy at 60 is higher now than it was 70 years ago. That’s led to more people drawing from Social Security for a longer time.
Steverino (990606) — 10/18/2007 @ 11:07 amVOR:
Strange how the Left loves to use the courts to pass laws that can’t be approved by voters. I think abortion should be ended using the same methods the Left did through the courts. And once that occurs keep going to role back all the other Leftist nonsense that has been foisted on the American people.
As we all know the Left has always supported the right of the American public to decide how their lives should be run. End snickering.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/18/2007 @ 11:21 amVOR:
The best way to deal with SS is to abolish it, but then the Left would be deprived of all that money used to fund their blackhole welfare programs. Its time to py the piper and the Left must deal with the Frankinstein its created. In the end all these entitlement programs are about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Leftist pipe dreams one and all.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/18/2007 @ 11:23 amThomas,
I disagree. Overturn Roe and let the citizens decide. In any event, the right will need to push for that as no cases exist that allow judicial activists to make a law banning abortion.
Who determines what is leftist nonsense for “all the other” things that should be rolled back?
As for SS. The SS fund has been raided by both parties rather shamelessly over the last twenty years. While imagining it being abolished may be mentally satisfying, in practice it will never be changed without some transition. I’m assuming you have some relatives who collect SS. Do you pull the rug out from under them or do you adjust the program in terms of eligibility while changing the long term management to private accounts?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/18/2007 @ 11:40 amPaul, I read Comment #17 before I posted my comment, and again now, and your point is just as weak now as before. Life expectancy rates among working adults who pay into the system are relevant to whether Social Security works or not. Life expectancy rates among those who die before they will either pay into it or take money out of it are not.
Xrlq (582aed) — 10/18/2007 @ 1:56 pmVOR:
It appears that the Left is perfectly happy to have the judiciary making up laws 0out of nothing when it suits their purposes. Whats good for the goose. I will take great pleasure in watching the Left howl as all their politboro dickats are rolled back by the same instrument they created. Sob.
You guys created the monster that will destroy you. I can’t wait for the Left to change the rules of the game and then try to sell the public on universal healthcare. You might assume the general public is as dull as the Left but it learns, which the Left doesn’t.
The answer is to kill it now. People will make more investing their own money. Putting it in a bank account earns more than Social Security returns which demonstrates how bankrupt the entire system is. How nice of you to propose advancing the age, why not 80 or 90? Why not means test it?
The Left only can provide shared misery. No wonder it will not even discuss the individual control. Heaven forbide the state lose part of “its” wealth.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/18/2007 @ 10:34 pmVORE:
What is it that you have against the working poor being able to accumul;ate enough money to make themselves finacially independent? Why do you wish to keep them in poverty?
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/18/2007 @ 10:35 pm