I find it ironic, and unfortunate, that these two statements occur so close together in an otherwise good post.
They call that a plan these days? I suppose I could “plan” for my own retirement by hoping that a truckload of money falls on my house. But, I would be better off if my plan actually was sensible, like socking away money in a 401K.
You have, however, given a succient statement of what supply-side economics is all about. Never mind that it didn’t work last time it was tried under Reagan; maybe we can hope that this time it will?
Actually, what Bush is willing to do is to continue cutting taxes and then using the social security surplus to make up for part of the missing revenues (borrowing the rest from elsewhere) thus insuring a fiscal train wreck in the future.
Social security isn’t really a ponzi scheme…or at least it is a fairly benign one. Sure, there is some intergenerational transfer but since each generation is richer than the last, this doesn’t have to be a disaster. And, with a few small adjustments it could be solvent well into the future…that is, if the federal government really is planning to pay back what it has borrowed from the trust fund. (Medicare is a more serious issue because of the ever-rising costs of medical care.)
Finally, Bush doesn’t have any realistic plan that I have heard to reform social security. He hasn’t explained how he will work the magic of not cutting benefits while allowing younger folks to put some of their money into private retirement accounts.
So is a dead-cat bounce. Do you believe in accountability at all? Do you really give Bush credit for slight job creation while not holding him responsible for much-greater job losses?
Remarkably, the recession was almost over before 9/11, the economic effect of 9/11 itself is not established, the invasion of Afghanistan was done on the cheap, the Iraq war is being fought on credit, while taxation has been reduced, and Bush refuses to do anything about health care anyway. Remember?
IOW, you know it’s true.
We already know the RNC talking points. What are your *own * thoughts?
While it’s certainly a good IDEA, he’s failed to actually accomplish it. How much of Afghanistan is actually under Allied control? Maybe most of Kabul?
The Taliban’s still out there, in strength.
Please explain “good handle on the tools of the military” ? I would say he is more willing to use them… not necessarily in a better way. Like I’ve said in other threads… the military won’t become incompetent overnight if the presidency changes. The threat of military use sometimes is as useful as the actual use… and less lives are wasted. By becoming bogged in Iraq I think Bush has pointed out a major defect of the pre-emptive defense ideas. To be fair before Bush terrorists were being treated too lightly and it was necessary to show americans would accept casualties… but now Bush has gone to another extreme. Excessive use of military might in the wrong places.
“Diplomacy” ? I would venture Bush is a flop in this respect. The “coalition of the willing” had to be stuffed and propped up with small countries to make it sound bigger. Bush actually seems to relish the fact that he will do things with or without allies. Tough stance that sells well to some americans.
As for social security… what has Bush already done in 4 years ? Kerry and Bush are promising a lot of things in this campaign, but I doubt most of it will be possible to fulfill. Why hasn’t Bush done stuff already for social security ? Talk is cheap… on both sides.
According to whom?
Oh yeah, that old chestnut from those who don’t know what a Ponzi scheme is. Social Security is a transfer-payment system, in which a balance can be maintained between payers and payees. A Ponzi scheme, aka a pyramid, gets its income from continuously increasing the required number of entrants. It must always crash at or before the point where the required number of entrants equals the earth’s population.
But it’s easy, and maybe fun, to discredit Social Security by mischaracterizing with that term as fraudulent or doomed to failure. It isn’t.