General discussion

The real meaning of Social Security repeal?

While not buying this entirely (I think Bush is sincere in his desire to destroy the Social Security System) its an interesting discussion of the issue of Health Care in the US. And there is prior evidence of Republicans use of oblique measures (Reagan's tax cuts running up the deficit so Social Programs become unaffordable, ditto with Bush) to pursue central goals.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050502/opcom02.art.htm

I've always liked Bob Reich. Bet you guys don't.

Rob.

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: The real meaning of Social Security repeal?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: The real meaning of Social Security repeal?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
And another county heard from on health care.

"American health care is unique among advanced countries in its heavy reliance on the private sector. It's also uniquely inefficient. We spend far more per person on health care than any other country, yet many Americans lack health insurance and don't receive essential care.

"This week yet another report emphasized just how bad a job the American system does at providing basic health care. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation estimates that 20 million working Americans are uninsured; in Texas, which has the worst record, more than 30 percent of the adults under 65 have no insurance." "

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/opinion/29krugman.html

Rob

- Collapse -
Ya destroy it he will,

If a person is allowed to direct the investment of 4% of his SS deducts (not 4% of his net pay) the other 96% will have sympathy pains and self destruct too, I much prefer the Democratic plan but for the life of me, I can't remember what that is. Can you help?

The whole Democratic response that you should not have anything to do with your retirement, do not plan on your own, do not decide what age to retire, do not decide how much money you will need, your SS is enough, don't add plans of your own like an IRA, 401K long term investments, letting Uncle Teddy handle it is ludacris.

- Collapse -
What a bunch of horse droppings!

As usual the poster contradicts himself and is so anxious to elicit a flaming response doesnt have the slightest clue as to what was really said. So now I add another name to posts I wont read from the right,left and middle as compulsive irrational drivel is remarkably predictable and does not require reading to be aware of its content!!!
The list is approaching ten. At which point none of you will have to deal with the persona gearup...who will be laughing so hard it will take him a year,at least, to catch his breath...

- Collapse -
Response
(Reagan's tax cuts running up the deficit so Social Programs become unaffordable, ditto with Bush)

Reagan's tax RATE cuts DOUBLED tax revenues. Try again.
- Collapse -
Bob Reich? Didn't he play R2D2?

No, seriously. I like him fine. Smart man. Just don't want him in power.

CNET Forums