If you reread, or maybe if C-Span replays the speech, you'll notice Bush mentioned that the type of accounts you will be allowed to invest in will be controlled. He's trying to downplay the uncertainty of playing the stock market by saying things will be restricted to more conservative ventures. This means that most of the money is going to be funneled in certain directions. Who is going to have all that money directed towards them? Meanwhile, he wants to have it both ways by creating the perception that it is your money and you can do what you want with it, but then saying the accounts you can invest in will be restricted....

Paul Krugman was on Democracy Now this morning debating social security and was, as usual, a font of reality in the face of a torrent of BushCo lies. Here's the link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/03/158255

Do not trust the government with anything you care about.

WHAT?!?!? Stephen, whether you "trust" the government or not, it is inextricably intertwined with your daily life. I assume you pay taxes. I assume you drive on public roads. I assume you use federally regulated electricity and purchase federally-subsidized gasoline. You may have even gone to public school. Even if you don't pay income tax or property tax, I'm sure you buy things that incur a sales tax. Do you care about your roads, your schools, the power in your home, the protection of your police and fire departments?

The government has your money. Get over it. If you read the Krugman debate at the link above, you'll see that first of all, Bush hasn't even laid out a complete plan, but that what is in place involves the government managing your money by choosing investment firms. The government is still in charge of your money, they're just spending it in a different, and far riskier, place.

This whole "crisis" is completely manufactured. One could quite easily argue that we have a "crisis" in Iraq, in our massive deficit spending, in the plummeting dollar, in the educational system, in the growing hole in the ozone layer. What is abundantly clear to anyone willing to deal in facts is that we DO NOT have a "crisis" in social security.

I was refering more to the federal government. Look, the closer the government is to home, the more it knows you, and you know it. I promise you, your country board or local city council has WAY more impact on your day to day existance than Washington does, and hell, you could probably go TALK to some of those motherfuckers, in PERSON. I dont have a problem with local things. I really dont. Some government is needed. Some is excessive. Police, Fire? Fire I like, but not a whole lot burns anymore (knew qualified people who couldnt find jobs anywhere in the greater chicagoland area because nobody needs firemen). Police...well. When I need a black person beaten down, or a speeding ticket, I'll let you know. (Yes, I know probably fully half of cops are decent folks trying to make their community a better place, but so are half of Republicans). Besides, that is, and should be local.

My problem is and always has been that we have a huge country, and a one size fits all solution is not gonna fly. We'd all do better if we cut out the middle man and kept that money in our states and towns, or in our families.

As I recall, a bunch of you liberals wanted to try to cut welfare to red states, because they vote against the programs that you blue staters feel like you pay for. Good for you.

So far the feds have spent my taxes on a War, a SS scheme that wont be there when I'm old, and last I checked, Illinois was NOT getting more from the feds than we gave them. Tell me again what the Federal Government is doing that I need it to do, that my state or community cant do, and probably do better?

And I don't care about any "crisis" I really dont. I've always disliked social security.

I think Lactar is a really "up" person. He'll probably come back as a bug or a rock. Or maybe, he'll just come back as himself - not sure which would be worse...

Oh, Lactar! What will you say next?!

"...not a whole lot burns anymore." Lactar.

From the National Center for Injury Prevention:

On average in the United States in 2002, someone died in a fire nearly every 3 hours, and someone was injured every 37 minutes.

In 2002, fire departments responded to 401,000 home fires in the United States, which claimed the lives of an estimated 2,670 people (not including firefighters) and injured another 14,050.

In 2002, residential fires caused more than $6.1 billion in property damage.

Wow! There's a whole lot of "not burning" going on!

Stephen, what is wrong with you? Seriously.