<p>Come on,buddy!! DICK CHENEY spoke about the problems of Bush’s social security plan himself!! Isnt that enough of a source.</p>
<p>And yes, I was copying and pasting “my” points. Do you expect me to spend HOURS reading and converting the text in my own words for this debate? Dude, I do have a life other than this, which includes studying for school and hanging out with friends. No offense.</p>
<p>“I propose that we give primitive the Unoriginality Award and commend him for his Copying and Pasting skills.”</p>
<p>BCgoUSC, I dont get why you are still in this debate. You are just another conservative cheering from the sidelines.</p>
<p>I don’t care what you do in your freetime. You could be riding cows and doing cocaine for all I know. But when you DO take time out to post you should at least quote the source if you copy and paste. It’s a thing called plagiarism.</p>
<p>I put my source for the piece I copy and pasted. If you’re too lazy to look down at the post and see what the source is then I guess that’s your problem. I can ASSURE you it’s not conservative-affiliated though. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.</p>
<p>And I can’t believe you used this quote to try to support your argument:
Cheney is saying we SHOULD use private plans because of the success of the stock market. I have never said that private accounts are the best solution, nor are they the worst. At least Republicans ARE addressing the problem. What is the plan for Democrats?</p>
<p>Hey uc_benz, since you dislike plagiarism so much, I have no problem explaining this in my own words. So you want to know what the democrat’s view to the social security problem? I will gladly explain that to you in my own words:</p>
<p>1.) Rep. Dennis Moore (Kansas Democrat) and Rep. Rush D. Holt (New Jersey Democrat) have drafted lock box bills so that the Social Security trust fund money is not diverted to other uses.
2.) Senator Rockefeller (West Virginia Democrat) proposed the idea Congress could pay for the Social Securitys estimated shortfall simply by preventing extension of President Bushs tax cuts.
3.) House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Maryland Democrat) claimed that now is not the time to lay out a special plan, but Democrats know that Social Securitys future financial problems must be addressed and they WILL address it. This is what HE said:
4.) I don’t think it is useful at this point in time for me to start discussing individual ideas. We are prepared to come up and will come up with responsible suggestions. We want to see what the president suggests. He has outlined that, but we still don’t have a presidential proposal on the table.
5.) Bush’s plan to let some workers invest part of their Social Security contributions in private accounts would require massive federal borrowing and result in big benefits cuts. As Mr. Hoyer said, it opposed overwhelmingly by the Democratic Party and by the American people, and the polls suggest that very clearly."
6.) Harry Reid (Nevada Democrat) and Nancy Pelosi (California Democrat) said that the Democrats ARE willing to sit down and discuss reforms for the social security problem with Mr. Bush. Their main aim was to remove the idea of privatizing accounts, and Bush failed to provide an alternative proposal. Democrats are willing to hear the specifics of Mr. Bushs plan before providing their own. NOTE THAT Republican leaders haven’t congregated around a plan either. All he is talking about is IDEAS.
7.) SOURCE SAYS : Mr. DeFazio is crafting a plan that would seek to financially shore up Social Security by lifting the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax, providing an exemption from the payroll tax for the first $4,000 of wages and investing a portion of the trust funds.</p>
<p>Hey uc_benz, to bring a little humor into this debate, this is a what Rumsfield said in a press conference discussing the unknown nuclear threats against the United States:</p>
<p>Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns the ones we don’t know we don’t know."</p>
<p>I thought that would be a speech by the president. Anyways, I am still laughing my ass out!!</p>
<p>I guess we are a country of “superior” people.</p>
<p>I guess that he and George Bush have the two damn hardest jobs in America and maybe you liberals can cut them some slack sometimes. They may not be master rhetorists, but at least that act Presidential and do not run around on their wife while in the most important and influential job in the country.</p>
<p>And since you think I am sitting on the sidelines, I will put my 2 cents in; In My Own Words from My Own Thoughts.</p>
<p>Let me first say that I am against private accounts because I think letting someone invest some of their money into the stock market is contradictory to the whole idea of social security which is to plan for those who can’t plan for themselves. I think social security, an unconstitutional program (most political scientiests agree with my last point about SS being unconstitutional) should be phased out slowly but that is beside the point in this debate. The democrats gave absolutely no plan to counter Bush’s plan. To defeat his efforts, they must come up with a unified plan to be able to put up against Bush’s plan. Many senators such as Lindsey Graham, from my state, are for private accounts but also want means testing, raising the cap on wages, and raising the retirement age. Compromise has to be made, but the democrats are not coagulating to come up with a counterproposal.</p>
<p>And as to Harry Reid, are you telling me that a man who said in the Democratic Response to the State of the Union that (paraphrasing) “Bush needs to go ahead and give up on his privatization plan because it or anything like it is just not going to happen and the sooner he realizes that, the better off we are.” is willing to compromise? I think not.</p>
<p>You can talk about lock boxes all you want, but the fact remains that Democrats are the ones that diverted the funds into the general fund.</p>
<p>Facts are facts primitive and you can use your confirmation bias to find sources to back you up, but until you come up with something concrete to help yourself develop a point, I don’t think it is even worth wasting the time responding.</p>
<p>Good to hear that you are finally making valid points, BCgoUSC.</p>
<p>“Their main aim was to remove the idea of privatizing accounts, and Bush failed to provide an alternative proposal. Democrats are willing to hear the specifics of Mr. Bushs plan before providing their own. NOTE THAT Republican leaders haven’t congregated around a plan either. All he is talking about is IDEAS.” </p>
<p>I understand the democrats havent made much of a concrete plan to counter Bush’s plan. Even YOU said it is unconstitutional and are agisnst it. But the fact to the matter is that even Bush didnt look for an alternative proposal. He just presented ideas and not specifics. Also, the Republican leaders havent congregated around a plan either.</p>
<p>Bush should be a bit patient and try to compromise with other Republicans as well as democrats, rather than making up a plan that will cause a series of problems.</p>
<p>As for Rumsfield, he was partly responsible for the American casualties in Iraq. Also, many other Republicans (esp. John McCain) do not even want his involvement.</p>
<p>So the way someone talks is a measure of their leadership ability? You are sadly mistaken my friend. So are you saying that the chancellor of Germany is a bad leader because he can’t speak in perfect English?</p>
<p>
Well if you don’t know much about the American legislative system then I guess I will enlighten you. THE PRESIDENT CAN’T ENACT HIS OWN LAWS. Some of the stuff he wanted to push through Congress didn’t go through during his first four years, but now a lot of it is finally being supported. Anyways, you asked for his plan for healthcare and Social Security. What he has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on what he is going to do in the future.</p>
<p>“what he has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on what he is going to do in the future.”</p>
<p>Well, the same thing would have apply to Kerry if he won the election. I thought you were supposed to “enlighten” me about his records. Let me warn you beforehand, that I KNOW exactly what you might say about Kerry ( I have mentioned them before in this thread). So I am ready to take defense.</p>
<p>Nobody has a perfect record, by republicans had nothing to run their campaign on and so the made a big deal of Kerry of being a flip-flopper.</p>
<p>Let’s face the truth. The only reason Bush won the election is because he managed to raised the spirits of the American people through the war on Iraq.</p>
<p>The SWIFT BOAT ads contributed alot. </p>
<p>I am not here to make excuses. Kerry lost and everyone has to accept Bush’s presidency, like it or not. Too bad we have to face four more years of his stupid plans. At least Bush cares, I give credit to him for that.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that stupid people deserve stupid leaders. I am not totally into Kerry, but anybody is better as president than that snob Bush.</p>
<p>In a magazine I read last Monday, approx. 86% countries in the world dissapprove Bush as president. Now dont say that its their problem that they hate Bush, its is our problem also because we are tied with them in many ways. THEY ALIENATED A GREAT COUNTRY for a foolish president.</p>
<p>primitive: “but anybody is better as president than that snob Bush.”</p>
<p>Are you serious? So Saddam or Mao would be a better president?</p>
<p>And as to your statistic about countries, Bush is the President of our country and the majority approve of him. I am not saying that other countries don’t matter, but he is the President of the US. </p>
<p>And to say that Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for the deaths in Iraq, absolutely not, I can’t believe you. The Islamic Extremists are the ones pulling the trigger on those AK’s, NOT BUSH. Why don’t you point the finger away from DC and over to the Middle East.</p>
<p>Dude, if Bush sent America to war, it is HIS responsibility to make sure they are provided with the best intelligence and weapons/supplies to ensure that the minimum casualties occur (which he has failed to do). And of course the Islamic extremists are pulling the trigger. THIS IS WAR in the Middle East, so do you expect them to be our allies? Absolutely not!!!</p>
<p>This is no “American War On Terrorism.” This is war on terrorism IN GENERAL, even Bush said so himself. Unfortunately, American only seems to be at war on their own. </p>
<p>I dont think it is fair that American declares war on any country they want-who gave us the right? I understand that Saddam is major threat and all but even the UN confirmed that the country was not an eminent threat to our nation in terms of terrorism. </p>
<p>Probably now Iran and Korea are making nuclear weapons. At this point, America definitely needs allies. It is simply follish to call it the “American war on terror” and undermine the efforts/lives of the brave soldiers from other parts of the world.</p>
<p>For every vote cast for President Bush, there is a liberal somewhere trying to make an excuse for why Kerry didn’t win. Yeah, it had to be the Swift Boat Veterans.</p>