Txdigest.com

he wants to do means testing . --- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/christie- ... 58598.html ---

It would be better than ignoring the problem, or even making it worse as Lie-a-watha has proposed.

Soak the rich..how original.

The truly Rich won't miss it, the moderately successful will take it in the Bung Hole.

Wake me when somebody proposes making it optional.

From government retirement schemes, to health insurance, to kissing the ass of every protected class that walks into a bakery; there is NO optional Mark, that would be too much like....well freedom.

Notice how the first response from a politician like Christie when the govt. needs more money is to take more from the taxpayer and is never, ever to cut the insane level of spending.

planosteve wrote:Notice how the first response from a politician like Christie when the govt. needs more money is to take more from the taxpayer and is never, ever to cut the insane level of spending.

I think this would legitimately cut the insane level of spending.

..but it would NOT cut the insane level of taxing!

It's a new redistribution scheme.

Mark wrote:Wake me when somebody proposes making it optional.

It will never in our lifetime be optional, but I think if we get a real live Conservative President, and a Republican controlled Congress...we'll see substantial changes that will reduce future spending growth.

One thing I'll say for Christie's plan..it probably has the best chance of appealing to the rabble.

When in doubt, make the rich pay more and get less.

yeah , Ted Cruz would be good Greg !!

GFB wrote:

Mark wrote:Wake me when somebody proposes making it optional.

It will never in our lifetime be optional, but I think if we get a real live Conservative President, and a Republican controlled Congress...we'll see substantial changes that will reduce future spending growth.

We had that during the first Bush administration. They didn't do squat for Social Security.

planosteve wrote:

GFB wrote:

Mark wrote:Wake me when somebody proposes making it optional.

It will never in our lifetime be optional, but I think if we get a real live Conservative President, and a Republican controlled Congress...we'll see substantial changes that will reduce future spending growth.

We had that during the first Bush administration. They didn't do squat for Social Security.

Perhaps you've forgotten Bush DID move to reform Social Security.

That was a long time ago. Much of Congress has changed personnel..there was no Tea Party then.

And even more importantly..lots of whiney, cranky old geezers have croaked.

Younger people will not stand with AARP..they kind of laugh at them.

Perhaps you've forgotten Bush DID move to reform Social Security.

Or perhaps you just made it up. Want to prove me wrong?

planosteve wrote:

Perhaps you've forgotten Bush DID move to reform Social Security.

Or perhaps you just made it up. Want to prove me wrong?

Yes..oh what short memories we have.


"In 2005, the Bush Administration embarked on a major effort to privatize Social Security. A coordinated campaign, including a variety of organizations, was able to mobilize many people to systematically apply pressure to halt this large national privatization proposal. Ultimately, H.R. 3304 failed to reach a vote in the House and the Bush Administration had to abandon its goal of privatizing the Social Security program."

Here you go..in detail..

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/02/socs-f03.html

GFB wrote:Here you go..in detail..

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/02/socs-f03.html

I'm amazed that anyone would use "The World Socialist Website" as a source for anything.

planosteve wrote:

GFB wrote:Here you go..in detail..

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/02/socs-f03.html

I'm amazed that anyone would use "The World Socialist Website" as a source for anything.

I didn't even notice that..I have no ready to go websites for people that have forgotten about the move GW Bush made to reform Social Security..you can find hundreds of them, I'm sure.

Here's one from CNN...http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirem ... on_socsec/

I think if you wanted to privatize anything you would do it when your party controlled the congress, not wait until you had already lost control and expect it to pass.