What do you think of Bush's proposal on Social Security Tax?

[ckramer]

That's what I heard from the discussion on NBC this morning, Bush is proposing that 1/3 of your social security tax from your paycheck be put into your private account for retirement purposes.

Honestly, what do you think about that?

On personal level, it sounds enticing to me because I would be able to use this extra amount of money to invest in stocks for I've got a little experience in playing the market.

But I don't know what that would do to other people like current retirees, or anyone who depends on their SS to survive.

[JHB]

1. It's theft.

Let's put it this way: if 1/3 of your SS tax goes to a private account, then revenue for SS drops by 1/3. Which means massive deficit in SS's future (MUCH larger and more sure than the scare'em figures they use to goad you into thinking radical changes to SS are even needed).

[MrUnderhill]

4. The idea is ...

...that you would be giving up MORE than 1/3 of your future benefits.

So there would be a mid-term shortfall, but a long term windfall.

[papau]

48. Krugman nails the con game

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/opinion/10krugman.htm?oref=login

Borrow, Speculate and Hope
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 10, 2004
The National Association of Securities Dealers," The Wall Street Journal reports, "is investigating whether some brokerage houses are inappropriately pushing individuals to borrow large sums on their houses to invest in the stock market." Can we persuade the association to investigate would-be privatizers of Social Security?

For it is now apparent that the Bush administration's privatization proposal will amount to the same thing: borrow trillions, put the money in the stock market and hope.

Privatization would begin by diverting payroll taxes, which pay for current Social Security benefits, into personal investment accounts. The government, already deep in deficit, would have to borrow to make up the shortfall.

This would sharply increase the government's debt. Never mind, privatization advocates say: in the long run, they claim, people would make so much on personal accounts that the government could save money by cutting retirees' benefits. Financial markets won't believe this claim, as I'll explain in a minute, but let's temporarily grant the point.

Even so, if personal investment accounts were invested in Treasury bonds, this whole process would accomplish precisely nothing. The interest workers would receive on their accounts would exactly match the interest the government would have to pay on its additional debt. To compensate for the initial borrowing, the government would have to cut future benefits so much that workers would gain nothing at all.<snip>

[AllegroRondo]

2. What they DIDNT say about it

is that if you earn more than they think you need to (I think 7%) the government gets to keep the excess. If you earn less, you are on your own.

[MrUnderhill]

8. Not quite.

The 1/3 (which is 2% of your income) would reduce your future payout by MORE than the 1/6 of total contributions it represents. So where the system might return, say, 2% annually... you would need to earn 5% annually just to make up the difference of what they were cutting (so in effect, the system makes 5% on what you hold back). Anything OVER that 5% you earn would increase your effective annual income in retirement.

So, if you average an 8% annual return (reasonable), the SS system is better off AND you are better off.


The hole in the system is what happens when you earn LESS than SS would have earned.

[amazona]

15. no responsible trader projects 8 percent returns

Today responsible advisors tell you to expect closer to 3 to 4 percent returns...6 percent at the most. T. Rowe Price would be a good example but I don't know any responsible advisor who is still telling people that they can get 8 or 10 percent LONG TERM.

Now irresponsible hobbyists and newsletter sellers...yes...lots of them are making impossible claims. But we will not see the roaring 90s again in our lifetime. Take the bull market of the 90s out of the averages for the lifetime of the market, and it gets ugly, ya'll. People betting on 8 to 10 percent annual returns will be living out of cardboard boxes.

[MrUnderhill]

23. Untrue.

Now... there's a big difference here between whether we're talking a return NET of inflation or not, but 8% is a very common assumption for a well diversified portfolio (long term).

The people talking about three and four percent are looking at SHORT TERM projections, or they are talking about after-inflation returns.

With dividends, the S&P has returned better than 10% annually (average) over the last 25 years.

You mentioned T Rowe Price as a good example. Their current working assumption for long-term returns is 7% (and since that calculator does not include an inflation adjustment, I assume this is net of inflation - backed up by my nest point).

Here's from their latest newsletter:

"Although the modern S&P 500 wasn’t created until 1957, Standard & Poor’s has extrapolated what would have been the index’s previous performance. For the 50 years ended June 30, 2004, calculations show an average annual return of 11.26%."

"LOOKING AHEAD
Clearly, past rates of return may not be realized in the future. The growth in the economy and corporate earnings will drive the market, and investors can be sure to encounter volatility along the way. Regardless of fluctuations, however, many experienced investors believe that over the long run, the stock market reverts to its historical average—around 10% for the S&P 500—which has helped to preserve purchasing power over time."

[oneighty]

32. My annuity

monthly payout dropped 37 percent shortly after Bush too office. I do not know anything about the stock market except that I did lose 6000 or so on an investment several years ago. I took my capital and put it into a house.

180

[AllegroRondo]

17. No I'm serious,

If the 1/3 you invest earns a higher rate of return than the government thinks is needed, they get to keep the excess.

[MrUnderhill]

24. I've been following the debate pretty closely and I haven't seen that.

Do you have a link?

[ckramer]

45. that's my question too

[Blue Wally]

22. Average return of Soc Scty is 1.8%

For black men because of their lower life expectancy, it is -0.5%

[MrUnderhill]

28. I've always wondered why they haven't made a bigger deal of that.

I figure the Social Security argument becomes harder (as does keeping 90% of the African American community Democrats) if they say "the average black male works his whole life paying social security taxes to pay the benefits of some old white lady".

But that's just political gamesmanship. In truth those numbers are hurt by gang violence and inner-city crime. An African American woman in her 60's is going to live about as long as a white woman at the same age. I suspect the averages are just pulled down by other societal problems.

[Blue Wally]

31. No

High blood pressure in blacks leads to a much higher incidence of strokes and heart attacks coupled with lower quality health care. even at age fifty, black life expectancy for the future is lower.

[papau]

36. average return, by definition, does not exist for pay as you go insurance

It is a meaningless number used to confuse - and sell - the Bush poison.

If equity investing is a good idea, the current $ trillions of Trust Fund gov bonds should be sold and reinvested in equity.

THE GOP HATE THAT IDEA!

I wonder why? :-)

[MrUnderhill]

38. Sure it does.

If I pay in a known amount over time and receive certain payments over a defined time it's pretty simple to calculate a "rate of return" on those payments. And the number becomes VERY relevant if I can choose to give up a portion of those payouts in exchange for an actual investment... in fact, knowing what effective return I'm trading is critical.


The answer to your other point is simple... there isn't any money THERE to invest that much. They would have to sell tons of new debt to buy investments.

[papau]

47. No it doesn't if you are discussing the quality of investment performance

and sell private accounts because they contain equity and will get "equity" returns - implying that current 1% "return" will increase to a equity level return.

THAT IS A LIE.

Yes, it is true that any cash flow situation can be represented by a "rate of return" - but the Bush plam sellers lie by not having all cash flow elements in the calculations.

Ignoring the social insurance aspect and the disabilty, survivor benefits under the current structure, we have on the retirement income side at retirement under the current system the benefits under current law, and under the Bush crap we have the projected - if you are lucky and do not go bust - value of the private account plus 2/3rds of the benefits under current law less 30% (only current near retires do not get hit with new lower benefits formula). On the outgo side we have under the current system the payroll taxes under the law - but under the Bush crap we have those same taxes plus the tax you will pay to cover the interest on the $2 trillion borrowing for "transition costs".

A true rate of return calculation that is just an evaluation of just how not free is this free lunch would find the current 1% return becomes a negative 10% or worse.

Again they tout the high return of equity - but will not allow the current system to invest in Equity. Think about that fact and get back to me.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/opinion/10krugman.htm?oref=login

Borrow, Speculate and Hope
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 10, 2004


The National Association of Securities Dealers," The Wall Street Journal reports, "is investigating whether some brokerage houses are inappropriately pushing individuals to borrow large sums on their houses to invest in the stock market." Can we persuade the association to investigate would-be privatizers of Social Security?

For it is now apparent that the Bush administration's privatization proposal will amount to the same thing: borrow trillions, put the money in the stock market and hope.

Privatization would begin by diverting payroll taxes, which pay for current Social Security benefits, into personal investment accounts. The government, already deep in deficit, would have to borrow to make up the shortfall.

This would sharply increase the government's debt. Never mind, privatization advocates say: in the long run, they claim, people would make so much on personal accounts that the government could save money by cutting retirees' benefits. Financial markets won't believe this claim, as I'll explain in a minute, but let's temporarily grant the point.

Even so, if personal investment accounts were invested in Treasury bonds, this whole process would accomplish precisely nothing. The interest workers would receive on their accounts would exactly match the interest the government would have to pay on its additional debt. To compensate for the initial borrowing, the government would have to cut future benefits so much that workers would gain nothing at all.<snip>

[Blue Wally]

40. Who would buy them??

If the gummint decided to drop them all at once on the market, who would buy all of those "trust fund" bonds??

[SharonAnn]

39. It supports their spouses, children and even their own

disability.

Remember, it's not a Retirement Fund, it's an Insurance Plan.

[Telly Savalas]

54. If this is true...

then how is it the system is supposed to be insolvent?

[MrUnderhill]

3. I largely agree with you.

I wish I had the option, but I think it's a bad idea nationally.

Heck... I'd trade away ALL of my SS retirement benefits (not disability) in exchange for being able to keep HALF of the total contribution.

But if everyone did that and invested it themselves? It could be a disaster.

And no matter HOW the plan is designed... we still have a moral obligation to provide some basic safety net. So lots of people who sign up for the option I want would STILL end up needing benefits.

[Pegleg Thd]

7. It is just another scheme

to screw 'mericans.:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Zinfandel]

16. Once they have their foot in the door of a great liberal program

like SS, it's all over. If the republicans & the corporations get even a small piece of it, they will destroy it. This is their way after many years of trying, of getting their foot in the door.

Hands completely off SS changes.

The republicans have always despised and have vowed to get rid of all FDR's New Deal from day one, when not one single republican voted for it.

What makes ANYONE think this fascist corporate republican administration will do anything but rip-off the workers and legislate the money for their own gains?

You trust this administration with the future for even one second to do something fair and right for the workers?

We MUST stop them!

[MrUnderhill]

29. You are CORRECT.

And that's one of the biggest reasons I'm opposed to it.

There was a quote going around the blogs from some "senior Democrat" in the Senate saying "we CAN'T pass this... why would be want to make more people in to Republicans?"

Their goal is to destroy Social Security, pick up the votes of the people who succeed in investing well... and leave the rest behind.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

5. It's bullshit on several levels

1) Do you honestly believe those in the lowest income brackets are going to uderstand what they are supposed to do with 1/3 of the money they are paying in?
2) Are the limits for participation going to be low enough for those in the lowest income brackets to even participate?
3) Is the government going to be able to borrow from investment accounts as it has so often done with SS?

4) This is nothing more than a dodge. Basically, the SS funding is limited by the laws that regulate governmental investment of the SS fund on our behalf. By opening up even a tiny fraction to privatized investment, the government will be able to pay friends on Wall St. through increased investment fee collection, and will be able to borrow more at the taxpayer's expense while not being responsible for any failures.

Typical Bush Administration nonsense. How to take advantage while avoiding responsibility.

DBDB

[MrUnderhill]

12. Some answers.

1) Possibly not (though I reject that low income necessarily means low intelligence). But wasn't it supposed to be OPTIONAL? Can't they stay in the existing program?

2) Who cares? Are you arguing that it's a bad idea AND that it isn't fair because they can't take advantage of this bad idea? If it's "bu11sh1t", wouldn't it be GOOD that they can't participate?

3) No. None of the proposals allow for that. They would be "personal" accounts.

4) The problems you are describing fit the Clinton/Gore model of market investment. That it... government investing a portion of the trust fund in higher return investments. Personal accounts would not have government picking investments.

[papau]

25. I do like your response - but I disagree

1. Fellow asks if low income folks - the non-investor class - will know what to do - and you say maybe not but since it is OPTIONAL and they can stay in the existing program all is well. Nope - only the near retirement folks can stay in existing program. A system that does not require cut backs in benefits will force those cut backs on the folks that stay in the current system - it is an automatic screwing.

2) Fellow asks a not on point question re Are the limits for participation going to be low enough for those in the lowest income brackets to even participate and you respond "Who cares?" - and "wouldn't it be GOOD that they can't participate?" - NOPE - see answer to one above.


3) Fellow asks "Is the government going to be able to borrow from investment accounts as it has so often done with SS?" and you say "No. None of the proposals allow for that. They would be "personal" accounts." You're answer is spot on correct.


4) and finally, Fellow says "This is nothing more than a dodge. Basically, the SS funding is limited by the laws that regulate governmental investment of the SS fund on our behalf. By opening up even a tiny fraction to privatized investment, the government will be able to pay friends on Wall St. through increased investment fee collection, and will be able to borrow more at the taxpayer's expense while not being responsible for any failures." and you say "The problems you are describing fit the Clinton/Gore model of market investment. That it... government investing a portion of the trust fund in higher return investments. Personal accounts would not have government picking investments." - and again NOPE - first Clinton/Gore model had same Wall Street Profit rip off as this one - only it was with an additional voluntary payroll deduction tax - so Social Security was not affected. And while Government would not do individual investment picks - The Gov would limit selection and not allow real stock picking by the worker.

But his point is correct that letting Wall Street in means fees that never before came off the top of the payroll tax will now reduce the monies available to Social Security - albeit it reduces the funds available to "invest" that Bush will obtain by selling debt in the capital markets - but that is another story for another day!

:toast:

:-)

[AP]

6. It's going to be used the same way OH, CT and FL used their state...

...pension funds: to bail out Enron insiders when Enron stock was tanking.

The Republicans need to give Americans (1) social security, with the emphasis on security (ie, no chance it won't be there when you retire), and (2) jobs that pay well enough so that if you want to risk some of it in the stock market, you can.

What they shouldn't be doing is taking some of that "secure" money and using it to inflate the prices of insider's stock, the way 401k and IRA fund holders and state pension plans were doing in 2001.

Bascially, everything republicans do can be defined this way: they want to privatize the gain and socialize the costs of society. They want to remove risk from the wealthy and shit it all onto people who work for a living, and this is just one more way they plan on doing that.

[cmd]

55. My pension is vacationing in the Caymons

I'm one of the Ohio retirees who lost part of my benefits to Enron and WorldCom. I trusted the trustees. I now have terrible health insurance and have lost the bonus that previous retirees enjoyed for years.

These plans sound good - until you are on the losing end. There will be losers. You will pay to bail them out. Make adjustments to the Social Security Americans have today. Keep the Security part.

[murphymom]

9. Don't like it

I don't think Social Security was ever intended to be a substitute for the average person saving and investing for their own retirement. It should be a safety net. Think about the circumstances that led to its creation - the Great Depression where so many people lost life savings. It should be the one stable lifeline that the retired have that won't fluctuate with the market.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. I think he is trying to steal our money , our retirement !

:grr: :mad: And give it to his Wall Street cronies! More paybacks for bu$h*'s CCCC IE CORRUPT CORPORATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS! Haven't they looted enough already?

[amazona]

11. Two words: Enron, Worldcom

These highly regarded companies -- Enron was the Fortune 7 company before its messy demise -- crashed and burned without warning, leaving investors with nothing. I personally know people who lost hundreds of thousands -- even over a million dollars -- on these investments. And these were sophisticated, knowledgeable investors. Indeed, the more knowledgeable you are, the more likely you are to churn your stock, and the less likely you are to come out ahead of the market.

The private account game is welfare for Wall Street brokerages but it will leave us with less for our retirements.

And don't forget, if you exceed the "expected" return, then the extra money goes back to the general fund. You don't keep the extra money if you win...but if you lose, the loss is all yours. This is a no-win game for the individual. You can't get ahead from investing, because they will take the "excess." And they call US socialists????

So if you want to be an unpaid investment advisor for 1/3 of your Social Security...to end up with less money than if you did butt-all nothing...then all I can say is you're a better person than I. I'll stick with what is most profitable for me, me, me -- which means keeping private hands off Social Security.

COmmon sense will tell you that you can't add a layer of profit-taking to any venture without costing the consumer more than the equivalent public non-profit enterprise. This is why we with our private health care die sooner and pay more than folks in Canada, right?


This isn't good for anyone unless your last name is Schwab or Waterhouse.

[ckramer]

20. Could you explain...

"And don't forget, if you exceed the "expected" return, then the extra money goes back to the general fund. You don't keep the extra money if you win...but if you lose, the loss is all yours. This is a no-win game for the individual."

I don't understand it. Why would the extra money earned from my investment go back to the general fund? I thought once the money goes to your private account, it belongs to you entirely no matter what you have done with it (be it a gain or loss).

Is this a hidden rule inside the Bush proposal?

[KansDem]

34. That scares me too...

Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, Harken...the list goes on and on...

How ANYBODY can suggest privatizing SS in the wake of these colossal failures is beyond me. This is nothing but a boondoggle for the Wall Street crowd (it's not surprising that the Wall Street Journal is whoring for Bush big time!)

And this is not good for many of us since we don't have access to insider trading information, therefore putting us at a great disadvantage. I mean, we ALL can't sell stocks against the advice of the corporate lawyer (who said it could be consider "insider trading" like what happened with Bush and Harken), refuse to notify the SEC for 8-10 months after the transaction in question, and come out of it all with a hefty profit...

[Hotler]

56. Biggest rip-off in U.S. history.

Spread the word, shout it loud from the mountain tops. This is just another stab in the backs of the working class and elderly. If there ever was a more dire time to get off our butts and spread the word to our neighbors, friends and coworkers now is the time. This proposal crosses all party lines and robs everyone but the RICH.

[Paranoid_Portlander]

35. Enron stock is now officially at $0.00...

...as of a few days ago. I thought I would mention this for those of you who are suing or planning to sue Enron. It had been lingering around 6 cents per share. So the Enron defenders cannot claim any hope of even a slight recovery now that the stock is 100% worthless.

[papau]

13. the money invested is borrowed via increased national debt - causing

higher interest rates and a loss of jobs

and your kids will need to pay off the debt that will be issued so as to give you an account today -

All of which will not improve Soc Sec finances one iota.

The deal is to destroy the safety net, and to kill social services in the future by adding to the national debt and thereby eating up future taxes by forcing a higher interest payment to be made before we see how much money we have left for defense, health, roads, etc.

So Bush throws a crumb on the table - and like a tax cut that screws the middle class - cutting services by 1000 and sending a bill to the States and to kids in the future - but which gives them $300 extra that year - the middle class will jump into the Social Security fire saying what a nice guy Bush is - giving away money!

[ckramer]

30. I agree...

For most people or the middle class, it's a hoax to get your money...

I think a safety net is needed for the unfortunate because who knows if one day I might need that help too.

I just hate to see more and more homeless and hungry people begging on the street because the society no longer supports them to live a basic dignified life.

Plus Bush's proposal won't do a thing for people of lower income.

[papau]

37. As with all Bush proposals, it screws future kids/middle class/poor so as

to benefit the rich.

The game is never turn in those Gov bonds the SS trust got in return for financing the tax cut for the rich. If they were turned in for cash to pay a few benefit checks, the gov would need to raise that cash and the rich would need to return over a trillion dollars via the increased taxes - or Bush borrows more from the capital markets (there really is no limit on the debt he is willing to put on our kids)

[UTUSN]

14. You Mean How FRIST Lost $300-400G?

His campaign funds lost $$$ by playing it something like that, no?

[Wickerman]

18. I think folks are forgetting a key word: Security

Guaranteed return is what it is all about. Never intended as a method to accumulate wealth, it was intended to be a funded method to insure there were funds to help each citizen be able to have care when they can no longer work to care for themselves.

[hatrack]

19. Scam

Plan and simple, it's a scam to first wound, then hamstring and then destroy SS.

Then we all get to move to Norquist World, the exciting new indentured-servant theme park! :puke:

[BillZBubb]

21. It's a scheme to get private savings into corporate hands.

The brokers are going to love this! They will collect fees from saps who watch their retirement money dribble away. The accounts just won't be large enough to generate real returns necessary to beat the GUARANTEED Social Security return after transaction costs and fees for most people.

If you like the logic of the Repug plan, it surely follows that Social Security should be totally phased out. Why not end the taxation for Social Security entirely and allow people to put 100% of that money into a private account? You can bet once they get this first phase entrenched, that will be next.

The sad thing is given the market's performance during four years of the Chimperor, that people would seriously consider this. What have been the real returns on the DJIA and S&P 500 over that period?

[Robbien]

26. Social Security is not broken.

But it sure will be once BushCo and his corporate cronies get their hands on it.

[TexasLawyer]

27. Bush Proposal Would Kill Social Security

The plan is a train wreck waiting to happen. Social Security will be fully funded until the middle of this century, but the Bush plan will destroy it well before then. Read Paul Krugman's editorials about the Bush plan in this week's New York Times. Also look at AARP's categorical opposition to the plan.

The Bush SS plan would also severely hurt an already gravely wounded U.S. economy. Just to initially fund the program, the U.S. Govt. would have to borrow on the order of a TRILLION dollars! This will only add to our already burgeoning deficit and make us seem even more fiscally irresponsible and out of control to the rest of the world.

Although Bushco believes that world opinion and "global tests" should never control the actions of the U.S., this attitude just won't wash where extreme debt is concerned. Foreigners currently finance our govt. by buying U.S. treasuries, etc., and it is their current opinion on our currency that is helping to drive down the dollar, increase interest rates and increase gas prices (our biggest import).

So-- here's the future with the Bush Social Security program-- aged baby boomers with names like Heather and Chad sharing a cat food dinner in their cardboard tent (they long ago lost their house) by the light of the worthless dollar bills burning in their camp-stove.

Very sad. I'll take the current program, thank you.

[Fleurs du Mal]

33. It's nonsense

There are going to be huge numbers of people with inadequate retirement equity down the road.

[Johonny]

41. seems like such a rip-off

To those of us without a defined benifit plan but who have 401(3) K and VAAPs. I mean yet another market dependent saving plan I need not. If SS needed more money why not just move the magic payroll tax barrier? It's quick, easy and leaves me with at least one defined benifit plan.

[retread]

42. What makes you think you will have the freedom to invest this

money where you want?

[ckramer]

44. The name "private account"

I assumed that individuals would have the freedom of controlling this so called "private account." If this was indeed a private account, then the recipients should be given choices of where the money'd go - be it into an IRA account or a money market account, I hope.

Are you saying that even the money went to an individual's account, he/she still wouldn't allow to manage it? I wouldn't like that if that's the case.

[neverforget]

43. It's the first step to killing a popular social program. Repukes have

always hated SS and have always wanted to kill it. This is the first step.

[noiretextatique]

46. if bush is proposing it, then i am automatically opposed to it

a general rule of thumb, in addition to all the other reasons mentioned in this thread.

[waywest]

49. He's a friggen financial GENIUS!

How can anyone argue with a string of success stories like dubbie's.

(sarc. off)

[Kool Kitty]

50. Hell, yes.

I wouldn't trust W to pick up my lunch, let alone tell me what to do about my retirement money. I agree with the previous poster-if Bush thinks it's a good idea, avoid it like the plague. His personal track record sucks, with a capital S-U-C-K-S!!! All they really want to do is get rid of Social Security. They don't give a shit about anyone's retirement benefits.

[Sugarbleus]

51. It's a scam.

The monied investment class/wall street want to get their hands on that dough like you wouldn't believe. They LOATHE the idea that any government should have any responsibility to it's citizens. They don't give a damn about those who maybe haven't worked a solid 30 years; which is what you'd have to do to really benefit significantly.

On C-span, John Goodman, Tom Saving, and Estelle James (at a NCPA press conference) Talked about all kinds of ways to make the privatization possible....then turned into annunities. Ms James used Chile as a model. It was sooooooooooo confussing and complicated but I watched anyway. I was sick.

http://www.ncpa.org
Is a right wing site that Bush is using to formulate a "reform" tactic for SS. These people are connected to all the other right wing think tanks who seriously desire to kill democracy, the rights of the individual, and ALL safty net programs once and for all.

John Goodman is the prez of NCPA with close ties to the insurance industry.

[proudbluestater]

52. His proposal will cost 2 TRILLION to implement

The man is simply not in a reality based environment. They like to say they create their own reality there. It somebody does not wake them up this country will be in the sewer in a hurry.

[American Tragedy]

53. Remember, he said we're members of the REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY

I almost fell out of my chair when I first read that.

It reminds me very much of when I confronted one of the guys in charge of the Bush '04 campaign in New Mexico, and asked him about how they would deal with the even greater debt engendered by the Social Security reform. He told me in effect that deficits resolve themselves.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so fuckin terrifying.

[Zorra]

57. Can you say "ENRON"? n/t