Re: Soc.Sec. We're all with Bush

From: sinister (sinister_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:46:21 GMT

<Big Dog> wrote in message
news:v28d0112i1sgkerri1k44u95bn6utut3g5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:45:55 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:cu06q2$k4v$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>>>
>>> "Mason A. Clark" <masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQQQ> wrote in message
>>> news:fav501hhu7230eh2vbui9gua5d4ti0tkqc@4ax.com...
>>>> We all agree, don't we?
>>>>
>>>> FICA is a regressive tax.
>>>> FICA has been too high (being used to help the budget).
>>>>
>>>> President Bush and Company want to divert some of the
>>>> FICA tax from the government, i.e. reduce the tax.
>>>>
>>>> We all agree that's a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Mason C
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree, but many do not.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Not to divert from the above essence, but
>>>> why do Republicans always want the government to
>>>> tell people what to do?
>>>
>>> Not *always* just sometimes. In this case Bush wants to expand
>>> individual
>>> choice. From FICA/SS only to a wider range of retirement options.
>>>
>>> But when the issue is marijuana (medical or recreational) or even
>>> imported
>>> drugs from Canada, Bush and most Republicans want to limit individual
>>> choice.
>>>
>>>>....Making them use the FICA
>>>> tax reduction for saving, not for spending? Why not
>>>> let *people* control *their* money? Why not just
>>>> cut the tax? .... Sorry. ... I digress.
>>>
>>> While I would support that, it would not be likely to pass Congress.
>>> Mostly
>>> I think because it would not address the issue of how to support
>>> Americans
>>> in retirement as Social Security hits the demographic wall.
>>
>>Nah, mostly because it would prevent the Rethuglicans from using payroll
>>taxes as a way to fund general government operations.
>
> That was a nonpartisan plan, and is a nonpartisan activity.

No, moron. I'm referring to the Rethuglican plan to use payroll taxes to
fund general government operations, and then not pay back the money borrowed
from the trust fund.

> Willfully stupid partisanship is entertaining, but I can't suggest it
> as a reasonable path to understanding.

Back atcha.

> Big Dog,
>
>

Quantcast