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."

Comments

Social Security

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an idea. How about you stop taking money out of my paycheck for something that will hardly provide a living-return under any circumstances and let me save that money myself.

Really, just because some idiotic baby boomers can't comprehend "save some cash for later in life" doesn't mean the rest of us who have a fucking clue should be forced to hand over our cash.

Re:Social Security

[xTMFWahoo]

Remember... Social Security is a pyramid scheme- those paying in now are paying for the people that are retired. The longer people live, the more money they spend from those currently paying in. It's not working now and surely won't work in the future.

Re:Social Security

[dpille]

Really, just because some idiotic baby boomers can't comprehend "save some cash for later in life"

I'm going to assume you realize that plenty of low income workers might have trouble funding retirement with non-existent savings.

What I can't believe is that there seems to have been no public discussion of what simple means testing might do to the system. While I don't think it's so crazy that a non-retired, previously-underemployed black woman from Alabama might need Social Security benefits, I'm completely unable to explain why my father-in-law with a $10 million estate gets a check every month.

My last idea on this was to skip the whole privatization line and offer, say, 25% refunds on the taxes paid to individuals that can show they're taking advantage of the other tax-advantaged savings opportunities they have. "Here," says the government, "take this 25%. Sorry it can't be more, but the other 75% pays to prevent poor people from eating cat food. Oh, and it also pays for benefits to future retirees who like the guaranteed benefit idea: by taking this 25% you've agreed to be at the top of the list for future means-tested benefit reductions."

Re:Social Security

[hypnosoh]

Many lower income workers can barely make ends meet much less put money into savings. I work at a nursing home, and let me tell you, a lot of the people there would be out on the street if not for social security. Which would you rather have? Pay a relatively small amount of money out of your check or have the homeless population explode. It's not much, but social security has worked for a long time. Can you not do simple math we will be putting more money in and getting less money out. Even after 2042 we can still get up to 73% of our social security. This opposed the 40% cut we can expect from Bush and company's plan. There pan also depends on the stock market. Do you not remember the 1990's stock market crash? Healthcare is in much worse shape than Social Security so why doesn't he work on that. Could it be because he would eventually have to go up against Big Pharm and the health care industry? The new S.S. plan would save corporate America millions. As far as I'm concerned they can pry my Social Security check from my cold dead hands.

Re:Social Security

[WhiplashII]

You don't seriously think your employer doesn't take that into account when deciding wage issues, do you? That additional social security would either be used to pay you more, or pay someone else more. The money does not magically appear.

Re:Social Security

[Orne]

Wait a second. You don't actually think that the employer is paying this money, are you? Just because your paycheck at the end of the year says $50,000 doesn't mean that that's your actual worth to the company... There are things like medical costs and social security taxes that are hidden from you.

If you were paid $55,000 a year, and told that you are responsible for 100% of your social security of $10,000, then how is this different from you getting paid $50,000 a year, with you paying $5,000 and your employer paying $5,000 ?

That money is coming from somewhere, and it certainly isn't from the generocity of your employer... its coming out of lower gross wages for the employees. Some say that's what's so insideous about the federal tax withholding plans, if the common person had to pay the full amount out of their own income at the end of the year, there would be a lot more unhappy citizens demanding lower taxes once they get that $10,000 bill in the mail.

Time to put aside your obvious bias, and actually apply some business thought to this. It's not about taking money and giving it to businesses, the end goal is a run-around the federal government, another step in getting the government out of our wages, and to stop telling people that they have to give all this money into an account with poor performance. That's why half the congress is so pissed, because its going to take a huge chunk of spending capital out of the budgets, and force them to stop making so many promises with other people's money. It's a win-win, it gets the younger people more secure in higher interest accounts, returns his political party to its roots of reducing government, and defeats the opposition party on the grounds of giving more economic freedom to the masses, in a way that's more fair than anything the government could provide.

Re:Social Security

[Phillup]

One of the protection mechanisms is that you have time and compounded interest on your side

And, when some drunk hobo steals a car... runs a red light... and cripples you next year...

Which system will be there for you.

Next year. Not 30 years... tomorrow.

This, IMHO, is the huge flaw in the Republican plan. They want to remove the progress we have made as a society and go back to "I got mine and fsck thine".

Re:Social Security

[cpeterso]

Workers are being forced to pay 12.4 percent of their income into Social Security. What if that 12.4 percent went into an IRA-like account that worker OWNED?

Social Security may provide a barely adequate retirement income, but it generates no wealth. Workers don't own their Social Security funds and have no legal right to the benefits. It is, simply, not wealth in the same way as a 401(k) plan, an IRA, or a bank account. The rich, however, have 401(k) plans at work: They have discretionary income with which to invest. They can accumulate greater wealth. The rich get richer; the poor do not.

Social Security may also lead to a greater intergenerational wealth gap. You can't inherit someone's Social Security benefits. A worker can pay 12.4 percent of his income into the system for 30 or 40 years, but, if that worker dies without children under the age of 18 or a spouse over the age of 65, none of the money is passed on to his heirs.

the wealth of more affluent people generally is inheritable. Thus, inheritance becomes a "disequalizing" force, leading to greater inequality of wealth in America. The answer is not to penalize the wealthy through inheritance taxes and such, but to allow poor workers to accumulate inheritable wealth the same way their wealthier counterparts can. Allowing them to invest their Social Security taxes would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.

Re:Social Security

[DM9290]

the wealth of more affluent people generally is inheritable. Thus, inheritance becomes a "disequalizing" force, leading to greater inequality of wealth in America.

This is absolutely correct, and moreover since vast majority of the value of estates over 1 million dollars is in the form of capital gains for which no taxes were ever paid, estate taxes go a long way to leveling the playing field.

The answer is not to penalize the wealthy through inheritance taxes and such,

damn I thought you were on to something. Why would you think that?

but to allow poor workers to accumulate inheritable wealth the same way their wealthier counterparts can. Allowing them to invest their Social Security taxes would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.

1) only if they die at age 65 before they SPEND their meagre savings.

2) only if they stop being poor before they die so that by the time they retire they aren't so overwhelmed with DEBT that they have any money left over from their pathetic savings to leave money in their estate.

3) only if the stock market doesn't crash between now and the time these poor people retire and cause them to lose all of their vast savings. (people constantly on the verge of bankruptcy panic under market downturns and dump their stock at a loss)

Since none of those options is likely to happen, perhaps people should just stop the whining and agree to help pay for the maintenance of senior citizens who built the damn country instead of acting like a bunch of spoiled cry babies.

Unless the asians and europeans start treating their elderly as shitty as North American's do, I don't think problems here are going to be WORSE than anywhere else.

IT Talking Point

[Doc Ruby]

The only parts of the speech dealing with IT were two separate sentences, floating around in thousands of political slogans. One sentence was pie-in-the-sky "hydrogen fuel" promotion. The other was more IT for medical records:

"improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs"

So our privatization president wants to spend more public money subsidizing doctors, hospitals, pharmacos and insurance companies. The free market works great, but not when life, death and billions in profits are motivating corporations to invest in competence and efficiency.

Meanwhile, the president sees a rosy economy, while the American IT sector shrinks. All those trillions of dollars he's spending in his budgets (which he complains is "the spending appetite of the federal government" that must be restrained) were collected during the tech bubble. He's so far from interested in recovery in our industry that he ignores it entirely, while bragging about a fictional general prosperity. While remaining obsessed with hundreds of billions of dollars for the war technology that's keeping us winning hearts and minds in Iraq.

Re:FMA

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage is a sacred religious institution.

Then why do atheists get married? And why does the government get to decide who is and isn't allowed to participate in this "sacred religious institution" when they are legally required to stay away from religion?

Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jobs'

[MetaPhyzx]

The Bush White House intended ideas for Social Security reform (and very quietly, health care reform) is half baked, when considering, he's fiddling with an institution that will be able to 30 YEARS from now provide 80% of the benefits it's supposed to. Knowing that, one would think "ok let's make allowances for the other 20 percent, maybe add money to the Social Security trust from other areas.

Instead his solution is is private accounts. And it's promoted the same way this administration does anything: fearmongering. "LOOK! Young people, Social Security is melting down! It's not gonna be here! Everybody's gonn retire and the crush is going to ruin things! You're gonna be out on the street with no one to take care of you!"

That alone should make young people suspicious. Couple that with with the fact that I don't fully understand how social security is funded. But they don't vote, so it won't matter til 45 years from now, or until we elect someone who may try to undo this. And God help that administration, because once Social Security has been privatized there will be no getting it back. Too much of a boon for the private sector; rolling dice with your money.

What's also disturbing is that some of my tax cut happy Bush supporting co-workers (ironically divorced bitter fellows for the most part) absolutely are drinking this Kool Aid. I've even heard one or two spouting, "what's wrong with YOU paying for you? I'm tired of others getting my money." For the life of me, I can't think of any Western country without a form of SECURED government provided pension, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a lynchpin.

Just wnother thing that scares me about this guy. And I won't get started on the health care account plans... BTW: Our defense budget seems to be in good shape, and QUITE solvent.

asbestos lawsuits?

[k4_pacific]

To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.

I find this paragraph troubling. He starts talking about fostering small business. Fair enough. But then he somehow twists this into a gripe about asbestos lawsuits. Whaa? Now, let's see, why does Bush consider hindering asbestos lawsuits important? Let's make this one multiple choice:

Why is Bush against asbestos lawsuits?
A. Most small businesses use asbestos in their daily operations.
B. The victims knew the danger and purposefully breathed in asbestos dust anyways.
C. Halliburton paid $4.2 billion to settle such a lawsuit in 1998.
D. Asbestos is a good source of vitamin E.

I think you can guess which is the right answer.

Re:liar, liar, pants on fire

[saddino]

You're apparently confusing "liar" with "person telling me the truth but I don't want to think about it because it's a really long ways off". The fact that everyone predicts SS will, in fact, backs up his statement. The question is, and always has been, when.

Actually, saying that the Social Security fund will go bankrupt is indeed a lie, because no matter what date you choose to believe, that is the date when the Social Secuirty fund will continue to pay out, but at only 70% of current benefits. Due to the interest on the fund and the pay in, Social Security will never go "bankrupt." For Bush and other Republicans to use that word is completely misleading.

Furthermore, according to the White House's own economic projections (which they insist are correct because they show that making the tax cuts permament will help the economy), the Social Security fund will never experience a shortfall. So, which is it? If you believe permament tax cuts are going to help the economy, then you have to believe that Social Security is in no trouble at all. Or, if you believe Social Security is in trouble, then you have to believe that the tax cuts should not be made permament. The fact that the White House uses whatever projections are "convenient" for making their points smacks of pure politics.

Re:Typical assinine name-calling

[tha_mink]

Yeah, but you've got 30 years to get it right. this, is NOT getting it right, unless you absolutely adhere to "some action, even the wrong action is better than no action".

This administration sure believes that.

I suppose we all hear what we want to hear but if you evaluate what he SAID and not what the news folks said, he said any idea was on the table. The main thrust of that portion of his speech was that it was going down the tubes and SOMETHING must be done. I like the fact that instead of saying "It's broke, it's the democrats fault" he said (paraphrased of course), "It's broke, and we need to figure out how to fix it. I have an idea but I'll listen to anyone".

What's the matter with that? Would it be better if he said "It's broken and I have no ideas..."

Re:There is no tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, every time I start to worry about GWB's brain, I watch a good news show (e.g., The News Hour) that pits opposing people at each other in a mature manner, and it makes me worry a little bit less. There are a lot of smart people in Washington--people who do understand the issues. They are fully aware of the criticisms and the conflicts, and some of them are even in Congress! The balances of power generally are working, it's just that we are in a rut, right now. The USA has been in many ruts before and survived. Just remember that these things can take a few years to wring themselves out. Last I checked, GWB cannot run for a third term, at least.

The time I will start worrying is if "emergency powers" gets mentioned--hopefully, that will never happen.

Re:Vision

[gothzilla]

If you think Hussein was that bad then you've fallen for the propaganda. Pol Pot made Hussein look like Santa Claus, yet we didn't invade and remove him from power. There are several dictators that were far worse than Hussein that we politely ignored. You've also forgotten that we've killed more civilians in Iraq than Hussein did, so what's your point? Oh yeah, the only difference between Bush and Hussein is one of scale.

Re:FMA

[SunFan]

The basic argument against GWB is that the federal government doesn't have any business regulating lifestyle. It seems GWB is okay to tolerate some diversity, but he draws a firm and arbitrary line that is not appropriate for the government. The Constitution has the first amendment they way it does for a reason, and that's why this "marriage amendment" proposal exists. However the whole thing is so absurd that I would be blown away if it was ever ratified. The fact that states are taking on amendments worries me less, as states often take opposing viewpoints and don't all fall into the same line.

We need to fight back

[Clockwurk]

Please, just turn your television off. Or if you leave it on, please avoid any channels which are owned by a gigantic corporation...wait...thats pretty much all of em. Yeah, better leave it off. At least for the next few days.

Why should you turn the TV off? Well, for numerous reasons, but the main reason being that the next week will be a neverending stream of propaganda to give you the impression that it's a miraculous, historic, unprecedented turnout of Iraqis who are experiencing freedom for the first time. There will be shitloads of rhetoric, incessant self-fellating and praise about the red, white, and the blue...

This is all bullshit.

Here are facts you will never hear come out of Aaron Brown's mouth...never uttered by any Faux News commentator...never scrolled across the screen in between Robert Blake trial footage and the interview with the teacher that had sex with the student...

We have killed at least 15,000 innocent Iraqis. This is a fact.

In perspective...5 times the amount of people we lost on 9/11.

And Iraq had absolutely ZERO involvement in the 9/11 attacks. So how can any of this be justified?

How can you expect the families and friends of these innocent Iraqis to just "forgive and forget?" Would you ask the 9/11 victims to forgive Osama?

Open your fucking eyes people...we all have blood on our hands.

We can't keep draping ourselves in the flag and shield ourselves from the reality of our government. We can't put ourselves on this pedestal and demonize those who kill, and at the same time kill just the same.

According to figures recorded by the Iraq Ministry of Health, from July 2004 - Jan 2005, 3274 civilians have been killed. Out of those civilians, 1233 were killed by insurgents. 2041 were killed by coalition forces.

Who is the bad guy? Who is the enemy? Please someone, answer the fucking question.

Why are we better?

This election is complete bullshit. You can not force democracy with the barrel of a gun. Democracy must not be delivered by a foreign hand. It ceases to be democracy. This is Empire. Why is this not bothering anyone??

Where is the fucking dissent? Where are the voices of the other side..the reality based community? Where have all the hippies gone? When did the spirit of this nation get replaced with a bunch of complacent, detached, ignorant, apathetic FOOLS?

Have you ever heard of Al-Jazeera? Well, they are a news channel in the Middle East, and they are very controversial as they spin their news towards a certain viewpoint of the world. Specifically, they gather their facts and present the news in a format which is construed as "propaganda." They believe that a foreign nation does not have the right to invade another, force it's government upon it, and kill thousands of innocent civilians in the process. Because of this belief, they show footage of dead and maimed Iraqi women and children, and other videos you will never see on any channel you can reach on your remote. They believe that if people are in a war, then simply broadcasting the results of the war should be not only allowed, but encouraged.

Why does our media not feel the same?

Why can we let our government kill others in our name, and yet seeing the murders is "propaganda" and "anti-American?"

Americans are so fucking detached, but pictures make a difference. 9/11 proved that. In perspective, 3000 people, while serious grief is felt for those who fell, is not that many people on the grand scale of things. Many more people die of many more causes for many more preventable reasons.

But the point is, the pictures inflated the trauma. If the movies of the plane crashes, the jumping people, the screaming, crying families...if the pictures were not available the sense of grief would have seriously diminished.

And now this quagmire in Iraq. We have killed 15,000 innocent civilians...yet...let me pose to you a question...

When is the last time you saw a movie of an Ir

Re:We need to fight back

[Grym]

Well, for numerous reasons, but the main reason being that the next week will be a neverending stream of propaganda to give you the impression that it's a miraculous, historic, unprecedented turnout of Iraqis who are experiencing freedom for the first time. There will be shitloads of rhetoric, incessant self-fellating and praise about the red, white, and the blue... This is all bullshit.

Yeah, dare not let images of the good things you've done get in the way of a self-demonizing temper tantrum. After all, the United States is supposed to take both sides of every issue, make the every foreign person in the world happy in the process, and never think of itself. Forgetting to do so might make put us on the standard we use for everybody else.

We have killed at least 15,000 innocent Iraqis. This is a fact.

But is it a correct one? Or did you personally know every innocent person? Isn't there a certain level of ambiguity when judging innocence? That is after all how the argument against the imprisonment of people in Gitmo goes, right?

But, for the sake of the discussion, if it is right, how does that "fact" compare to the number of people Saddam killed and/or would kill on a regular basis under his regime?

So how can any of this be justified?

Easy. September 11th showed us that we can no longer ignore the problem in the Middle East. A proactive approach to combating Islamic extremism had to be taken before a nuclear weapon went off in a major American city. As a short-term means, we attacked Afghanistan, disorienting the enemy long enough to achieve our long-term objective: fighting extremism at its source--poverty and disenfranchisement. The means of doing so would be establishing a free and democratic Islamic state right smack in the center of the Middle East. The best target for this was Iraq. Its leader was illegitimate and evil. Its people were the most likely in the region to accept democratic values. Its economy was viable for the excesses of capitalism. And, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction too; a politically convenient way to get the rest of the world on-board. Unfortunately, we were wrong about the last one. But that still doesn't mean the whole assessment was wrong. It wasn't. Against all predictions, the majority of the Iraqi people showed up to vote, virtually without incident.

Was it the right decision? History will tell, but it wasn't unjustified or for naught.

This election is complete bullshit. You can not force democracy with the barrel of a gun. Democracy must not be delivered by a foreign hand. It ceases to be democracy. This is Empire. Why is this not bothering anyone??

This is bullshit. I can't believe this got modded to +5. Regardless, do you really think democratic roots are as glorious as the classical image of citizens uniting in brotherhood against tyranny? Please... You do realize that the success of the revolutionary war had less to do with the colonists and more to do with a spiteful France who poured billions into the effort? In fact, only a third of the colonists up to the battles of Concord and Lexington actively wanted to secede from Great Briton. The whole tea tax thing was a political ploy used to rally support for the cause. All across the world, successful, stable democracies have been established with less-than-picturesque beginnings--why should (will?) Iraq be any different?

Empire? Half our country wants to cut and run as it is! And even if we could stay there permanently (disregarding internal pressures not to), why would we want to stay? The whole plan revolves around us handing power to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the middle east.

Have you ever heard of Al-Jazeera? Why does our media not feel the same?

Oh you mean that Arabic television station that refers to suicide bombers in Isreal as martyrs? The same one that airs videotapes of infidels pleading for their lives as they get their hea

Re:Typical assinine name-calling

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Really? I'll submit that while it's a flawed system,

I'd submit that it hasn't been a flawed system since the 1980s when we repaired it the last time. What is flawed is the neoliberal and neoconservative attempt to steal money out of the system by calling it a loan and then never paying back that loan.

Re:There is no tomorrow

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm a conservative. More specifically, I am a fiscal conservsative, but socially liberal. I believe in the power of capitalism, but I think that the extremes of capitalism must be moderated by the state, i.e., child labor laws are a good thing, etc.

I am also a registered Republican, although I am quite out of touch with my party. Or rather I should say that my party has become quite out of touch with the values it once held dear. It talks the talk, but it no longer walks the walk.

I also have been following the growth of the Religious Right in my party. What started as a marriage of political convenience, as a coalition, has turned into a theocracy. No longer are the members of my party governed by enlightened self-interest, but by blind ideological and theological faith in George Bush.

You speak of compromise. Would you compromise with the terrorists? Would you negotiate with Bin Laden? Can you really trust anyone for whom the ends always justifies the means? So, how should we compromise with our own domestic homegrown fundamentalists? What liberties should we give away to appease them? How much corporate welfare is acceptable? Which lies are acceptable to justify war? By compromise, you mean we should allow Bush to dismantle Social Security just a little bit?

Compromise and negotiation are possible with a reasonable person on the other side of the table. When you realize how insane the Bush agenda really is, you realize that there is no compromise.