Combat Ranting (formerly known as Famicom Mini)

[Weltall]

Except for the health care thing, he was as centrist as you get. His whole thing was these "New Democrats" that would aim more towards the middle... he clearly still thinks that way which is why Clark's campaign has gotten the most support of the group from ex-Clintonites, I'd say.

Bah. Clark is a puppet too. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and everyone involved in his campaign knows it. The only reason he's running is to hurt Howard Dean, which will in turn bolster Hillary's chances in four years. It has nothing to do with what Clark believes, because Clark is so damned clueless he doesn't know what he believes. This is a very smart move by the Clintons. Hopefully not smart enough though.

Condoleeza for President, 2008 Bill may be a convincing centrist, but Hillary is very frighteningly socialist. If we're gonna elect a first female president, Rice is my choice.

Defeatist? No, realistic. Proven by looking at the last five thousand years of human experience.

The last fifty years of human experience is so totally unlike the preceding 4950 in America that it doesn't even make sense to say otherwise. Poor people in America live like kings compared to the poor in almost every other nation, and they have opportunities here that people elsewhere could not even comprehend.

True we have more opportunities for investing now, but no way in the world would I think that everyone would actually save enough money so that they could pay for all these things when they retire! Many would just spend it... we need the government to be there to keep people from wasting their future. And anyway the government can do this stuff better than individuals can.

No. The government doesn't exist to make sure people don't screw themselves up. People need to learn to be prudent with their money. Some people need to learn the hard way. That's life. The government's role should be as backup, not as the sole supplier of living money. That's what has the system so ruined now.

Hmm... raise the minimum age... that's been discussed. Lobbyists for old people have killed it so far, but it'll keep coming back because you are right, when SSI was created people died a whole lot younger... the age will probably have to be raised in the future, to help Medicare from not going bankrupt. Optional? You mean Bush's 2000 campaign idea to get people to leave government care and go to HMOs? The problem here is that no HMO wants to insure old people. Unless the goverment forces them, via laws, no sane HMO will ever pay for elderly care... that's why Medicare is there, and that's one reason it's so important (and should be spread to the uninsured too. Having people in this country with no health insurance is unacceptable.)... and as for having people put their money into non-SSI retirement accounts, go ahead with other money but leave SSI as it is. It's an important piece and if we put one hole in it the whole thing might blow up (much to the delight of people like you who detest the idea of your money actually helping people).

I do not agree with forcing HMOs to cover people in place of Medicare. People are on Medicare now and they should continue to be. To disrupt the system so suddenly would only make things worse. The shift to personal investment must be gradual, but it must happen. Pehaps not totally, as you and I both said, some people simply wouldn't be able to handle it. But individual investment should be suggested and encouraged, because as time goes on, people will need that extra money. At the same time, it should be theirs to do with as they please. Why deny those who can invest properly? It's money they work for and it's certainly possible to invest money better then the government has.