Bush Wants to Push Back Retirement Age

Jeb Bush wants to push back the retirement age for Social Security by as many as five years, The Hill reports.

Said Bush: “I think it needs to be phased in over an extended period of time. We need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in, over an extended period of time, going from 65 to 68 or 70. And that, by itself, will help sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40.”

“At the same time, Bush said that he would be open to cutting back benefits for wealthy people and their beneficiaries, a reform proposal known as means testing.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
  • Single payer health care for raising the age to 70. We are living longer guys, now if we were to concentrate on rebuilding a middle class and enriching lives; instead of this everyman for himself baloney.

    • APV

      A sliding scale based on risk profile will be better than a one-size fits all. Not every demographic has seen their live expectancy go up equally (e.g. females live longer than males; Whites live longer than African Americans).

      Many in hazardous jobs have higher mortality rates. Difference in life expectancy for the least educated laborers and more educated professionals is about seven years. Least educated workers enter labor force sooner (so work longer and contribute more years to paying for Social Security) but die sooner.

      • Agree, and why am I reading this sensible approach on a blog instead of a bill enacted into law?

        • APV

          Because we have yahoos who ran for VP but demogogue a reasonable healthcare law as a socialist take over to enforce death panels.

          If we are civil and reasonable, even under ACA, we could have addressed life style choices as drunken/reckless driving, unsafe use of guns, smoking, and unsafe sexual practices, all of which contribute to risks and increases in healthcare costs. A visit to an ER on a Friday evening vs Sunday morning is like night and day. Many of Friday night ER visits are due to accidents, fights, gun shot wounds, all of which can be minimized.

      • Matt Drabek

        And it’s worth noting that most gains in life expectancy are usually from drops in the infant mortality rate. I doubt very seriously that life expectancy among 50 year olds has moved much in the US in the last few decades.

        • ProfessorNewshound

          Correct. Demographers have pointed out in recent years that there is a *HUGE* race and class component to raising the retirement age — minorities and/or poor folks live shorter lives than prosperous whites. A serious national debate over raising the retirement age will quickly turn into a debate about who has more opportunities in the U.S. and who lives longer (and why). That’s a debate that would only exacerbate the GOP’s problems with minorities, and it would hurt Republicans with downscale whites (and provide an opening for a populist Clinton). I doubt the GOP really wants to go there.

          • means testing is clever because a conservative can seem to the left of a liberal by supporting it, all the time knowing that their goal is to undermine universal support for social security

          • JavaMan

            Only if it’s presented as part of a bargain.

            Let’s give means testing an up or down vote.

            Let’s explain the payroll cap to the electorate while we’re at it. Those go hand in hand much better than a blanket retirement age change.

          • Wynstone

            To be clear, he still favors concrete action that will impact the working class first, then he is open to a conversation about means testing later.

          • Wyn; my completely missed point was/is I am willing to raise my retirement age if everyone has access to healthcare. BUT I am now more educated and like what I have read so far. Still my friend, compromise is a good thing in difficult issues.

          • even betterer

          • JavaMan

            There’s more than 20 years of demographic evidence on this score (difference in life expectancy as a function of class). One of the more compelling early arguments I read to this effect was Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom (1998), which not only compared life expectancy across the U.S., but then further compared average age at death with other parts of the world.

            A particularly salient passage I recall was, even twenty years ago, low income African Americans had a lower life expectancy than city dwellers in certain Indian neighborhoods. (Sen controlled for slums due to global poverty, which he addresses elsewhere, and didn’t necessarily mean the posh parts of town, but really just any places in the country with an expectation of access to medical care – which is set up very differently in that country anyway.)

      • ProfessorNewshound

        I can’t see a job based “sliding scale” happening. This would open the door to an enormous and mind-numblingly complex game about getting jobs classified into various risk profile categories, how are benefits calculated for people with different jobs, etc., etc. Seems to me the “sliding scale” idea is a classic think-tank policy that is politically unworkable.

        • APV

          Just because it is politically unworkable, does not mean we can perpetuate an unfair policy that does not benefit people on the lower end of the scale.

          Insurance industry adjusts premiums based on an even more complex profiles and they go into lot more details.

          • ProfessorNewshound

            I view policy proposals through the lens of political reality and what is realistically achievable, not what may be a policy ideal in a political vacuum. I am skeptical of complex, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals that aim to address economic injustices but have no consideration for the real world of politics.

            Insurance rates are indeed more complex, but they are not set by politicians who have to face the voters and/or a person running against them willing to demagogue and distort anything they say or do.

          • APV

            I don’t disagree with your points. US Census does not keep track of eligible voters, but yet, there is a lawsuit before the Supreme Court arguing that districts be drawn based on eligible voters, not population based on a false premise of “one man one vote”. Such a decision could shift advantage to one demographic or one party significantly. Is anyone on the right questioning how that would be enforced?

          • JavaMan

            If we’re back to realpolitik, maybe the people on the right who might affect the implementation of such a decision in practice are content to roll the dice with their huge majorities in state houses.

          • dweasson

            But it is perhaps not up to Social Security to alleviate the unfairness of the policy, politically workable or not.

            Now, I acknowledge that higher income folks and white folks have seen their life spans grow more than have lower income folks and blacks. But I don’t see how you can adjust Social Security to address that: And I just can’t see where there needs to be some implied sense of equality in the amount of time you get to be retired. Some well off white folks die a year into retirement, and some poor blacks retire and live another thirty or more years — and vice versa.

            I want everyone of every stripe of society to have a decent life — to grow up healthy and safe, to learn, to work safely, and in the end, live old age in dignity. Social Security helps assure the latter.

            I don’t see how you can sort out those who should get to retire earlier.

            By income? I submit that should Social Security adopt a means-based criteria it will immediately become stigmatized, and once stigmatized will become as subject to the GOP chopping block as every other social safety net program.

            By job classification? Some studies have shown that sitting at a desk 8 hours a day is as bad for your health as heavy labor. If there is injury, even chronic wear that makes a person unable to work in later years couldn’t they be on Disability until they hit retirement age, and then switch to Social Security?

            By race? Blacks get to retire at 65 but whites have to work ’til 70? That is plantation mentality, and is insulting and unfair, to say the least, and will certainly breed more problems than it will ever solve.

            I agree that folks at the lower end of the scale should be assured of all the things I listed above — health, education, safety, and dignity. I just don’t think that Social Security it the tool for making that happen.

            A few years ago I heard scientists surmise that the first person to live to 200 has already been born. We are living longer. We need to work longer, or we need to pay in a lot more to have a 40 year work career fund a century of retirement (or even, more realistically, 40 years of retirement). I think Jeb (who I would not vote for) has picked the only one of those options that has a chance of passing (frankly, I’m in favor of doing both). I don’t mean you say to some poor 65 year old schmuck that he doesn’t get to retire in two years after all. Some time ago Social Security did a sliding scale thing — my husband can retire with full Social Security at 66, while I have to work until 67. That can be done again — add a month per year for everyone, I don’t know, 40 or younger, or whatever age and numbers work. I really can’t see where a 40 year old is going to have kittens over working until age 67 and one month instead of age 67.

            Anyway, I’m in favor of your idea, just not sold on using Social Security as the tool to turn it into reality.

      • yadayadaaa

        APV. My dad would have added the line.
        “And thats why, you need to turn off the TV. And get in there and do your homework”! 🙂

    • tiredofit

      No, “we” are not living longer. Rich and upper middle class people are living longer, but the poor, lower income and regular middle class folks who actually need the benefits are not seeing longer lives.

    • Calbengoshi

      “We” may be living longer, but that doesn’t mean people who do physical labor can keep on doing it for another five years.

  • SausageAway

    He wants the peasants to die working

    • 66kicks

      Jeb is obviously a man who has never worked a day at a physically demanding job in his life. Laborers, miners, farmers, factory workers, hell even nurses are often pretty used up physically by their early 60s, and now the Jebster wants them to wait to collect the pittance they’ve worked for.

  • citizenupset

    The value of my home, my savings account, my retirement account and social security are what I plan to retire to. Age 65 is 20 years away for me. Take 1/4 of my pie away and suddenly things don’t look the same, But, I will be okay. Looking at others her aren’t even where I am, things looking even darker. But on the other side of the fence, you have these millionaires who are set for life most of which are out the beating the cut benefits drums. It’s shameful..Social Security can be secure forever without raising anybody’s age. I see seniors working at McDonald’s just to get enough to afford there medication co-pay. Raising the age limit will not only keep your check away longer, it will also raise the death rate.

    • gmccpa

      You’re SS retirement age is 67. Not 65. Jeb Bush really should know this.

  • richo123

    Raise the FICA cap, jackass.

    • DCDemocrat

      Eliminate it.

      • dmhlt_66

        SCRAP the CAP!

        And I’d go along w/ Means Testing, too.

    • APV

      Means testing social security and Medicare benefits should also be considered. Those are safety net programs not entitlements.

      • CA_Guy

        Nope. SS is a social contract that everyone funds and everyone gets a pay out. Right Wing Conservatives have been very successful in re-categorizing SS as an “entitlement” program, like food stamps, within the public conversation in order to push for it’s reduction and eventual elimination.

        • APV

          Social Security is funded based on income, not based on capital gains or deferred interest. When Romney paid no or little income tax, did he pay into social security?

          Why do The Koch brothers, Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates need SS or Medicare? Or for that matter Bill Clinton or Al Gore?

          • Calbengoshi

            Nobody who is rich “needs” SS or Medicare. However, in order to gain support the laws creating both of those systems were designed to provide coverage for everyone.

            As for Romney, regardless of the extent to which he may have been able to avoid (or evade) paying income taxes, if his income included a salary then he was forced to pay SS taxes on that income, up to the relatively paltry “cap” amount.

        • note how you had to put the word in square quotes and then redefine it as meaning welfare or foodstamps to make this ppint

      • Rhodent

        I’m with CA_Guy. There mere fact that a one-percenter like Jeb Bush is willing to consider means testing should be a tip-off that it will get used as a right-wing talking point later on.

        Let everyone collect Social Security, but cap the benefits without capping the contributions. That should be enough to keep the system funded for decades if not centuries to come.

      • i don’t think that word entitlement is useful here if people are going to use it to mean like two or three different things.

  • Grisha

    of course the retirement age is already going up to 67 for everyone born after 1959… and when they crunch the numbers, they have found that raising the age of Social Security even more actually saves surprisingly little money. And in any case, Social Security, money wise, is doing quite well… it’s Medicaid and Medicare which are somewhat more problematic. The Republicans love to ball them altogether (and separate them out) whenever it’s convenient. For, supposedly, the only serious Republican candidate in the race, Bush is showing himself to be remarkably unserious.

  • tiredofit

    The problem with that is that rich and upper middle class people live to 70 far more than poor and other middle class people, meaning that the lower earners would pay in for their entire lives and get nothing while the rich would get benefits they don’t need.

    An easier and FAR more equitable way to fix this is to start collecting payroll taxes on all income up to $500K. Done.

    • GatorLegal1

      I completely agree that the best – and by far the most equitable and fair – solution is to lift or remove entirely the cap on payroll tax contributions. People making $500K a year aren’t going to need that extra money, they’re already rich. Meanwhile, it would ensure the safety and continuation of a program that disproportionately helps those averaging under $50,000/year at the end of their lives when they need the help the most. Any serious discussion of this issue needs to include a raising or lifting of the cap.

      • CA_Guy

        Are you kidding me? How will I afford that extra maid?

        • yadayadaaa

          Arnold… found a way.

      • embo66

        “People making $500K a year aren’t going to need that extra money, they’re already rich.”

        Except rich people are notorious for also being generally miserly (cf. multiple PW threads in reaction to Fiorina stiffing her 2010 Senate staff): In relative terms, they give less to charity than poorer people. They hunt for bargains. They often create excuses NOT to pay people they owe.

        In other words, they tend to value their money as money and hate parting with it. “Helping others” is clearly not enough of a reason. So there’s no way they are going to accept a cap as high as $500K without a fight, esp. if it means no attendant increase in their monthly pension.

        But I say: Bring it on!

  • S1AMER

    65? Can somebody tell him the age was pushed past 65 years ago? Boomers hitting 65 right now have to wait until they’re 66 to get full benefits.

    Jeez, how out of everything is he? His dad was astounded when he first saw a supermarket scanner. Does Jebbie know where we are today?

    • Donkey Haute

      66 years, 8 months for me.

    • gmccpa

      Damn. Just posted something similar. Sorry…I should have read down first.

    • 66kicks

      Like his dad, he’s probably still amazed at bar code readers in supermarkets.

  • growe

    Let’s see, Reagan already did that, and was smart enough to use a bipartisan commission to make the recommendations (not directly attach his name to “work longer, get less, peons”!!

    Not hard to tell the 40-55 cohort “vote for Jeb little mice, he’s going to move your cheese!!”
    Not hard to know, that ‘means testing’ would magically disappear before Jeb signs a bill.
    Not hard to go to AZ, FL, OH and tell older people ‘they want to screw with SSI again!!”

    Where exactly does Mr Front Runner/ Yet Never Ahead thinks this wins him a vote?

  • Buford2k11

    It is so easy for these folks to say these things, because they know they will never have to rely on these policies, and they don’t have to know any poor people….they don’t know the everyday struggles of a normal person…these people like bush, and the rest have no clue what America is anymore….other than an ATM for the corporations and power brokers…

  • EbeSnoozer

    For someone who apparently isn’t running for president, an awful lot of time and effort is being devoted to his musings.

    That said, how very republican: let’s all work till we die.

    • CB123

      Well, yeah — if you’re not working, you’re a parasite. (Unless you’re rich. Then you’re a job creator. Even if you’re not actually creating jobs.)

  • Official Teabagger

    Great idea, Jeb. Just in time to piss off the angry scooter-bound Teabagger base leeching off socialist Medicare.

  • SKEPTICAL PROGRESSIVE

    A lot of sensible ideas on this blog, not so much from the GOP. Two thoughts. First, for a lot of people, who do physically demanding work, a retirement age of 70 is not plausible — the body just wears out. For Jeb, of course, those people don’t really count, though they do include a lot of working class white males who vote Republican. This might get them to wake up. I oppose the idea of raising the retirement age to 70, for some jobs, that aren’t physically demanding, it is more plausible for people to work until 70, though I think that should be a matter of choice, not compulsion. Second, while it is true that life-expectancy has gone up since Social Security has been established, a lot of that increase is due to public health improvements, antibiotics, and vaccinations that have drastically reduced childhood mortality. While a person aged 65 in 2015 will live longer than a person aged 65 in 1940 would have, the difference in the overall life expectancy rate for people who have reached age 65 is not that great. http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html. I’ll give Jeb credit for honesty. Social Security is not in any real trouble, so there is no reason to bring this up other than to pander to the deficit obsessed/libertarian/billionaire base of the Republican party. His political error is that it will show white working and middle class voters nearing retirement age just how little he really cares for their well-being. So, I say thanks Jeb.

    • montag

      And those very same white working class and middle class voters will still act against their own best interests and vote for Jeb.

  • oldhandatthis

    A good start would be eliminating the social security tax cap so everybody is paying the same rate.

    We’ve already raised the retirement age, I would oppose doing it again. Some people reach retirement age still able to work but many really can’t. And remember boomers represent a bulge in the curve, once the boomers are gone the ration of workers to retirees will improve, so a smarter move would be to temporarily increase the funding and not screw up retirement for the generations that follow.

  • mfa123

    And how does he expect anyone not retired to think this is a good idea??

  • mhandrh

    This is the guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth — who never has to worry whether he will be able to manage food and shelter in his retirement — this is the guy who never had to do back-breaking work 8 hours/day, who never had to be on his feet 8 hours/day, or on his knees, or climb a pole in all kinds of weather.
    Jeb is another Bush asshat, a rich bastard with no thought and certainly no compassion for someone other than the likes of himself. The rest of us are peons here to sere the likes of him.
    Eliminate the cap on payroll tax.
    Tax all income — including unearned.
    Tax income from stock trades.

  • Travlr

    Maybe Jeb should look north ot Canada where PM Harper just pushed the age from 65 to 67 — a relatively “minor” adjustment — for retirees to start recieivng their OAS (Old Age Security) payments. Let’s jsut say that it’s not going over well….and we have our Federal Election this October.

    Not quite the same as your Social Security — our Canadian Pension Plan is a closer match, there….which has also been tinkered with this past couple of years by the Conservative gov’t — but it’s all part and partial for seniors (those 55 and older)…. whom just happen to vote in somewhat greater numbers than any other age group.

    Surprised Jeb hasn’t figured that part out….

  • Shamman

    I watched this interview. What Bush is proposing is quite possibly the dumbest idea ever. While I agree that the retirement age probably should be raised, there are several other things to do before that. How about first stopping Congress from tapping Social Security for other things – the “lockbox” Al Gore proposed? Bush also referred to Social Security at least twice during the interview as “supplemental retirement income.” It wasn’t difficult to read into this that over the horizon a Bush III administration would be proposing a privatization of Social Security as did his brother before him. Maybe we should ask those retirees who were banking on their 401k’s and 403b’s in 2008 how they feel about this…

    • Travis Shaw

      Also remember that the privatization proposal was the beginning of Bush sinking to irrelevance during his second term. Katrina finished the job, but this proposal was unpopular to begin with and got even more so as the president tried to sell it.

    • Silent_Partner

      In other words, I’m starting to think W. is the smart one since at least he did all this shit first and failed. This dummy has come back 10 years in the future and doesn’te ven know how to hide all of his lame ideas behind some fake compassionate conservative cloak or something. Thank God this guy’s a moron and will be out of the race before we blink.

  • jerry page

    He’d the sign the disgusting Ryan budget without even thinking about it.

  • hdavis

    Now somebody needs to make an ad “Jeb Bush wants to take away your social security” And he lost Florida.

  • growe

    Hey Jeb, I have a great idea. This is a good start to piss of old people (any contact with SSI is seen as a threat no matter how you shape it), and the minority of middle-aged people who pay attention to actual proposals (knowing they get to wait to 70 or 75 or whatever shit you throw out).

    But why stop there? As long as you are working so hard to become unelectable – just like your hero, Mitt “sticky fingers, offshoring, and dissing average folks” Romney, why not go all the way?

    Propose that women get only 78% of the benefit that men receive, since they are already trained in their working years to get 78 cents on the dollar, and they live too much longer? That’s some Straight Talk that women voters will really respect and appreciate!!

    Propose that Latinos get only 2/3 of a white person’s benefit, because the government has to spend money on border enforcement. Major points for bold thinking there. Propose that blacks only get 2/3 of a white benefit too, because we “have to” imprison so many black people (no it’s not because of unfair sentencing and racism, get out there and Romney-splain the issue)….

    Means testing? Give yourself and Romney a 225% higher benefit because you ‘create jobs.’

  • jimbeaux

  • jon_downfromthetrees

    This is just more of the usual campaign-time pandering. It’s premised on the widespread assumption that Social Security is in trouble. The fact is Social Security funding is too complicated for most short-attention span voters, so people like Bush can get away with this kind of rubbish.

    Effectively addressing Social Security can’t be happen in an American political campaign because any honest and adequate discussion would render most voters comatose with boredom and confusion.

    And, no, an aging population doesn’t necessarily mean forcing people to work longer. Living longer ought to mean being able to enjoy more years of the liberty of retirement, not more years clocking in.

    • growe

      Actually the aging population means that higher retirement age (and no companies with pensions so SSI ‘does’ determine retirement age for most people) directly increases unemployment (67, 69 year olds holding slots a new 23, 25 year old would fill), and thus also helps depress wages. Is that a GOP trifecta or what?

  • Silent_Partner

    Lmao, this guy is the gift that just keeps giving. Everyday, it’s a new great headline to bury his ass. I love it.

  • voncey

    Pretty easy to say from the backseat of your chauffer-driven limo. Try working as a bricklayer or cleaner for a couple of week and see how you feel about working until you’re 70.

    • growe

      It’s hideous to think of people with physically demanding jobs being told they can stand all day or lift heavy stuff to 70 or beyond. When SSI started, people did die younger, fair enough. But a nurse? Coal miner? Loading dock worker unloading all those cheap goods from China? Our bodies don’t stay that strong just because we live longer.

    • TnkAgn

      You’ve got it , voncey. I worked as a construction laborer for a few years, and I can tell you, swinging a pick and shovel, picking fruit, sweeping and mopping floors for a living ages you faster than sitting in a cubicle playing games on your computer.

      If anything, SSI and Medicare ages should be lowered, and the tax cap for Medicare should be raised, or even better, eliminated.

  • b-rar

    The full retirement age is already 67. He’s a dummy who doesn’t even know the basic dimension of the thing he wants to cut (and subsequently eliminate completely).

    • Dave

      He’s turning into the Mitt Romney of 2016.

  • gmccpa

    Really? Social Security retirement age hasn’t been 65 since 2002. Only those born 1937 and prior were able to receive full benefits at 65. For those born 1960 and later …..its already 67.

    • easton

      and it is 70 to get full benefits (or more benefits). I know they call 67 full benefits but if you wait 3 years but get a lot more money, the 70 is then full benefits.

  • Lynda Groom

    Translation: You working stiffs will just have to suck it up, stay at work so those economically fortunate can enjoy their early retirement. You’ll have to continue to pay into the system to sustain the Medicare subsidies of the fortunate sons and the moneyed elite. Maybe he’ll toss you a bone or two to ease your pain and suffering…..and if you believe that I’ll sell you some beachfront property in Utah.

  • ratfishtim

    If Bush wants to “sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40” all he has to do is support the removal of the income cap on Social Security, so that minimum wage and other lower paid workers don’t pay 6.2% of their income, while guys like Bush and Romney- who make well over the 2015 cap of $118,500 pay a much smaller percentage of their income to Social Security.

    Another case of the rich soaking the poor.

  • Calbengoshi

    The only people who suggest that the retirement age for Social Security purposes should be raised are people who don’t have a job involving physical labor. Most of them are wusses who couldn’t even do the physical work of a carpenter, plumber, construction laborer, etc., when they were 35, much less being able to do it at 65.

  • duncan king

    Raising retirement age is a favorite solution for the chattering class, who do most of their work on thier “ass.”
    This proposal will most effect the quality of life for middle class and working Americans.
    Better solution would be to raise SS taxable income limit, lower retirement to 60. By lowering the retirement age you will open up more jobs quicker at higher wages.

  • CB123

    I’m all for means-testing. Leave the age alone. Subject all income to Social Security taxes. There. Fixed.

  • CB123

    This is also a young people’s issue. One of the benefits of people retiring in their 60s is that it opens up jobs for younger people. With people already being forced to work longer, one of the unintended consequences has been record numbers of young people being forced to live with their parents well into their 20s or even their 30s because it has gotten much harder for young people to get jobs. The longer we make people work, the longer the delay for young people in getting out of their parents’ basements (which is bad for both the young people AND their parents; the younger people have to wait longer to get their careers off the ground, thereby delaying their ability to begin earning and saving money; their parents bear the costs of their adult children still being at home, thereby delaying THEIR ability to save money and eventually retire).

    Everybody loses if we raise the retirement age. Everybody.

  • Mary Bell Lockhart

    Says the guy who never had to, never will have to depend upon Social Security income. This is a de facto cut in benefits. And it it based on the assumption that everyone, working every job can work until 70. They can’t. Furthermore, it’s not a big help to younger people because it would keep people in the jobs they are in until age 70, instead of allowing them to retire and give their job to a young person. All we need to do to Social Security is raise the cap on income subject to SS payments.

  • growe

    Hey, it’s not like Princess Ann or Queen Cindy ever pulled a double shift as a waitress.
    Barbara never got a callous earning a living, neither did Customs Colomba.
    Prescott, George Herbert Walker, and their descendants never feared retirement.

    It’s not like Jeb consorts with us commoners. Why would this not seem brilliant to him?
    The WSJ editorial board and Koch Bros. think it’s a great idea!!
    If you are a slow-witted, shallow-minded Bush, those “are” the average voters.

  • delnurse

    It is already moving toward 67 in increments. Now he wants 70? This to fix the Social Security problem? Want to know how to fix it right now? Remove the cap on SS taxes, let the million and billionaires pay thier share into the system.

  • growe

    Why not just embrace feudalism? The serfs never got to quit working either, and it’s a Republican twofer, since they got no medical care when they were sick. It’s Paul Ryan’s wildest AynRand fantasy come true, and Jeb seems ready to embrace it too.

  • growe

    Jebbo might have another month or three where he can keep coming in at fifth and sixth place and still have daddy’s friends hand him bags of money. But so far he is approaching running for President like Lucy and Ethel on the chocolate wrapping line.

    The stupidity is magnified by the fact that his big brother – whose success he so admires and whom he dearly loves – already TRIED to fuck with Social Security, and voters across the spectrum handed him his ass for it, it was the start of his long slow slide to oblivion.

    Granted W was a little smarter. He didn’t campaign on that shit in 2000 or 2004, no sir, he waited until he was barely elected and then did his masters’ bidding. But still…!

  • Jack Bean

    Sure is easy for those who haven’t worked a day in their life to crack the whip, isn’t it? I wonder what age Bush will retire.