Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Watch. By the time the major withdrawals start, the law will change, and there will be a tax imposed.

Not if your people are in power. But, fuck, like I always say, I make plenty of money (such that I have enough to save sufficiently and/or pay handsomely for euthanasia) and have no kids.

[Shape Shifter]

http://www.variety.com/VR1117919604.html

(CNN signs Larry King through 2009)

CNN really needs to jettison this guy. Honestly, one of the ways I even became aware of Fox News was channel surfing, looking for something other than Larry King. The linked article mentions his numerous important interview subjects and moments, but on a day to day basis, his show is typically insignificant gossip. Sure, he's interviewed presidents, but when you tune in he's interviewing a Tammy Faye or Elizabeth Taylor or some attorney with insights on the MJ case. It's enough to drive me over to Hannity & Colmes or whatever Springerian freak show they're showing on Fox. The King is dead, but CNN keeps saying "long live the King."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Oh, I agree that it's a bad idea, one that should go down in flames. It's just that, to me, "Folly" implies something so bad and haunting that it drags down lots of other stuff, as well as the effectiveness and standing of the proponent.

I don't see that happening here. If it does die, (and there's no guarantee it will), I think it just sails away into the sunset, and we all move on.

I tend to agree with this. Both parties have said that SS needs reform for so long that -- while this plan may die -- Bush is not going to be widely excoriated for his proposed reforms. Also -- I haven't seen the sort of backlash/ad campaigns/focus of all politics on this issue the way it was with the Clinton efforts to enact healthcare reform in 1993-94.

Perhaps because the nation has many other concerns. The world has changed since then. Also, Bush is a second term President from the party controlling Congress, and was very cagey for quite a while in pushing the idea without really pushing too much and said he's open to (most) ideas. Clinton, by contrast, got out in people's faces and led with his chin.

It could also be that -- all electioneering aside -- the portion of the left who wishes to smear and destroy Bush at almost all costs is smaller, weaker, less effective, etc. than that portion of the right which worked that issue against Clinton.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Not if your people are in power. But, fuck, like I always say, I make plenty of money (such that I have enough to save sufficiently and/or pay handsomely for euthanasia) and have no kids.

If "my people" are in power, and still following the philosophy of today, they will be spending like (kudos to GiGi) drunken sailors, and casting about for places to extract money to pay for it. All of those "tax-free" withdrawals will suddenly look surprisingly like income to them.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Besides, if this were my ideology speaking, wouldn't I be supporting someone who was a Republican?

You're probably right about the evidence -- but there are some timing issues for Arnold as well. I picked a poor example.

But isn't AS the Republican and Gray Davis the Dem? Or are you talking about your wagers on Hillary.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Clinton, by contrast, got out in people's faces and led with his chin.

That was his chin?

(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. You put in a long, thoughtful post, most of which I agree with, and that's all I can find to say? There's no excuse for me.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But isn't AS the Republican and Gray Davis the Dem? Or are you talking about your wagers on Hillary.

I was speaking of Arnold's sort of faux-Republicanness.

Republicanity?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The admin decided to go to war to benefit the UN? Got it.

If it became necessary to destroy the UN in order to save it, they were willing to take that risk.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
If "my people" are in power, and still following the philosophy of today, they will be spending like (kudos to GiGi) drunken sailors, and casting about for places to extract money to pay for it. All of those "tax-free" withdrawals will suddenly look surprisingly like income to them.

But deficits are good. Your people will probably start cutting (spending) like crazy instead of raising taxes.

ETA "spending" and to say that the jackass in the office next to mine is way fucking too fucking loud. IF YOU ARE ON THE SPEAKERPHONE, SHUT YOUR DOOR. No wonder the tax people don't want him on their floor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So how is this a catastrophe for Bush. Rarely in DC does a politician get everything em wants. If he gets SS reform, even without personal accounts, it is a win for him no matter how the DEMs will spin it.

What's the minimum that Bush can get for this to be a win for him? Any "reform" counts?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I don't give a rats ass what the General Assembly does or says.

I don't think anyone really does. But the Security Council is another matter (as long as we are a permanent member with the power of the veto).

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What the military should offer is a solid living wage and some damn good benefits, especially medical and retirement. If someone gives their whole life to the military, they ought to have a comfortable retirement and they ought to know they will be cared for.

Unless I'm quite mistaken, the salary for a junior enlisted soldier (E-4 and below), won't take a family of four above the poverty line. The benefits help some (PX, AAFES grocery shopping, health care) -- but (I think) there are tens of thousands of junior enlisted families that qualify for and receive AFDC.

That, Burger, is one reason why military pay and benefits might could use to be somewhat higher. (Although you could also take the position that young junior soldiers should not get married or have children. Good luck.)

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What's the minimum that Bush can get for this to be a win for him? Any "reform" counts?

He's been sufficiently vague that anything can be characterized as a win. The Clintons' big mistake was actually having a detailed proposal. More fools them.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Unless I'm quite mistaken, the salary for a junior enlisted soldier (E-4 and below), won't take a family of four above the poverty line. The benefits help some (PX, AAFES grocery shopping, health care) -- but (I think) there are tens of thousands of junior enlisted families that qualify for and receive AFDC.

That, Burger, is one reason why military pay and benefits might could use to be somewhat higher. (Although you could also take the position that young junior soldiers should not get married or have children. Good luck.)

S_A_M

Does AFDC still exist? Why don't the spouses have to work? There are all kinds of full-time jobs that won't pull a family of four above the poverty line.

I'm just devil's advocating while waiting to do a call I don't want to have to do.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

I'm just devil's advocating while waiting to do a call I don't want to have to do.

That pretty much sums up my life.