George Will Wants Those Lazy Seniors Off The Dole
By Nicole Belle Sunday Oct 28, 2007 8:02pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather for vids)
I had originally planned to focus this post on campaign tactics of Barack Obama and his attempt to stand out from the pack by attacking Hillary on the subject of Social Security, which as the NY Times' Paul Krugman points out, is not as big a problem as Republicans would have you believe--in fact, they hate it because it's not a big problem. That said, I do think that Barack's stance of expanding the income cap is a good one.
But then George Will had to chime in and say something so completely through-the- looking-glass bizarre that I had to change my whole focus. Watch how Will just proves Krugman right:
Sixty-five days from now, the first of 78 million baby boomers begun (sic) to retire. Most Americans who collect Social Security begin to collect it at age 62, which is absurd. We have the public subsidizing increasingly long and comfortable retirement of people for a third to a half of their adult lifetime. Now. That's why one in four voters in 2004 was over 60 years old. The elderly have the biggest stake in the welfare state, which exists to transfer wealth to them. So this is, politically, a loser.
Um, WTF??? The rules of Social Security have changed...while it's true that you can begin collecting at the age of 62, you won't get as much as if you wait until 65. And so now George is complaining about subsidizing people for up to half of their lives???? How many 120 year olds do you know, George? Are you suggesting that we should be making those indolent 75 year olds pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get back to work? Those lazy seniors...
UPDATE: via John Amato: (In the above video clip) Paul Krugman believes that Obama's new approach to Social Security was a foolish endeavor. I thought the same thing. Social Security was the first real defeat I can remember that George Bush suffered with the help of the netroots after he won re-election and told America:
During the first press conference after his re-election, Bush said, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."
We've come to see what his style represents all too well... Duncan Black explains:
It's true that Obama didn't assert that there was some huge crisis. But the fact remains that he put the idea out there that Social Security had a "problem" which needs to be fixed and that any serious presidential candidate needs to address the issue in clear detail. So what's the big deal?
Beating back George Bush's plan to kill social security was probably the first major victory for the broadly defined netroots movement. I say that not really knowing if things would have been different if blogs and the like didn't exist, but it seemed like a victory...read on
Login or Register to post comments.
Maybe he's talking about those green-blooded, inhuman vulcans.
He does say a "third to a half of their adult lifetime."
But even so, if adult is 18 and payment starts at 62, then average people should live to 110 (for half).
You also have to wait until you're 65 for Medicare which gives a lot of people thinking of retiring pause.
I'm more concerned about the fact that they have borrowed against SS to the point it's all smoke and mirrors. To be paid back how? Taxes? Magic Fairies? Oil from Iraq?
Will is cruel boy here, to be sure, but I think he means a 62 year old living to 80 or 90. Plus a third to 80, plus half to 90. Still, he acts as if the elderly should get off their asses and pick up a shovel, or a Wal-Mart bib.
I stand corrected, Mateo is right, he did say ADULT lifetime. Centenarians serving Happy Meals is not a good future.
Fuck this moron.
Get down with the only candidate who wants to represent you.
Not the uber-rich who pay this vile scumbag's salary to mouth absurdist lies.
It's crunch time folks. Get progressive or you will be living in a cardboard box while Will's heirs whip by in
their armored limos.
Who knows someone who is living comfortably on Social Security alone? George Will is a dip-shit, there is no WEALTH transferring to the elderly in this country, Social Security will barely keep an old person off of cat food.
So ... if avg lifespan is 78, then people who start collecting SS at 62 can expect to receive payments for 16 years, and 16 is about 20% of 78. How did he come up with 1/3 to 1/2 of their lifespans?!
Serves them right for voting for Repukelean. They put them in power so they should suffer the consequence.
The total years of benefits really doesn't matter. He is implying that the elderly are fat and happy on their SS checks. Do you know anybody trying to live on a SS check? Ain't nothing comfortable about it. I tend to disagree with Will on most things, but grudgingly give him credit for being intelligent. This line was simply ignorant and disgusting. Its like Snow bitching that he had to quit being press sect because he can't survive on the > $150K salary he gets. Let them all live on SS for a while.
I'm surprised nobody stated this already: Social Security is not a "gimme" program... WE PAY FOR IT OUT OF OUR EARNINGS. It is a savings account for the future - we are just forced to save by the government.
So, ANYONE saying this is a gimme program needs to be slammed hard. I haven't been paying since I've been working to be "given" anything... I've paid for it.
I hate old people as much as the next guy, but should they work until they die on the job? Of course not. Old people need to be able to retire from work at a reasonable age and still enjoy a decent lifestyle with health care.
How many Americans live to be 124?
How many anybodies?
You know the armed forces are really relaxing their enlistment requirements. Two birds with one kidney stone if you get my drift.
Michael Gass @ 12:
Could it be that we're so accustomed to their skewed framing of the issues that we don't see it and immediately jump on the other fallacies in their argument? I think that must be it. THANKS for pointing it out.
My reports say I don't get retirement until 67 years of age.
Will didn't say the people collect SS for 1/3 to 1/2 of their lifetimes. He said they collect it for 1/3 to 1/2 of their ADULT lifetimes. If we say that one is an adult at age 21, a person who lives to the age of 80 has lived 59 years as an adult. If this person collects SS from 65 until death they have collected SS for 1/4 of their adult lifetime.
You can all play with the numbers to run different scenarios.
The comment about living to 120 missed the point.
On the other hand, George Will, a right wing hack if there ever was one, misses the point. They have paid into SS for most of their adult lifetimes, and if they are like most of us, they paid when they were kids as well. Every industrialized country has universal health coverage and some form of retirement support.
American citizens, senior or otherwise, are hardly a bunch of lazy freeloaders, particularly compared to citizens in other countries. Most of us work our asses off day after day, year after year, and retire on our SS checks to a life near the poverty line.
Will is just an overpaid windbag.
But let's give him hell where he deserves it.
Andotech @ 13:
Your a riot ... "you hate old people as much as the next guy?"
Give me a break, nobody lives on SS, if you can get by on $1500 a month your Houdini living in a cardboard box without chains. And why would anyone hate old people? Too stupid to realize they too will get old?
Soylent Green would be a nice alternative for how to use our Senior population. Though George may not like the idea of a free movie before we put the Elders to "use".
Mateo @ 2:
Yep, to be perfectly fair, he says "a third to a half of their adult lifetime." Technically meaning between one third and one half of the time that they are adults.
There are 44 years between the age of majority (18) and 62.
For someone to receive Social Security for half of their adult life, she would have to live until age 106. (62 + 44)
For someone to receive Social Security for one-third of her adult life, she would have to live until age 93. (If you begin receiving SS at 62, and reach 93, you'll have received SS for 31 years. 31*3=91)
So, for Will to say that we could be doling out Social Security for between one-third and on-half of someone's adult life, isn't all that insane. There are plenty of people receiving Social Security right now between the ages of 93 and 106, right?
All that said, George Will is a twit. And Nicole is right. It's the fact that Social Security (and Medicaire) actually work that really scares twits like Will.
Wingnuts are used to speaking without thinking and not being called on it It's un-american to ever question a wingnuts statements
I thought being a greeter at Crapmart was part of retirment in the US.
Oh, and....that "increasingly long and comfortable retirement" he talks about. What's he mean by that? Increasingly long often negates increasingly comfortable for people, especially when Social Security doesn't always pay the bills, and it's increasingly difficult to get the proper health care one needs as one gets older.
Yeah. George Will is a twit.
If I got paid an outlandish fee for bloviating 7 days a week about things I know little of, I too would never retire. And I might even look askance at anyone who retired before 70.
Ah the long, long, long list of things George Will knows nothing about but talks about anyway.
Gee the country didn't mind taking the taxes from those seniors for almost 50 years. How come. Give it back.
wait, didnt they Pay for the coverage?
Yeah, those lazy octogenarians, you could put them in a wheelchair and put in the entryway of a Walmart. All they would have to is raise their hand and wave. That paycheck would be enough for cat food and a cardboard box in the alley. Whiners.
How about getting rid of these children who draw SSI for things like ADHD and other crap?
Andotech @ 13:
I can assume, since you hate old people, that you don't plan to live long enough to get "old?"
These right wing snakes of America will be the death and destruction of America as we know it was and what she could become, which is a hope & light of free people everywhere.
"Truly Free"
I hate to be that guy, but I agree with Will, but not in such a mean way. I'm going to get alot of shit for this, but it needs to be said.
Let's face it, Will has a point. Social Security was created in a time when people couldn't be expected to live more than five years after their retirement, and a good chunk of people would never get to that age in the first place.
Since then we have seen historic demographic changes in the population- people aren't dying of infectious diseases the way they were in the 30s. As much as our healthcare system sucks, lets face it, even with all the debt it incurs- cancer isn't a death sentence any more, nor is influenza. Chronic, debilitating diseases are the problem, not swift killers.
So we are faced with the wrost of all worlds- people are still retiring at 65, and are still no more able to work at 65 than they were in 1936, but they can be expected to live a decade, or more, longer. That, and the current crop of workers does not outnumber their parents like they used to. So we are facing a major financial hardship, though not an immediate problem, the long-term effects of deficit spending and longer lifespans (and more effective, and expensive, medical care) will only make the problem worse.
How do we deal with that? The first option is to widen the base, and increase taxes. Or both- but Will's point still stands, and being an insensitive ass does not negate his logic. The baby boomers can be expected to live well into their eighties on average, and while Will is exaggerating, it's true. We need to think about how long people are supposed to live on social security, and how long the system is designed to support them.
I'm not particularly worried, for a much more macabre reason. I don't think the baby boomers, who don't have secure pensions in the numbers their parents did, and have to rely on 401(k)s most are not qualified to manage, will probably not be able to afford to retire at 65 anyway.
Karen @ 21:
Oops. I did some math wrong. Since Will was talking about receiving Social Security for one-third of one's adult life, one would only have to live to age 84, not 93. (Which makes it all the more plausible.)
If one begins receiving Social Security at age 62, and reaches age 84, she will have received Social Security for 22 years. An 84-year-old has spent 66 years as an adult (84 - 18). 22 * 3 = 66, so 22 years is one-third of an 84-year-old's adult life.
So, folks receiving Social Security from age 62 onward will receive it for 1/3 to 1/2 of their adult lives if they live anywhere between 84 and 106 years.
Not implausible.
And George Will is still a twit.
I think we should incorporate into how much a senior gets in SS with whether or not they surrender their driver's liscences.
Those of wealth just don't get it. And george will is one of them. How can they be so fucking stupid? "Compassionate conservatives" my ass!
People PAY INTO the SS system during each of their working years, and what they get out of it is, in most cases, far less than they put in over the years. It is not a handout - in any sense of the word - for the vast, vast majority of people who get it. Those who don't have to count pennies after they retire just do not understand the realities of trying to live on a fixed income that may not allow one to make ends meet.
Sorry Will, I've worked and paid in to Social Security since I was 16. When I say I worked I mean I worked, not sitting around like yourself and flapping my gums (or my typing fingers) thinking it was work. It must be tough to be so arrogant and pretentious while you're claiming to be a human being.
But then the elite depends on running their work force in to the ground don't they. People like Will are still upset about child labor laws, a 40 hour work week, and god forbid maybe 2 weeks of vacation a year.
Imagine if George Bush, or any of the Bush children and grandchildren, actually had to work to survive. Actually I'd pay to see that and laugh my ass of as George W., Jeb, or Neil attempted manual labor of any kind. By manual labor I don't mean photo-op brush clearing sessions on Chimpy's brush farm either.
Too bad all those other seniors can't make a living from nothing more than being a pompous public @$$ like George Will. There's only so much corporate funded affirmative action for Conservative blowhards to go around.
Karen @ 33:
Examples? Links?
Ha! Just kidding. Agreed. This particular 30-something doesn't even count on any SS. Between how Bush has screwed up the world, the food that I shove down my pizza hole, and my genetic disposition to diabetes and depression ... I'm spending everything I can now.
fedup @ 30:
You should have kept on reading for content after the part that you didn't find funny.
Glinda @ 25:
Exactly. If gasbags like Will and the rest of the punditry had their livelihoods threatened maybe they'd think differently. The economic punditry, save for Krugman, is especially bad. Would they have a different perspective if Robert Samuelson of Newsweek, James Glassman, the nutcases at the WSJ editorial page, etc, were replaced with Indian or Chinese econopundits at 1/10 the salary? How about outsourcing their cushy "jobs" to Mexico? No doubt there are educated individuals in those countries who could achieve a below 50% forecast accuracy.
fedup @ 30:
The sooner the better to rid America of these vile ignorant freaks. Who in thier right mind would say they hate old people, or any people?
abarts @ 17:
Look on the bright side, maybe that means you will live to be 134.
Oh, i forgot about Global Warming.
Nevermind.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 8:
Me? OW! I am 65. I get $254 a month because I stayed home to raise my kids - which these batshit fuckers want us womenfolk to do, isn't it?
I have other income, but the point is, how the fuck does this tapdancing fairy think I am dipping into his pockets? Not that I would find anything except two raisins and a dried up parsnip.
He can go fuck himself and the mensroom attendant he rode in on.
Just love how millionaires like George Will bash people who get retirement money that they paid in themselves from working for years for wages. Another repug twerp.
George Will will still be sucking from the corporate teat long after senility sets in. Oh wait, he is!
motorfingaz @ 41:
So sad, some people have no sense of humor! It's a joke, guys, a joke.
To crib from Lenin: "Reality supports what George Will says the way a rope supports a hanged man." Oh for the good old days when the reactionaries had a date with the nearest lamppost.
I will point out, after wading through Will's class bigotry and sheer bitchiness, that he is well-read enough to be referring to future projections of lifespan. Scientific papers estimating that humans will be commonly living to 120 or more by the end of this century pop up in the news from time to time.
Of course, they assume everyone has equal access to a sound diet and quality health care, and a lot of Americans are gradually losing out on one or both of those.
So, Will is basically falling back on the root emotional postulate of American Conservatism: if people are poor (or just not rich) in America it is because they are lazy and shiftless. Get any true conservative talking about poverty, welfare, entitlement programs, etc., and they eventually will spit that one out.
Banner title "Obama attacks".
For the LOVE OF GAWD can we please stop using the word "attack" as a substitute for any of 1000 words that could better be used to describe the situation? Am I the only one that thinks of "attack" as a strongly negative word associated with physical force?
"Charlie says he is allergic to flowers and can't have them in the house." Lets see, what would be the appropriate heading for that sensational story? But of course..."Charlie attacks flowers." That's the only one that just makes sense.
Midland @ 48:
I would like to point out that we were all supposed to be driving flying cars by now (i am very thankful we are not.) These projections are worthless because it assumes continued progress in medicine and environment. We are losing our honey bees. That may sound tangental but without them our food won't get polinated. A lot can go wrong (is going wrong) to stop an average lifespan from ever seeing the light of day.
*"stop an average lifespan of 120 from ever seeing the light of day."
Surely you jest, jwf!
George Will could never be replaced by an outsourced pundit! Who could replace that incisive mind? That saucy wit? That attention to detail? Those Brad Pitt-like looks?
[ / snark ]
I could randomly pick any NYC or DC taxi driver, put him in Georgie's chair , and we might actually hear something worth thinking about. George's time is long gone. Retire him, please! If he won't go quietly of his own volition.
Geroge Will could never be replaced jwf @ 40:
We should start taxing any income of over 2 million at a 90% rate; and trust funds like Dubya's at a 99.9% rate - after the first five million. It would solve most of our economic problems.
And despite the fact that these GOP jerks would still be multi-millionaires and never have to work a day in their lives, could you imagine the outrage of these egocentric republican scumbags.
Yet, they don't blink an eye when they steal the public treasury, and then tell Grandma that she needs to work until she's 85 in order to save social security. Sorry Granny, no free rides here on the GOP express, unless of course your one of the top 5% of riches americans, or a Bush Crony. Then theirs all kinds of "socialism" available to you.
Social Security was never intended to be a pension. Its age of eligibility was the life expectancy when the program was created. FDR didn't have some grand vision to subsidize long, comfortable retirements. He just wanted to make sure old folks who lived unusually long lives didn't wind up on the street. Don't sell Social Security for something it isn't, and don't try to turn it into what it was never supposed to be.
Will's comments really weren't that ridiculous.
Glinda@52 - Word.
I'm receiving social security. I earned it!!! Does Will feel that he should not get any return on his investments? After all, that's what SS is!
If you get a chance to speak to him, tell him Dave said "Bite me, George!"
While projections of massively increased life spans may play out in Europe (due to better work ethic, education and health care) I don't think the US is going to be seeing any of that this century.
So old man George has nothing to worry about, Americans will continue to die before their times and will keep the profits rolling in to the end for quite some time to come.
ozwaldo @ 54:
Long Comfortable retirements?
Are you aware that the minimum Social Security check is $113 a month?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The reason so many retire to such a poor income at 65 is because agism really exists.
You will NOT get hired at age 64. My parents are over the limit. And still working very hard -- harder than they should be. Because they know that the second they loose those jobs, NOBODY will hire them. Simply based on their age.
Build a better economy, the problem takes care of itself. George Will's "let them eat cake" is a cover for the complete disaster of his boy Bush's economy.
Of course those extended lifespans will be limited to the wealthy elite who have unlimited access to expensive discretionary high tech health care. Is Will making an argument for euthanising the rich?
Snowball @ 60:
It's a start.
Oh my... where to begin?
For someone with the dour countenance of a bean counter, Will can't count for beans. Social Security ran surplus after surplus for more years than he has lived, collecting more in premiums than it paid out, and continues to do so to this very day. Will and his ilk never once complained. They habitually stole that surplus to fund deadly adventures such as the Vietnam War in the 60's and 70's, and Congress finally insisted (in the 80's) that symbolic IOU treasury bonds be written and stuck in a drawer somewhere, to represent the surplus that is accumulating. The combination of the baby boomer population bulge and the pilfering that took place years ago, when SS premiums were immorally stolen by merging them into the general account of the U.S., will lead to the IOUs becoming exhausted eventually -- in 2045 or so. Is THAT what Will is so freaking worried about -- while not being even a trifle concerned about the estimated $2,400,000,000,000 cost of the Iraq debacle?! Please George Will, spare us your faux fiscal responsibility crocodile tears!
Will can't count for beans... and the fact that he can spin his tale on TV, unchallenged, is yet another indictment of our mainstream media.
Bob in PA @ 62:
Please think about running for congress.
What kind of math do they teach in American elementary schools? Intelligent design math?
In Germany we do the math that way:
62 - 18 = 44
44 / 2 = 22
44 / 3 = 14,666666666666666666666666666667, okay, let´s say 15
62 + 22 = 84 (half the ADULT lifetime)
62 + 15 = 77 (a third of the ADULT lifetime)
I´ve got no idea who this Will character is. He might be a perfect nutcase. But the math each of you did in this threat (at least until now) is a shame for the American education system. Superior leaders of the world my ass.
I would like all progessives to take note. I am a carpenter that has sold my trade for 37 years. When I met my wife she had a 13 year old son (she was widowed when the child was 5). She was raising her son on her deceased husband's SS (widowed at age 25, her husband died a horrible death at age 28 from liver cancer). When Reagan and Congress looked for a solution to the underfunding of SS, there fix was to reduce benefits to widowed mothers (a reduction of 50% of monthly income) from the time the child reached the age of 18 (or graduation from high school), to the age of 16, no matter if the child was in school or not. Ths mother had a hard chose as a widow. Stay home with the child, live on 50% of the budgeted income she had planned her home around, or go back into the work force and leave your child. Most conservatives say that the family unit is the answer to all the ills in society. That fix did not work. That fix was easy. The hard fix would be to raise the maximum income withholding on high earners. High earners vote and contribute to campaigns. Widows try to feed their children. I married that fine woman and took that child to be my son. I did what I thought was right. When I retire, I want the government to do right. Be a man. Commentments mean something. The real third rail of politics is the insulation of the invester class from their real responsiblity.
Jo @ 63:
No! Please don't!
We need good honest uncompromised people in this country.
The road to Congress is paved with good intentions.
Will is another one in the legion of draft dodging republican chickenhawks. He served his country nobly with his Vietnam deferment.
While Georgie Boy may have a great fondness for baseball, some have suggested that along the way he may have developed a "limp wrist". Could this have come from throwing too many curve balls?
nochickenhawk @ 67:
Irrelevent and inflamatory.
Forget about how these idiots frame the debate. They cannot tell the American people the truth.
The simple fact is is that Social Security MUST EVENTUALLY stop. For we cannot afford it. It places enormous pressure on a country to economically progress, which must occur for everybody's standard of living to not only increase but to stay the same whatever.
Now before anyone gets into a tizzy and say that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on the war, so why not spend some on old people, please think a little more about it.
This latter knee-jerk reaction completely ignores the fact that we cannot afford the war AS WELL. The war is also placing enormous pressure on this country to compete world wide and thus increase or maintain our standard of living.
In other words, we MUST stop both the war AND Social Security, but they must be stopped differently.
The war can be stopped immediately and no harm will be done. In fact, it will give immediate benefits, for both the soldiers, their families, and the rest of the economy's participants like wage earners, business in general, and other social systems.
Social Security on the other hand must be phased out slowly over time, by making the age to qualify for it later and later and later. We cannot stop Social Security right away like the war for that would place undue harm on those who have become dependent on it. These older folks should not have to suffer because they became ensnared into a program in which they were told was permanent but later was found to be unsustainable. If only the government listened to smart and free market economists decades ago would this program never have been started in the first place, because it creates a HUGE dependent nation of old people that MUST one day stop because social security is not sustainable.
The best way to handle Social Security?
1. Stop the War. Bring ALL the troops home from the world's countries immediately. That would save $3 billion dollars a day, or more.
2. Stop Corporatism, which lowers productivity by denying true and honest business from competing fairly. If they could compete honestly, they would immediately start to raise the productivity of labour by introducing new production methods, which would raise real wages by lowering prices. Stop ALL government economic regulation that doesn't include fraud, theft, or other initiations of force in the economy. The only way for a country to progress is for us to be able to without the problems fascist government like Bush (and soon Hillary) create. Most importantly, STOP THE FED COMPLETELY. It is they who are destroying the value of the dollar, and will continue to do so until the dollar is done. A devaluing dollar makes it harder and harder for people to save a portion of their incomes, because prices rise all the time due to the devalued currency.
3. Tell the country that in 30 years, the last Social Security check will be mailed to everyone. Make it a plan that over the next 30 years, the age in order to qualify for old age will increase by one year every year until 30 years time. Then no more payments. That would make those over 92 years old STILL qualify for Social Security, an age that few live to be and hence wouldn't be a significant drain on the economy. This means that someone who is 32 years old TODAY would not be able to collect a single Social Security payment in their life. But 30 years is more than enough time to adjust one's spending habits to provide for one's own retirment. Someone who is 33 years old will be able to collect one years worth, 34 years old can collect 2 years worth, and so one. Reassess in 20 years to see if it still makes economic sense. It probably will if we had open markets for everyone to compete in freely and by requiring no permission.
4. By making the age increase one year every year, you will obviously have, each year, more and more people, 63 years old, 64 years old, 65 years old, etc who used to be able to collect but can no longer collect until they are 66, 67, 68, 69, etc, say (after 4 or more years of increasing the year to qualify as an example), then this would obviously cause an increase in the numbers of people who can collect.
But this gradual phase out would cause people to save MORE of their income. Since the economy is free (or freer), then prices would be lower and lower every year (as both the result of the extra invesment and by the rise in productivity such investments result in) so that the lost income due to the denial of Social Security would be more than made up by the rise in the value of the dollar and goods prices, and hence the little (or more) savings that people would make in the face of no more Social Security will be able to provide for day to day living for those years.
Does this sound good? It is already clear that Social Security, even though it started as a good INTENTION, clearly makes no economic sense and it cannot possible be sustained without making the economy so bad that even if one did retain it, it wouldn't be able to buy jack squat.
Slaw @ 39:
You've read it, and I read all I needed to read. Wasn't funny.
Why make it so complicated? Why not just shoot people who retire? The end result will be the same.
xoites defends Constitution @ 71:
Because I don't like killing people as you apparently do.
Wag @ 72:
Cut off people's retirement income and you expect them to live on air?
Libertarian alert! Libertarian alert!
ASD in the building! ASD in the building!
nochickenhawk @ 67:
Hey, go easy on Georgie Will. He wrote a column about a miltary matter a few years back with the closing line being the historical quote: "You might not be ready for war but war will be ready for you". During Vietnam, Will was ready for his war by hiding under his desk at Princeton with his student deferrment, learning multi-syllabic words in order to impress William F. Buckley. A true armchair patriot.
jwf @ 75:
Multi-syllabic words that he is still unable to string together into a coherant thought/
"Social Security was the first real defeat I can remember..."
I don't think so. Bush had a direct attack on Social Security which was foiled, but the back door approach was to run up the deficits to the point that Social Security can't be repaid for the money it is owed. The economy we are experiencing today relies on borrowing from future generations, and from Social Security. Between these IOUs, and the off-shoring of middle class jobs, there won't be enough money to keep everything going. The Republican blueprint then calls for making Social Security needs based, eliminating it as old age insurance. This will div