Slashdot Mirror
State of the Union
travis slack writes "President Bush used his State of the Union speech to press home key domestic and international agendas. At home he promised to reform Social Security for future generations. Looking overseas, Bush vowed to spread freedoms around the world while continuing the war on terror, and he pointed to Iraq as a symbol of change."
such a pity i stopped drinking last weekend. the following are all taken from this CNN article.
Bush said Social Security, on its current path, is "headed toward bankruptcy,"
liar, per:
Social Security actuaries project the trust fund will last until 2042. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts that date at 2052.
let's exagerate the facts to fighten the public. but let's also ensure today's seniors can support your social security bankrupting plan without fear of reprisal:
"I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way."
how nice. gotta love this part:
"conservative mix of bonds and stock funds."
"conservative" and "stock funds" do not go together. though i'm sure his supporters have forgotten about the bubble that burst just a few years ago.
"Here is why personal accounts are a better deal: Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver," Bush said.
after all, he obviously has.
"We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day," Bush said.
yes, by stopping him from farking it up or at least slowing him down. and now on to the most "amusing" parts:
Bush called for a bipartisan effort to restrain "the spending effort of the federal government" when he presents his 2006 budget next week.
gee, considing he's the one who flushed the surplus down the toilet, enlarged the federal government more than any president in history, and is digging future generations into the hole forever with the "war" for his oil buddies, i don't really think he's the man for the job.
oh, and for those who are ignorant enough to be impressed with the election in iraq meaning victory nonsense, here's a bit of history for you. it meant nothing then, it means nothing now. wake the fark up.
"My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities.
if that were true, we wouldn't be flushing billions of dollars down the "star wars" sinkhole, now would we? liar.
Bush also said he continues to support a constitutional amendment to "protect the institution of marriage" and would work with Congress to make sure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or to grow body parts.
i.e.: now that the election is over, it's time to cater to religious zealots to the detriment of homosexuals and our economy. newsflash: the rest of the world is going to run right over us in biotech while our scientists labor with corrupted stem cell lines and anti-science policies and they don't. moron.
He urged Congress to pass his energy plan and called on Senate Democrats to allow up-or-down votes on his judicial nominees.
and i likewise call on barbara boxer and any other democrat who cares about this country to do everything your power to stop or at least slow down this lying, incompetent lunatic.
A reason to care:
When people retire, if they have no money, what do they do? Do we say go live in the gutter, as you propose? Our gutters would fill up quick. I'm normally pretty uncaring about people who make rotten decisions in life, but I realize that one way or another, our tax dollars are going to be spent taking care of these people. I'd just as soon have EVERYONE get taxed, then have it returned with nice earned interest when I'm older. I'm already doing this with my personal retirement, why not add this on?
I've always thought if we could force every person age 18 and above to open a friggin investment account with a modest, regular deposit, it would help them in the long run by making them watch their money and see how it grows. Privitized accounts will help this.
--trb
Is this country really that divided? I mean there's no question the situation in iraq is dead serious.
And on social security privatization there are waay too many smoke dischargers working. If you want the facts available you should look here.
If we have a common ground on the facts, only then you could argue wether the solidarity system currently in place is worth to be saved for the price of for example one percent of your income our if you want your lifesavings to be donated to the good cause of lockheed martin.
The level of calling-each-other-asshats is just amazing and ultimatively helps noone.
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
I am not going to read any of the posts here because I can summarize them very quickly.
/. allow it to cloud their judgement. Remember most of the problems Bush explained were brought up in the campaign by both sides at different times.
"Bush is Liar"
Simply put there is so much Bush-Hate that too many people posting on
The key issue here seems to be the words "Trust Fund". There is no such as a trust fund. The current beneficiaries are paid from the general fund. This "run out of money" issues that some claim will not occur until 2042 is what happens when we cannot tax our way out of it.
The Social Security problem is two fold. First there are too many drains on the money. It pays for things that it should never have and to people who should never qualify. The second is that it is on the backs of twisted and failing tax system.
There is no guarantee written anywhere that you will receive benefits. The worst part is that most Americans don't realize that not only do they pay 6.2% of their income to this scheme but their employer does as well. This means that you are paying 13.4% of your income into a plan you have no guarantee of receiving payment from. If you die before you can withdraw none of your survivors benefit. If this were a private organization it would be shut down immediately as it violates so many laws its not funny. If you read the tax laws you would be surprised at the fact that even if you hit max payments with one employer the moment you switch employers you start all over on the deduction count.
The proposal to allow younger tax payers to devote a portion of their SS payments into private accounts puts some of the responsibility back to those who will benefit. There is no plan for 100% privatization. There is no plan to deny benefits promised to those who receive them. The key issue is to provide some means for younger Americans to realize a retirement and should they fail to live to collect it something to pass on to their survivors. The government will still abscond with the majority of the money.
What assails my senses is the fact that so many people just don't care. they argue that the time of failure is too far away to matter. These same people freak out over issues like running out of oil in 50+ years but don't bat an eye on Social Security reform.
Face it, Social Security is really Politician Job Security. They don't care how they end up paying the benefits they just want to make sure you rely on them to do so. When you get old and gray and need the money they will frighten you that someone trying to fix the system is really out to steal it from you. They rely on your GREED and LAZINESS to promote the system as it is and too keep it as it is.
It is your money you are tossing down the rat hole. Speak up! I loose over $9,000 dollars a year to this non-investment. If I die before I can collect nothing will come of my "investment" for my family. Do you really want to tell your kids 20 years down the road that they are Shit Out of Luck because you didn't want to act simply because you could not get over yourself?
GROW UP. It is not going away. I fully expect reform to be part of the political discussion in 08 and beyond. Will you support it then? Or will you let it drag on till your collecting and just comment "its their problem, not mine".
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
There is no such as a trust fund
Yes, there is.
The current beneficiaries are paid from the general fund
No, they're paid from the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund.
If you read the tax laws you would be surprised at the fact that even if you hit max payments with one employer the moment you switch employers you start all over on the deduction count.
On the assumption that the employee only has one employer. I can think of tons of reasons this makes sense. Illegals sharing ssn's, for instance. The Trust Fund gets to keep all the money since if you don't report the excess tax on your federal forms, you don't get it refunded. What if a prior employer didn't actually pay those taxes? Better to have the individual on the hook than the government _and_ the individual.
The key issue is to provide some means for younger Americans to realize a retirement and should they fail to live to collect it something to pass on to their survivors.
Ah, because the 401k's, 403b's, Roth IRA's, traditional IRA's, etc. we currently have are not available to young Americans and are not transferrable to heirs. Thank God Bush is finding a way to solve that problem.
I loose over $9,000 dollars a year to this non-investment.
I don't even want to get into how much I lose to the Defense Department non-investment every year, or at least every year since January 2001.
If I die before I can collect nothing will come of my "investment" for my family.
Except by dying, you DO collect. Looks like in 2003 over $25 billion was paid out in just such circumstances.
GROW UP.
Get educated on the issues. Stop listening to whoever's filling your head with these falsehoods.
There are things like medical costs and social security taxes that are hidden from you.
I doubt it. I'm self employed.
Time to put aside your obvious bias, and actually apply some business thought to this.
Man... that is so funny.
Especially since I've been filling out a Form C and paying both parts for five years now.
So tell me. What is so "obvious" about my bias, and how would that change if I had a "regular" job?
The facts are very simple. Right now there is a guaranteed benefit from SS.
Right NOW I can put away 4% of my own money in any investment I want. Actually, as a self employeed person I can put away more than that. But, any person not covered by a 401k can put up to $4000 in an IRA for the 2005 tax year.
Bush's plan does away with the guaranteed benefit.
It adds no value.
its coming out of lower gross wages for the employees
No, it is coming out of profits.
I can have revenue of a billion dollars and not pay one cent to SS IF I DON'T MAKE A PROFIT. (This is for a self employeed person with no employees... I'll leave figuring out how to get the billion in revenue as an exercise to the reader. Point is, it is only figured on profit for a self employeed person.)
Go check what happens for companies with employees. There are plenty of companies that did NOT make a profit last year. But, every one of them still paid SS taxes for their employees. When something has to give, it is jobs or profits. But, contrary to "popular" belief... rarely wages.
Not paying a living wage does not work for very long. There is not a lot of elasticity in the floor. So, the money has to come from somewhere else.
I would suggest instead that you stop drinking the kool-aid. It isn't about you. (Chabces are) You did not contribute (significant ammounts of) money to the compaign. Any benefit to you is secondary to the True Goal (TM) and totally of little consequence in what will actually be done.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Short term, yes. But longer term, the economy takes the money and redirects it - because someone will use the money on business costs, and that person will take business away from those that don't.
According to your logic, why don't they just lower your wages? Why don't they just raise their price to the customer?
They don't do that because they do not set prices, they do not set wages, and therefore they do not set profits. The markets do that! Inefficiencies exist (Monopolies, borders, regulations), but in general it works.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
is countered by
Given that his first assumption of mathematical impossibility is invalidated by the senate analysis of 1998
(Clinton's second term) regarding the stock market's historical performance and his essay is built on this assumption of impossibility
, which an official study by those opposed to privation states is false, it stands to reason that his essay is invalid.
cite url:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/a398074.pdf
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate
which cited
"Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy
It varies by country, but you still might be able to collect your Social Security when you retire to Europe. Seriously, look into it. I want to move to Mexico, and I'll be able to collect it.
I just checked the SSA.gov site, and if you're planning on moving to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Russia, you're out of luck.
The other thing to consider is keeping your US bank account, and just having your SS funds direct deposited. Direct deposit is also available to banks outside the US.
More info here.
So, how about that? Your retirement just got slightly more comfortable.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Phase one: default on the General Fund's debt to the Social Security Trust Fund in order to make room in the budget (sort of) to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Phase two: Once that's done, Social Security doesn't have nearly enough revenue to cover currently promised benefits. The White House wants to resolve this through some unspecified level of benefit cuts. The idea is that promised benefits will now be brought into line with the (reduced) quantity of funds available. From here on out, Social Security's accounts will be balanced in a cash flow sense. The amount of money paid out each year will be equal to the amount of FICA collected.
Phase three: we divert one third of our payroll taxes into something resembling an account under the Thrift Savings Plan. Once we choose to do this, Social Security's cash flow will be messed up. Four percentage points of our wage income that were supposed to be going to pay grandma's Social Security benefits are now sitting in our private account. As a result, the government will need to borrow some money to pay grandma's benefits. The administration believes that that money can be borrowed at a 3 percent rate of interest. When we retire, our guaranteed benefits -- already substantially cut during phase two -- will be cut a second time. The size of this cut will be equivalent to the value of our total contribution to our private account, plus 3 percent interest per year. Thus, once we retire, we will have access to all of the money in our private account, but our guaranteed benefits will have been cut twice. Our little brother, meanwhile, who didn't put money into his private account, will only have his benefits cut once.
If that's too complex, try this:
Instead of saying that 4 percentage points of my FICA were diverted into a private account and then the government borrows an equivalent amount of money in order to pay grandma's benefits, say that...
1) All of my FICA goes to pay for grandma
2) The government lends me an amount of money equal to 4 percentage points of my FICA.
3) When I retire, I get the money in my private account, but I need to repay all those loans with an interest rate of 3 percent.
4) In addition to my private account (with the loan repaid) I then get to collect (reduced) guaranteed benefits.
My apologies to Matt Yglesias, from whom this analysis was stolen with minor reforming.
Luke, help me take this mask off
To see the "iceberg", the president uses projections that show the economy will grow at an average rate of 1.8%.
However, his private accounts are projected to return rates of 6% to 7% year after year. Is this possible given the assumption that the performance of the stock market is somehow tied to the performance of the economy?
Also, he vows to cut the budget deficit in half by 2006. However, he does not account for spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, proposals to make his tax cut permanent or proposals to partially privatize social security.
His job creation numbers were way off.
He claimed in 1978 that social security would be bankrupt in 10 years.
His WMD claims were way off.
His post-war claims were way off.
His Iraqi ties to terrorists claims were way off.
His deficit prediction claims were way off.
How are we supposed to trust him at all on any of his projections? There is no record of success.
Spoken like a true unaffected bystander.
During Saddam's era, at least I could visit my in-laws without endangering them; now, they're afraid to be associated with my wife and I in case militants see them as collaborating with the 'occupiers'. I'm afraid to even write them a letter!
You can't be blamed for having such a short-sighted view of the conflict. The news is probably the only association you have with what is going on. Count yourself lucky, but spare a thought to those of us who have been affected in a negative way by this conflict.