home

Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 09:37:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here's a press release I received by e-mail on Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's position on Social Security. I like it.

“If the president wants to know how people really feel about his Social Security plan, he should start by asking them how they will react to having their benefits cut nearly in half, which is what seniors will see if Republicans proceed with their privatization plan.

Social Security is America's promise to those who work hard and play by the rules. But through news reports and White House leaks, we know the President intends to break this promise. I hope the President uses today’s conversation to come clean about this fact.”

My previous reservations about Senator Reid are fading fast. TalkLeft received an invitation today to participate in a conference call betweeen bloggers and his staff Thursday. Unfortunately, I have a scheduling conflict but I'm most appreciative of the offer. Last we I participated in such a call with DNC Chair hopeful Simon Rosenberg. The call left me very open to him. I'm glad that the give and take of actual conversation hasn't been replaced by blogging but is being used as an adjunct. I'm also impressed by those in political positions who are reaching out to the blogosphere. Netroots activism at work.

< British Cocaine Documentary Advocates Legalization | Howard Dean Announces DNC Chair Candidacy >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security | 43 comments (43 topical)
    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#1)
    by Adept Havelock on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    It's amusing to me to see the GOP attempting to manufacture a crisis in social security. Almost as amusing as seeing they are using the same playbook they used to manufacture the Iraq "crisis" that led to invasion/occupation/debacle.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:56 AM EST
    et al - That the Senator does not distinguish between current and future SS recipients demonstrates that he intends to try and use fear rather than facts in his arguments. Which is terrible, because he has to know that people currently receiving SS will not have their beinefits touched.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    So, in your view, Jim, people have no right to be afraid that they will not get Social Security when they retire? I think fear (and disgust) is an entirely appropriate response to George W. Bush's desire to break Social Security. Why don't you? Are you one of Social Security's current recipients, and can thus happily ignore all the controversy?

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    Y’know this whole social security debate thing may be a good thing for progressives if we see this as an opportunity to finance Social Security benefits from progressive income taxes as opposed to regressive payroll taxes. All we would have to do is attach some sort of guaranteed benefits level to any private account legislation, guaranteeing a benefits level that will probably require additional infusions of federal money (from progressive income tax revenues). Nevermind privitization, the worst thing that could happen to progressives in this debate is to finance any possible short falls with additional regressive payroll taxes. This would be easy to sell. The message would be “Do what you want, just make sure people get their benefits.”

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    This admin's only tactic is fear, eg mushroom clouds etc. Of course there is no SS crisis, and what is in crisis he ignores.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#6)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:44:06 AM EST
    “George W. Bush's desire to break Social Security.” SS isn’t already broken?

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    Pigwiggle is right; it's already been broken by Bush's tax cuts. Now he's working on pounding the remaining pieces into dust.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    No its not, we've been through this. I put up links to analyses in a previous thread.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:50:50 AM EST
    So Jim are you angry at the Democratic Senator for co-opting Dubya's tactics of fear mongering. Social Security is at best # 3 down the list on the deficit crisis scale. #1 is the deficit and debt created by Bush's tax cuts. #2 is Medicare which has been exponentially made worse by the prescription drug benefit passed last year with this administration's blessing.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#10)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    Yah, we’ve been through this. A $27 trillion un-funded mandate doesn’t faze SD; it’s $0.5 trillion budget deficits that do.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    Jman, mww - No, what I said was that the good Senator from Nevada should not try and frighten CURRENT recipients. If he wants to try and frighten FUTURE ones, I guess that is acceptable politicial action in today's world. pigwiggle - Indeed. TJ - Since the vast majority of Americans make less than $90,000, the taxable amount is progressive, if not the rates. BTW - I'd like to see you sell that concept during the next election cycle.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    Above by me.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    Pig now you are turning into an outright liar. I really didn't think you were that low. But I guess when you can't win the argument thats what you do. You never refuted the links I posted. So now you just spew crap.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#14)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    Soc: "This admin's only tactic is fear" Well, that and the element of surprise. This admin's two tactics are fear and the element of surprise. And a nearly fanatical devotion to free market principles. Oh, bugger.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#16)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:10:25 PM EST
    “But I guess when you can't win the argument thats what you do.” There is no argument, you refuse to argue. And before you get started, posting links to another’s blog isn’t an argument.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    There is no argument, you refuse to argue. And before you get started, posting links to another’s blog isn’t an argument. Distorting things again. God this is all so predictable. There is no reason i have to engage in an all day arguathon with you. I posted links to blogs and economic policy sites. Some of the blogs are run by economists. They have analyses. These people are more qualified than me and have laid out their analyses. You have yet to refute them. I am not obliged to spend hours going down some torturous path (which I have already done 3 times on other issues) that ends up being some semantic game with movable goalposts and a complete waste of time for me. So if you're looking for someone to spend all day going back and forth adhering to your rules of engagement, I'm not your guy. You've made your view clear, I've made mine clear by pointing you to the analyses I put weight in. If you have something of substance let me know.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:38:25 PM EST
    Almost as amusing as seeing they are using the same playbook they used to manufacture the Iraq "crisis" that led to invasion/occupation/debacle. - Adept Havelock Too right. They couldn't think past the ends of their noses about invading Iraq; why would anyone believe they care about what happens with Social Security 50 years from now? The plan is to shovel money to the brokerage houses and reap massive campaign contributions and various other forms of kickbacks.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    Scar: If you would read a little, you would see that SS taxes have'nt been touched by the awesome tax cuts. Different pot of money. Quaker: You saying the SS system is currently broken and needs some sort of fixing? What would you do?

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#20)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:44:33 PM EST
    “If you have something of substance let me know.” My idea of substance isn’t hypertext. I guess your plan is, what; I follow the links around, paste their arguments here and then add my retort? Foolish. We actually got somewhere when we were both discussing the CBO projections; remember, I think you said the argument shouldn’t be cast in terms of return, but in actual benefits. Look, if your economists of note have arguments that stand, post them here and we will see. I’m not going to do your arguing for you.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#21)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    “How much would we have to tax or borrow to "fix" the current system? How much will we have to tax or borrow to adopt the Bush admin's proposal?” Depends on your fix; the cheap fix would be to scrap the whole thing, that would be free. If you want to keep benefits at their scheduled levels it will cost you, in addition to what we all pay currently, around 0.64% GDP in 2025 ramping up to 2.1% GDP in 2105 (some portion of this between 2018 and 2054 is repaying raided SS savings). If you don’t mind the crash in benefits codified into law, we only need replace the spent savings. The csss2 plan won’t cost anything over that of the current SS program. The return on invested dollars is greater so it will cost less in the end.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    Why should young black men continue to support the retirements of rich white people? Why should a lower or middle class family lose parts of their income for future benefits when those benefits aren't even guaranteed (early death with non-dependent children)? Bush's reforms suck! But there are problems in the system that should be fixed. Instead of the usual assortment of Bush venom, why not win this debate with substantive ideas. And this is coming from a man at Ground Zero in the SS debate.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    Thats just bull. They have arguments. You can't refute them so you carry on about other crap. BTW css2 will end up with people getting paid less In the end I don't give a rats a** what you think. You made assertions. Other people have debunked them. so be it. Everyone should go read them for themselves instead of reading your pack of half truths and bs. Like I said arguing with you has been a waste. I'm not going to repeat my error. For anybody whose interested: SSTrustees using unusally bleak assumptions conclude that over the next 75 years the short fall in SS will be $3.7 trillion. Thats a lot of money, but wait. How much is the president's medicare drug perscription plan expected to cost over the same time: $8.1 trillion according to the trustees. If the tax cuts are made permanent what will the decrease in revenues be over the same period: $11.6 trillion. So the latter 2 add up to 19.7 trillion but we'll ignore those. So is SS in crisis or does the "crisis" really reflect the president's well know priorities.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#24)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    “Why should young black men continue to support the retirements of rich white people?” Assuming you mean poor black men, they get twice what they pay into SS after retirement where rich white folks get half. So, why should rich white folks support the retirement of young black men?

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    Boca, Bush's reforms will greatly hurt those people with lower incomes. They have less money they will put less into PAs. With SS, your payments will be much higher because your contributions don't determine the payout.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    So, why should rich white folks support the retirement of young black men? because rich white people have 401k's, work related pensions IRA.s, etc Oh yeah, I remember you are a member of the "Everyone for themselves" club who doesn't believe in the true concept of community. look at it this way, if the stock market ever really tanks, then no one will get anything under Bush's real plan. The elite will still be ok though don't worry about them.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    Progress for Amerika is already spreading the propaganda to the masses on TV.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:39:14 PM EST
    “
    Why should young black men continue to support the retirements of rich white people?”
    I think boca is refering to the fact that the life expectancy of black men is 58 yrs. old. Most don't live long enough to collect, hence any payments they make go to other (i.e. white) people.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    kdog, I didn't realize it was that low. Yikes thats substantially lower.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    Boca - soccerdad wrote: "With SS, your payments will be much higher because your contributions don't determine the payout." That is absolutely incorrect. The amount you receive ("the payout") is based on the last 40 quarters you worked, and the amount paid in. The amount paid in is 12.4% of your gross income. 6.2% by you and 6.2% by your employeer, unless you are self employed, in which case you pay it all. The more you pay, the more you draw, up to a maximum of about $1800 a month. From this you will pay FIT on 80% of it, and the medicare payment, $78.00 will be deducted from it.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 05:37:05 PM EST
    Pigglewiggle posted.... So, why should rich white folks support the retirement of young black men? Without accepting this statement as the status quo, I'm going to respond. Assuming you are white, ask yourself the following questions: Are you a direct descendant of a slave owning family? Did you inherit money of any kind at any point in your life? Did your parents and grandparents fund your lifestyle or education at any point in your life? As a nation, our ancestors brought hundreds of thousands of enslaved people here against their will, became wealthy with the use of that free labor, killed thousands of them fighting to keep them enslaved (do you have any Confederate soldiers in your lineage?), and then lost the war. For the next 100 years, our nation proceeded to oppress Black Americans economically. As a result, Black Americans are disproportionately impoverished from birth. When you start with near zero in this country, you are statistically likely to stay in that neighborhood (figuratively and literally, from both an economic and social standpoint). I am a descendant of some of those oppressors. You're damn right that economically impoverished Black America deserves some meager considerations by our government to help create opportunities for a people that statistically have very few as a result of generations of oppression. To some degree we owe basic protections to all of those whom we oppress/have oppressed, but we especially owe it to the majority of present day African Americans. But then, I suppose all of that would be irrelevant to someone who believes that it is a fine state of affairs that an American's success and opportunity in life be solely dictated by Social Darwinism and luck. Now go ahead and compare my commentary to Pol Pot again, as you did in a previous thread.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 06:01:25 PM EST
    PPJ is correct about this. I mucked up 2 different things. I need to back through this and sort out the issues. Lower wage earners will end up doing worse with PA accounts because they will end up investing less. What I have to go find out is what is the difference for the various scenarios. I've looked at this but don't have the numbers at my finger tips

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 06:40:14 PM EST
    Tampa Student writes: Are you a direct descendant of a slave owning family? One important thing you didn't mention: There are many Black people in this country who are descendents of slave owning families. A case in point: the Black descendents of Sally Hemmings and Thomas or whichever Jefferson boy fathered her kids. This scenario was repeated countless thousands of times back in the day. But the descendents of the slave/slave owner dalliances were shut out of the family fortune. Except of course, for some of the politicians and such, like good ole Strom Thurmond who had to ante up a little hush money!

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 07:05:50 PM EST
    SD writes - "Lower wage earners will end up doing worse with PA accounts because they will end up investing less." Wrong again. The amount is meaningless. If you invest $100 or $1000, a ROI of say, 6% is the same. Your problem SD, is that you are looking for equal results rather than equal opportunity. Typical socialist, far Left approach. TS - I am the son of a white sharecropper. My father believed in hard work and education. If he made it out of poverty in the 40's and 50's, anyone should be able to do do so today with all the programs, etc., available.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#35)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    Won't anybody deal with the real question? What will privatization cost? That's the question the press won't ask and Bush won't answer.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:19:05 AM EST
    Tampa: What you are saying is in essence Social Security is guilt money paid for actions at least a century ago. We should get the UK to kick in also. Most slaves where brought in during the colonial period. We should also get the Arab nations to kick in. Arab slave traders where the ones to raid the villages and drive the people to the coast for loading on the ships.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:19:36 AM EST
    ppj- opportunity dont pay the bills. Lower income people will be worse off wrt benefits paid per month under css2 (privatization) than under SS. You have no compassion and just want to screw the lower wage earners. As was reported in yesterdays papers, Wall street doesn't want to deal with the small accounts <$5000. So Bush is proposing that government will administer those. What does that tell you.We are going to let Wall street skim the cream and the poor people will have to depend on the government, yeah thats right the government, to manage theirs. Sounds like Wall Street welfare. This is the biggest scam ever.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#39)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:22:45 AM EST
    cont. The proposal is for the government to manage small accounts, yeah thats right the government. So Wall street gets to skim the best and the lower wage earner gets second rate service, what else is new.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:36:05 AM EST
    One of the many lies being propagated by this admin is that SS is unfair to blacks. This is not so. See here, here, and here.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#41)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 05:14:39 AM EST
    With respect to lower income payouts, both myself and PPJ were wrong. Here's why. PPJ part was ok but didn't finish the calculation. Go here for a description. Step 1. Calulate Average Indexed Monthly Earnings. Take wage earners 35 highest paid years, average it, and then divide by 12 to get montly amount. this is the AIME Step 2 weight it. For those who became eligible in 2003, benefits were based on the following formula: 90 percent of the first $606 of AIME, plus 32 percent of AIME over $606 through $3,653, plus 15 percent of AIME above $3,653. Thus, if a worker had an AIME of $3,750, the PIA in 2003 would be: 90% of first $606 $545 32% of next $607 through $3,653 975 15% over $3,653 15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The PIA for this worker is: $1,535 whats the result
    By applying the 90 percent, 32 percent, and 15 percent rates or "weights" to the AIME, the benefit formula ensures that low-wage workers will receive proportionately more from their Social Security contributions than average- or high-wage earners
    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:01:47 AM EST
    Maybe I've missed something, but has anyone addressed the impact inflation is having/will have on any future SS plan? The dollar is currently in a free-fall situation vis-a-vis other world currencies. Unless this is addressed, all talk about the expected benefits any recipient may get - depending upon whatever is decided - becomes moot. (Hell, there are even reports that drug kingpins are switching from dollars to Euros because the dollar is steadily losing value.) If the dollar's decline in value isn't stopped, everyone will be in the hurt locker real soon. FX Converter for a quick currency exchange rate checker.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    I'll leave the payroll tax/SS payout calculations to the accountants. What I want to know is: 1. I get a yearly statement from Soc. Sec. that projects a payment amount I will receive upon retirement. Under current rules, what exactly impedes and how is it threatened? 2. How does Bush's plan relate to these threats and purport to assuage them? 3. With Bush's proposed changes, am I still guaranteed by the Govt. to receive at least the amount on my statement? I actually think this country is wealthy enough to fully fund Social Security without additional revenues. Our reluctance to do so indicates our disproportional emphasis on personal value based on working full-time. i.e. Children, retirees, disabled and dysfunctional citizens. If you don't work, or can't vote, our Protestant-infused work ethic says we don't count. This, I think, is the real problem with Social Security.

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    Tampa: What you are saying is in essence Social Security is guilt money paid for actions at least a century ago. "All or Nothing" - typical Conservative response. Social Security disproportionately helps the impoverished. Do you have the critical reading skills to draw a distinction between the impoverished and a subset of the impoverished? Native Americans, Whites, and other immigrants are also represented in that number -- it is a social safety net for everyone, as it should be. That doesn't minimalize our owing further economic considertations to those that our forefathers oppressed. Social Security provides an indirect benefit that helps correct past societal injustices. BTW: I supported welfare reform to help remove incentives for people to use children as a method to avoid having to seek employment. But it is the same crowd that champions Social Darwinism that want to completely remove any attempt to correct the injustices of unfettered classist tyranny - the end result of Corporatism run amok - ala Standard Oil. Finally -- it is the poorest of White southerners that you'll find in one hand bemoaning "Welfare Queens" while at the same time collecting Welfare. Their motives are most often racist, unthoughtful regurgitation of some hate speech they heard on Television. Talk to our retirees and ask them how important Social Security is. Ask them why it didn't occur to them to invest large sums of money in the market 30 years ago. You'll get your answer: they tried to invest, but they had mixed successes and the realities of life forced them to use their savings pre-maturely. Social Security need not be the primary source of retirement income, it just needs to be an important accompaniment. Should we ever (1) increase public education spending (dropping the siege against it) and (2) reduce the costs of healthcare for senior citizens in this country, I may be open to the idea of reducing a SS benefit - but not until that point. But naturally Conservatives are uninterested in ALL OF THAT. Kelite speaks of priorities. She's right. Billions for war and destruction, Billions for Corporate Welfare that results in little or no real innovation - mostly unproductive investment undertaken by institutional investment Corporations seeking capitalization for the upper margins. (i.e. is a multi-million dollar marketing initiative an "innovation" that benefits society or does it primarily benefit increased revenue and market share? What kind of jobs, if any, are created as a result? Where are those jobs located?)

    Re: Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:13:22 AM EST
    Current Soc Sec Sys....Gov't takes SS payroll taxes, places in general fund to be paid to retirees. Bush's plan....Gov't takes SS payroll taxes, invests in stocks/funds of the govt's choosing, pays profits/dividends to retirees. My question, what the hell is the difference? The gov't still takes our money, only with Bush's plan there is no guarantee we will get any back, though there is a chance (you are gambling!) you could get more. The Financial servises industry makes millions off of retirees under Bush's plan. These are the only two differnces I see. We still have no choice where our money goes/gets invested. What if I'm convinced the fund the gov't puts my money in will lose money? Do I have a recourse? Can I refuse to participate at all and keep my SS taxes? Bottom line, smells like a scam that will benefit the Financial Services industry to me.

    Harry Reid Issues Statement on Social Security | 43 comments (43 topical)