Typical Bush thinking

[Lurker]

From and Q & A in Tampa, Florida.
 
Subject:  Social Security
 
 
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE:
I don't really understand. How is it the new [Social Security] plan is going to fix that problem?

GEORGE W. BUSH:
"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Bush really answer the question....or any question for that matter?

[WayOutWest]

From and Q & A in Tampa, Florida.
 
Subject:  Social Security
 
 
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE:
I don't really understand. How is it the new [Social Security] plan is going to fix that problem?

GEORGE W. BUSH:
"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Bush really answer the question....or any question for that matter?

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 :crazy:  :crazy:  :crazy:  :crazy:

The really sad part is I'm not at all surprised.  :cry:  

[jn]

This is what happens when he isn't allowed to stick to softball questions from  military themed gay porn site operators who are planted among the reporters by his Texas cronies.  

[WayOutWest]

This is what happens when he isn't allowed to stick to softball questions from  military themed gay porn site operators who are planted among the reporters by his Texas cronies.

It's also what happens when he doesn't have the answers comming through his earpiece durring a NATIONAL presidential candidate debate.

[rickortreat]

I already wrote on this a while back.  It's a stupid assinine idea, that should never have even been floated.  It is an idictment of the press that none of them had the intellectual understanding or moral integrity to point out that priviization does nothing to "fix" the problem of social security whatsoever, which was a ponzi scheme from it's inception.

 

[SPURSX3]

I'm sure his answer has something to do with the "War on Terror" and is driven by that rather then by price increases or wage increases, because there is a lot of "stuff" going into the calculation - and "drivers" - that determine if the red will be helped...... :crazy:  

[konfused-koast]

It is an idictment of the press that none of them had the intellectual understanding or moral integrity to point out that priviization does nothing to "fix" the problem of social security whatsoever

What do you expect when the people get answers like these? :lol:

[rickotreat]

Something along the lines of where does changeing the formula for determining benefits have anything to do with privatization?

In other words, press the man to justify the unjustifiable, or make him give up.

If he comes to the table with nothing, the job of the press is to make that apparent.

I see so much B.S. comming out of the media and the government, that I start to feel contempt for everyone.  How does the normal layman accept these lines of logic without questioning them.  

I still can't understand how America even voted for the guy, I don't trust him or anything he says or does.  

I can understand why some people were turned off by Kerry, but he actually put his life on the line in 'Nam.  We don't even know what happened with Bush in the guard- how can the Army loose records like that?  How is it that no-one even questions the missing records or who would have the power to have them dissapear.

Simple logic:  If he was in the military, and there aren't any records anymore, isn't it reasonable to assume that there was some damageing evidence in there about his character?

He make speak with a twang, but he comes from money- very old and very big money.  One of the Fed Banks- Brown Brothers Harriman (which incidently was shut down by Roosevelt during WW2 for lending money to Hitler!) is their bank.  A fed bank is one that owns the money- they create it out of nothing and we pay interest every year on each dollar they create.  

In other words his Familly makes money on every dollar in circulation- money for nothing!



   

[WayOutWest]

Bush didn't win the election just like he didn't win the first.  The voting scams in Ohio were worse than Florida in 2000, so much so that a senator used his/her power to call the voting into question (something that should have been done in 2000).  Bush robbed America again.  IMO alot of his voters are ignorant religious nuts or corporate nazis.

[SPURSX3]

Bush didn't win the election just like he didn't win the first.  The voting scams in Ohio were worse than Florida in 2000, so much so that a senator used his/her power to call the voting into question (something that should have been done in 2000).  Bush robbed America again.  IMO alot of his voters are ignorant religious nuts or corporate nazis.

LMAO!!

next conpiracy theory topics for you should be UFO's, the grassy knoll, and illuminati...

 :rofl:  :crazy:  :drunk:  :cry:  

[WayOutWest]

Bush didn't win the election just like he didn't win the first.  The voting scams in Ohio were worse than Florida in 2000, so much so that a senator used his/her power to call the voting into question (something that should have been done in 2000).  Bush robbed America again.  IMO alot of his voters are ignorant religious nuts or corporate nazis.

LMAO!!

next conpiracy theory topics for you should be UFO's, the grassy knoll, and illuminati...

 :rofl:  :crazy:  :drunk:  :cry:

Did you miss the reports comming out of Ohio and the senator who used his/her vote in the senate to investigate?