An honest, though partisan, question
 

what's this now? 401(k)'s can be done Roth-style--i.e., pay tax now, and nevermore?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

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.

Form 180?
 

Not all UN resolutions are equal, then, and we're free to ignore those that we don't agree with. Got it. My mistake. Carry on.

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

I didn't think I was - you made the point that the elderly were the wealthiest group, I made the point that this really thrilled one elderly person I know on a limited income. The limited income measure I happened to use was a military pension.

Others turned it into being about the soldiers.

If we want to talk military wages, I'd tell you none of the folks I know in the military have done it for the money, though I do think there are many, especially at the enlisted level, who do.

The military never will (and probably never should) challenge civilian salaries for professionals, though the tax-free side of it is an advantage. I have one family member who went through Med School ROTC and then served in Iraq; his salary jumped 10 fold when he left the military, but of course the military also paid for Med School.

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.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I thought you were saying that the personal account idea may not be dead.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

If you look at health care today, most of the elements of Hilary's plan have been implemented, through HIPAA and the Omnibus Reconcilation Act of 1997, plus the market heading in that general direction at the time. It's still seen as a disaster politically.

Form 180?
 

As long as we're clear . . .

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

2

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I was also saying that, yes. Not that I like it, but . . .

The Washington Post had a confusing poll yesterday (I think). A majority of people disapproved of "Bush's privatization plan", but a majority approved of the idea of allowing people to invest a portion of their SS accounts into the stock market. Made me think people don't quite understand what's going on.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

This is why W started referring to his privatization plan as "personal accounts," and why his goons started complaining of media bias when the media called it privatization instead of personal accounts.

eta: I think you're right about people not understanding what's going on.

"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
-- W, Tampa, Florida, Feb. 4, 2005

An honest, though partisan, question
 

In his press conference this morning, the President admitted that privatization would not address the problems with SS; instead, they are now supposed to "soften the blow" of the changes necessary to address those problems. Not surprising that people don't know what's going on.

"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Yes. I find the idea repulsive (b/c of the lack of income limitations) and so I'm not clear on the details.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

That's not clear to you?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

The transcript of my last motion hearing is way more disjointed then that. I won it, though. (Extemporaneous speech always looks like crap.)

(ETA - Okay, my extemporaneous speech always looks like crap. Puts me in good company, though.)

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Was he answering a question? For some reason, I would think he'd have something prepared on this topic. And, unlike you, he has teleprompters etc.