At 11:24 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >> >We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social >> >Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. >> > >> >How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? >> >> So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone >> on Social Security, ever? > >Nick said that the president's proposed changes would decrease benefits. > >You say that Nick says that there should be no cuts for anyone, ever.
The quotation above from Nick was given a separate paragraph at the end of a long laundary list of criticisms of Republicans. It was clear to me from the context and the plain meaning of his words that he considered proposing benefit cuts to Social Security to be an utterly damning indictment..... >> I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit >> is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social >> Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though.... > >I believe you misstate the situation. > >*One* party is continuing its 70-year history of opposing Social Security (the >first Republican attacks on the program -- that it was socialist -- began >within a year of its inception). *Another* party points out that the sideshow >of privatization and the framing device of "ownership" don't even start to >address the 27% shortfall that SS will begin to have in roughly half a century. But we're not talking about the privitization part of the plan here. We're talking about the proposed benefit cuts, which *do* address the problem by any measure, and which Nick portrayed as a damning indictment of Republicans. On the other hand, Democrats have proposed, well, *nothing* to keep Social Security solvent for our grandchildren..... JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
