<p>"Interesting how you also throw around numbers and claim they are correct (Medicare). How can you know?"</p>
<p>What? Here's what I know. This is knowledge I've gained from reading. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says S.S. will start paying out more than it takes in around 2018. This is a consequence of baby boomers retiring. It is a fact that Medicare started paying out more than it takes in through tax revenues LAST YEAR. It is also a fact that Bush's prescription drug benefit doesn't come into effect until 2006. Costs thereafter skyrocket (as should be expected).</p>
<p>Alan Greenspan REFUSED to call the S.S. situation a crisis when pressed by congressmen. Greenspan does like the idea of private accounts, but what must be understood is that privatization does nothing for S.S.'s long-term solvency. The White House's numbers say that, and so do Paul Krugman's. So Greenspan has merely stated that he thinks carving out private accounts is preferable to a system of transfers. This is a matter of opinion-- and I do find it interesting that Greenspan expressed his personal belief.</p>
<p>I'm calling Bush a liar because he knows as well as anyone else who has seen the numbers that S.S. is not even close to crisis. Even worse, he flaunts privatization as a cure for it (although he has recently backed off of these assertions in public). According to the CBO, S.S.'s trust fund will run out in 2052. At that point, 70-80% of benefits will still be able to be paid out. And because Americans' productivity will certainly increase up to that point, 70-80% will likely be more in real dollar terms than 100% is today.</p>
<p>On the Schiavo thing, I know that Bush is a fundamentalist, and that he lets it influence his policymaking. But to violate a truly conservative value like he did is....well, not conservative! I don't think you understand the states' rights mantra that conservatives have been shouting for decades. The idea is, no matter what is morally just in the eye of the federal gov't, states must be able to excercise their own powers unfettered. So yes, Bush showed his Pro-Life dedication by signing, but he completely overruled a fundamental position of his party in doing so.</p>
<p>And I'm not saying that conservatives aren't behind Mr. Bush. I'm saying that there are many TRADITIONAL American conservatives who are disgusted. Conservatism is being phased out for a synthesis of fundamentalism, neoconservatism, and real conservatism.</p>
<p>It is my opinion that this is not a sustainable course for the party, but I could certainly be wrong. Since the Democrats have been moronic (to put it lightly) since the Iraq invasion, there may be no end in sight for this madness.</p>