Well, Tom:

no need to belabor the Conservative political fantasy of "we can't be wrong" and "the other side is imploding" for too long. The lasting impression I have from the Bush State of the Union speech is similar to yours, but perhaps with a different "meaning": The Democratic cheering, and Hilary's bright, intelligent smile are like a shot across the bow of right-wing conservative politics in 2006. It's back to the future for the Democrats.

Re. your comments on Social Security. The Fund currently has $1.7 trillion in reserves, and some basic corrections now could easily erase the undire shortfall years from now. One would be a fair, progressive tax system.

Interesting that you should argue that the Iraq war and "entitlements" are the cause of the deficit. The same entitlements weren't a problem during the Clinton Administration, which ended with a surplus. Far as the war goes, it's been a colossal and sad waste of money and American and Iraqi lives, again a reflection of bad policy.

In January, 2006, based on US census figures, the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly over the last two decades, with the poor and middle class falling farther behind. Don't believe it? Check it out.

OK, this one's getting old, New guy, but as the Governor of California might say, "I'll be back."

Tom:

Two problems the Conservative mindset has: 1. it believes its own propaganda; and 2. it changes the subject to something different when unable to address the issue.

The Social Security System is indeed a fund, based on a "pay-as-you-go" principle (just like your checking account is a fund if even if you pay the entire balance out in bills every month and then put more in). And there is a $1.7 trillion Social Security Fund Reserve, invested in US Treasury Bonds (one of the safest investments in the world, and an obligation that has been and is always paid off, plus interest,and will keep being so as long as there is a US Treasury. It isn't a question of funds set aside, but rather one of ongoing funding.

I agree that it is too bad that Social Security payments may be inadequate for many, though they are guaranteed, plus cost-of-living, and provide a sure safety net for all. But that's a different question: do we want to increase benefits? With a Bush privatization plan, the heart of this debate, pulling 2% or more out of payroll taxes going into the System would be a disaster, for future recipients, who would eventually face up to a 50% cut in benefits, and by adding trillions to government debt in one short generation. Plus, counting on the stockmarket is risktaking for those who can't afford it; they might gain a little, or lose alot.

Congressional Budget Office data show that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of the tax cuts was nearly 3 times the cost of the Iraq war. War costs have been going up, for sure, along with the cost of the tax cuts, which if extended to 2013 will cost $4 trillion. Deficits forever...

You misconstrued my comment about the rich and the rest of us, perhaps on purpose. The gap is widening, which is the meaning of "the middle class and poor falling farther behind". And say if you're right about the 14% and 18% more value income they've had over the last twenty years. At less than 1% a year (and getting 20 years older), that's pathetic, especially since in the previous 20 years, they lost value in income.

The point of all of this is to highlight the bad policy-making of the Bush Administration (much of it designed to purposefully weaken the Social Security System, which Conservatives don't like anyway). Most people recognized this, and that Democrats helped sink it should be celebrated. A solution to the shortfall problem can be found in making the tax system fairer, not loading up the rich with tax cuts.