To me, Social Security has always been one of those joke issues that doesn't really need comment; people on one side (the side of light) look at the proposals on the table and recognize that they're ridamndiculous, while people on the other side (the side of darkness) look at the proposals on the table and recognize that they're ridamndiculous but have to pretend to be all for them because they signed a loyalty oath back in 2004. It's kind of like why people claim to have enjoyed Kill Bill.
If anyone can be trusted to lay it out in a visual format that's both insightful and amusing, it's Doonesbury. Sunday's strip can be found here, but for those too lazy to click through, I'll include pertinent text from the strip. And now, for your blogging enjoyment, Bush's take on Social Security, in his own words:
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, if those - if that growth is affected... it will help on the red.
Did you catch that? 'Cause I'm not going to say it again.