A scandal-scarred Republican party asks, 'What next?'

again, what is good for the people is not at all reflected by public opinion. a president could be the best ever and his numbers could be terrible. like a child who is angered by good parents, the people are not always pleased by what is best for them. luckily, we have a representative system instead of a pure democracy, which would be a disaster nonpareil.

the merit of a decision is determined by evidence. opinion is not evidence.

it is no suprise that you love clinton. he was a poll-watcher through and through.

leaders do not follow opinion, they lead.

 

more expensive for who? the guy who has more of his earned money?

how is it more expensive to allow people to invest on their own? you can make far better returns with private investments than you can with money taken from you and thrown into impossibly massive government entitlement programs.

less money paid into social security = more money for private investment = better economy.

bush is a leader. he has the guts to try and change thing that hurt america, and social security hurts america terribly. it didnt pass, but that wasnt his fault. he tried to help us in spite of ourselves.

 

I would kind of like it if the government let me decide how to invest all my money. I could do a lot with the extra 320 bucks they take out of my check every month for socialist security. Not considering the 12% return my 401K has earned I would have another $11,520 in there without stupid social security.

 

that isnt strange, bush is smarter than he seems, and i am dumber.

it is good to understand the will of the people and to represent them, but it also good to accept when leadership might cost you some of your popularity. bush is a terrific president in terms of his ability to sacrifice his own popularity to do what he thinks is right. that is leadership. we need leaders more than we need demagogues, but i think many people are too wishy-washy to realize this, and it holds us back.

people are afraid of real leaders, and they label them kooks and extremists for not bending over backwards to the whims of the capricious and fickle public.

 

be quiet, the polls and the collective will tell you where your money belongs. we do not care if you are educated and wise and know how to manage money.

it is curious that the same people that oppose social security reform are whinging about runaway spending.

if spending galls you, social security should be near the top of your hit list.

 

i do not understand the ins and outs of why they say it costs so much to reduce the amount of money taken from people. it stands to reason that shrinking the amount of money you are required to give the government should make it cheaper for americans. and i am aware that old people in the aarp are most interested in big payments, because they have been paying the damn tax their whole lives. but even if it does cost alot to change, we really have to change anyways because big government is crushing us.

i am not sure but i believe supafan is an accountant or something similar. since he is a smart guy, and knows more than me about this, i am gonna take his side.

 

also worthy of note is that one of the worst presidents ever in terms of public opinion was harry truman, and i know you have said in the past that he is one of your all-time favorites. i think history has been kind to him, and his 25% ratings during his administration did not really reflect poor performance on his part.

 

If Bush's SS plan had been envisioned and implemented by, say, Jimmy Carter, I would be very comfortably retired right now rather than waiting for a magical age that will entitle me to a relative pittance. But, yeah, it's expensive, so let's just let it die a slow death.