I predict that about 20 of people will take advantage of that. If that is true, then that would automatically stabilize the system which now gives us time to begin to gradually increase the age of retirement. Remembering, when we put that system into place, the average age of death with 63. Now, we are looking at 80. We have not made any adjustments. It is unfair to make adjustments, i believe, to people who are 55 years or older because they dont have enough time to do it needs to be done. Or people who are younger than that, i think there is time. It is a gradual adjustment. Many of the people i have talked to have said we dont have to do anything radical like they did in italy. The move to their age up tremendously and cut the benefits by 40 in order to get back in line. The longer we wait, the more drastic the need will be to do it. We do it very gradually over the course of about 25 or 30 years and we can sustain the system. Not only that, but remember, once we have intelligent pe
This is about do unto others as youd have them do unto you, this is about turning the other cheek. This is about whether or not americas a country that believes in the value of redemption and whether each one of us should be judged for the rest of our lives for the worst act weve done on our worst day of our life. And if we dont believe that rule should apply to us, then it ought not apply in our criminal justice context. Thats why i think the opportunities are enormous and i look forward to working with anyone else with whom i might disagree on other fronts. Well just park those issues, peter, arthur, and others, and well Work Together where we can and get some things done. But thank you very much. [applause] jeffrey this has been a superb constitutional conversation. My expectations were high and you have surpassed them. I have heard, i would not say rancor, but engaged debate and i have also heard some important agreement on fundamental issues , like the moral foundation of american
Thats why i think the opportunities are enormous and i look forward to working with anyone else with whom i might disagree on other fronts. Well just park those issues, peter, arthur, and others, and well Work Together where we can and get some things done. But thank you very much. [applause] jeffrey this has been a superb constitutional conversation. My expectations were high and you have surpassed them. I have heard, i would not say rancor, but engaged debate and i have also heard some important agreement on fundamental issues , like the moral foundation of american liberty, the importance of opportunity, and the dangers of massive operation. As for the National Constitution center, we will be the Central National hosting platform for precisely this kind of constitutional conversations, on the web here in philadelphia and around the country and we will educate the citizens of the United States about the u. S. Constitution, hearing the best arguments on both sides as we have today so
That were appointed position s, that were, you know, at the discretion of people in power, ended up being a power struggle within the party between an ohiobased party, which is James Garfields party also Rutherford Hayes was from the same not only the same part of ohio, but the same kind of thinking and what were called the stalwarts, which were new yorkbased. And, you know, you see certain states really emerge throughout history with holding on to power within a particular party. And then in new york, that was really headed by a man by the name of roscoe conkling, who became a United States senator. So this is the struggle, and you see then, of course, the person who ends up shooting president garfield, deranged, of course, Charles Guiteau, but proudly screaming with the gun in his hand, im a stalwart. Now arthur is president. And that was a reference to the fact that Vice President arthur elected with garfield was of the new york wing of the party. Swain well, garfield himself was a
Gale force winds. The latest update on what to expect in minutes. Good morning from washington. Its friday, february 8, 2013, and this is the daily rundown. From the moment cia nominee john brennan entered his confirmation hearing on thursday, it was clear that the first major public discussion of the Obama Administrations Drone Program would be on the combative end, offering a rare public display of democratic dismay with their president a president s policies. After protesters interrupted brennans Opening Statement five times, Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein cleared the room leaving it nearly ended as brennan defended the Drone Program and senators shared their frustrationses. With the exception of mr. Panetta, i feel ive been drug around by every director. 11 United States senators asked to see any and all legal opinions, but when i went to read the opinions this morning, it is not clear that that is what was provided. Do you happen to know the reason why our staff are not permitte