To: Road Walker who wrote (212812 ) 12/12/2004 3:50:49 PM From: TimF Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573135 re: Bush (like most other politicians) took an interpretation that was both simple and politically useful. I happen to think its a less accurate one. He lied? But it's OK 'cause it's Bush. Read my lips? To go from "I happen to think its a less accurate one", to "he lied", you have to assume 1 - That I am correct that it is less accurate, 2 - That the difference in accuracy is not just a subtle shade of nuance or interpretation but is rather clear and strong, and 3 - That Bush knew/believed that my interpretation is correct but chose to say something else for political advantage. re: If we can't afford it its only because we can't afford social security without the change. More crap. The change is more expensive than the status quo. You know that, why do you try to throw up smoke? If you plan on spending $50,000 on a new SUV, and then decide to also buy a VCR, its true that the VCR and the SUV together cost more then the SUV alone, but its also true that if the VCR was unaffordable it was because too much was spent on the SUV. re: Bush's plan is a change at the margin, most of social security taxes and benefits will operate just like they do now. No, it's a whole new program, @ $1Trillion in cost. 1 - It doesn't have a trillion in real costs, it recognizes costs now for obligations that are already owed. 2 - It is indeed at the margin, if rather large for a marginal change. The majority of social security is unaltered. Only a fraction of the social security obligation is effected. In many ways that is the actual problem with the program. It leaves most of the current obligation intact. Tim