Especially after reading some of this transcript (fixed the question so it read clearer, but Bush’s statement is verbatim). Read it out loud for full enjoyment.
QUESTION: I don’t really understand. How is it the new plan is going to fix that problem?
THE PRESIDENT: 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.
I don’t know about you, but I’m confused.
Thanks Barn for the tip.
Comments
.
Thanks to my perusing your blog, specifically, “Utterlyboring.com”, I have arrived at what I believe is a defensible inference. Both you and your readers would welcome news of in-your-face overt opposition to your “smirking chimp”, my “dum’ya botch”.
In plainer terms, I want to run for Representative for Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District on a platform calling for the impeachment of President George Walker Bush.
Incidentally, I deliberately referred to your blog, to indicate that I visited your blog as an individual, and not as a spammer. Yes, that last is an illustion to a “pre-deconstruction” chick flick with a rating of two and a half hankies.
Ah, before you click on any of the enclosed hyperlinks, please read the entirely of my comment. For example, the three planks I nailed together in my platform out to get me elected. “impeach bush” is the first plank. The second is “impeach bush”. The third is like the second, “impeach bush”.
To continue, the first hyperlink below leads to the opening salvo of my campaign.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/danger-senator-specter-danger.html
As for the second hyperlink, it leads to evidence that my candidacy is about more than opposition solely for the sake of opposition.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/dispelling-stench-in-oval.html
toodles
……\
.he who is known as sefton
oh, yeah, I should add that, in Epimethean Comment, I make the case that nominating Judge Alito to the Supreme Court is tantamount to treason.