Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
The core of his social security reform proposal was to privatize a portion of the program and to reduce benefits for the balance. The immediate impact would have been to "address" a future (20 years away) problem by creating a $1 trillion immediate funding gap for current benefits, and still not resolving the long term problem. What it would have done would have been to infuse the $1 trillion into the stock market, inflating prices dramatically. It was hard to view it as a solution. To promote his plan, Bush began to describe the immediacy of the problem by focusing not on when the social security trust would actually be insufficient to pay all benefits owed, but on when the government would have to begin paying back the money borrowed from social security to finance current operations.

Clinton's solution, by contrast, was to dedicate the surplus in the budget to bolstering the funding for social security and then to begin a process of segregating the funds so that surpluses -- which we continue to have today -- could not be used to fund operating deficits. Instead, Bush used the budget surplus, the social security surplus, and new debt to pay for tax cuts from which almost all the benefits went to the top 1% of income earners. That certainly proved to be a brilliant strategy -- not.

Spoken like a complete socialist with zero knowledge of how to run a business, because all you've been in is government programs.

Just watch the small businesses collapse as your messiah halts the Bush tax cuts, then you can again claim how just the upper 1% benefitted.

You have got to be the most bigoted class-envy promoter I've ever encountered. You are to be pitied.

UB