Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both.
-- Benjamin Franklin

__Now__ I understand his plan

From the transcript of a presidential news conference as reported by the whitehouse:

\Because the all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, 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.

Okay, better? I’ll keep working on it.\

I’m glad he cleared that up. Good to know he’s got such a clear understanding of the issues.

1 Comment so far
Leave a comment

Check out:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6906269

I think this does demonstrate a clear understanding – that the issue is ideology, not an alleged "crisis" much less a solution to said "crisis."



Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)