and just what it take for people to wake up and see that this adminstration is one of worst ever? just exactly what good things has this government done? and don't mention all the part time jobs created because that is the job gains are: part time! bush has done nothing except get us in another vietnam!!!
2007-08-27 07:34:39 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Actually because of the changes a while back my grandparents medicine bills monthy went from $800.00 a month to about $330.00 a month. I would say thats pretty darn good.
2007-08-27 07:39:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kinda reminds me of the great Democrat LBJ. He was the first one who started raiding Social Security and really escalated Nam.
If you think this is one of the worst you are either historically illiterate or you are a liberal that suffers selective forgetfulness. Which is it?
OBTW What have the Democrats who now control Congress proposed about correcting anything? You know the answer? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. What do they plan to do about the worst President in history (according to you) Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
You poor thing ---You have no viable candidate for the 2008 elections. Republicans inhale and so do the Democrats. And the other don't stand a chance.
2007-08-27 08:31:38 · answer #2 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats killed it, rendering the worst service to the American populace in 70 years. The difference between Social Security and private investment accounts is almost incomprehensably large; had I had the Bush program during my working career instead of the existing Social Security, I would be better off by more than $750,000. If we assume that there have been only a hundred million people on Social Security, averaging half of what I earned, the cost of Social Security to American society comes in at $37,500,000,000,000 -- far more than the entire national debt.
2007-08-27 07:50:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone knows that Hawaii has manditory healthcare for workers. Maybe that is why MOST Hawaii employees are part-time and get few if any benefits and NO healthcare.
If Republicrats can win ONE more despite cities full of voting Demikins WE can put the jerkette and her jerk out to pasture.
At least until 2012 when the Aztecs foretold the end of the world...or did their calendar just end there?
Was it not a HOOT that Democrats threatened to take all Florida's deligates if they don't get off wanting an earlier primary. The DEMOCRATS cannot do that and expect the apostate Hussein Obama to win or the world's most infamous jerkette Frigidare to win!
2007-08-27 07:48:58 · answer #4 · answered by acct10132002 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was strong democratic opposition to it so it failed to make progress. Interestingly, while the democrats opposed it, they had nothing better to offer than to 'stay the course' as social security continued to dry up and go bankrupt.
I'd suggest you ask your democratic congress what they plan to do to keep social security from going bankrupt. I'd hate to lose tens of thousands of dollars, contributed over three decades, because a bunch of democrats were more interested in political power than actually solving a problem.
Speaking of your democratic congress, did you realize that they actually ARE the worst ever? Did you know that their approval ratings ARE the lowest ever recorded.
You need to get your facts straight there Moonbeam and figure out which way to point the old nose finger.
2007-08-27 08:23:00 · answer #5 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The social protection plan replaced into thoroughly voluntary. What it would have completed is supply salary earners the determination of having a share of the money decrease back so as that they might upload it to their 401K or an IRA account. And this might nonetheless be premier to giving the money to the government so as that they might spend it. The Bush plan might have given direct administration decrease back to the people who will want the money in retirement, to no longer the Congress who use it as yet yet another source of earnings for the treasury. Ward311 states the reality of the difficulty. The Democrats might have completed something to remedy the undertaking, yet for only political motives, did no longer. an incredibly familar difficulty for them.
2016-10-17 03:11:11 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thank the Democrats for putting the kibosh on that proposed fiasco.
Privatization is simply a code word in the Republicans party to screw the little guy. Well they got away with it in many areas (for now) but they didn't get their greedy little fingers on social security.
2007-08-27 08:31:40 · answer #7 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The social security revamping died of demagoguery. The dems and the self-serving old geezers scared enough people into keeping social security exactly as it is...on a path to bankruptcy. I think they all deserve a big pat on the back for that one.
2007-08-27 07:51:29 · answer #8 · answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting juxtaposition of issues. But, typical liberal, just can't seem to grab some clarity.
Regarding social security reform, you can lay that at the feet of the Senate democrats. They essentially told Bush that any reform ideas were DOA. I guess they like Ponzi schemes.
2007-08-27 07:42:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i thank god for the democrats who opposed the president's plan to revamp social security. i feel sorry for those who believe that anything good for the common man will come out of bush's administration. the idea that he honestly cares about americans other than his rich oil big business friends is ludicrous to me.
2007-08-27 08:40:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋