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

There is no tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5211218.ht ml

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.

Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

That's right -- the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.

As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 -- just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer -- "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destr

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: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.

Re:There is no tomorrow

[siriuskase]

Would you want to be on the hotseat or would you rather be writing his daily briefing?

Re:There is no tomorrow

[damiam]

Had that article been about Islam (and I could basically convert the article to a believable one about Islam by running a few global substiutions), it would've been modded down and called hateful.

No it wouldn't. Everyone knows that radical factions of Islam have some beliefs that most sane people would find quite objectionable. Pointing that out isn't hate speech, as long as you don't generalize to include all Muslims. However, delusional Muslims don't make up a significant portion of the US electorate, whereas delusional Christians do.

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

[ConceptJunkie]

But the Democrats are now claiming that Social Security is fine.

They would never lie about that simply because the President is making an issue of reforming it, now would they?

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

[Phillup]

You do realize that with the current system you get a 100% match from your employer, right?

Bet you it will take a hell of a long time for you to make up for that with your own investments.

(You don't actually think this is about you do you. The entire point of SS "reform" is to provide an immediate cost reduction to business by eleminating their portion of the cost.)

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

[SunFan]

Are nursing homes cheaper than prisons and hospitals absorbing these people? That's an important question for the anti-Medicare and anti-Social Security people to think about.

Re:Social Security

[dan_sdot]

Bet you it will take a hell of a long time for you to make up for that with your own investments.

You obviously don't understand IRAs. Money you invest in an IRA will grow far more than doubling. So you still make a ton more money. Plus, you are right, the businesses will stop paying such high payroll taxes. Which means they will have more money. Which means you can make more. Or if you are the owner of a small business, you obviously are benefiting. Democrat/Republican aside, this should be a no-brainer.

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]

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.

Re:Social Security

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Remember- the federal bank, is the same pyramid scheme. If you have your money in fiat-dollars that have no other value than the full faith and credit of a federal government that has now promised to NOT PAY A $1.5 TRILLION LOAN that they took out of the pyramid scheme, then you've got a lost cause anyway as far as retirement goes, because once the federal government removes that money from the pyramid scheme for real, there will be no reason to believe that dollars are worth anything at all.

Re:Social Security

[WhiplashII]

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.

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

[mdavids]

Remember... Social Security is a pyramid scheme

No more so than for than any other type of retirement fund. They don't keep the money under a mattress and dole it out to you on retirement.

The difference is that under a public system, the public has some control over how that money is invested (depending on how democratic your country is). In principle, your money can be used to build and maintain the public infrastructure that will enable future generations to afford to support you.

In a private system the money goes wherever the greatest short-term benefit is, S&Ls, Enron, or whatever the hot new property is this year. Then your fund managers take their cut, and unless you're very wealthy you'll find at retirement age that you've got less money in your fund than you've contributed.

In Australia, we've had compulsory private superannuation since I started working in the 80's, and I've never had a year where the earnings on my superannuation has exceeded the fees paid to my fund managers.

Meanwhile all this money that would have been at the public's disposal is now used in speculative investments that drive down wages, and encourage all sorts of market-driven irrationality.

The anarchist Bakunin called representational democracy "beating the people with the people's stick". Compulsory private superannuation is the people paying to beat themselves.

Re:Social Security

[Ohreally_factor]

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.

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.

Re:Social Security

[hesiod]

> the President is making an issue of reforming it,

Woah, hold on there. He's not reforming it, he's destroying it. I don't care either way, but let's call a horse a horse (of course!).

Re:Social Security

[DM9290]

I'm not scheduled to retire for 30 years. I am part of this generation. And *I* am calling us a bunch of crybabies for not wanting to support our seniors.

They toiled and sacrificed for us. They built the country. And when they are no longer able to support themselves we bicker about not wanting to pay taxes to support them.

It is flat out pathetic. I am ashamed.

Re:Wrong Category

[cL0h]

Black comedy perhaps
"We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism."
-Emma Goldman (1869 - 1940) writer

Re:Silly

[FinestLittleSpace]

No, you got that wrong too. The actual fact is that he thought the war on IRAQ was a videogame.

Let freedom rain

[Malfourmed]

I've been tracking the number of times President Bush uses the words "free" and "freedom" in his last three major speeches. Here are the results:

First 2004 presidential debate: 38 times

2005 inauguration address: 34 times

2005 state of the union address: a "mere" 27 times

Two things worth pointing out:

First, he almost never defines these terms. The only time he even comes close (in the inauguration address) he (or his speechwriters) equates freedom with making money.

Second, he often uses the words in relation to Iraq - like Pavlovian dogs he (or his speechwriters) wants to link the two concepts indelibly in people's minds. To oppose this administration's policies in Iraq is to oppose freedom itself.

Re:Let freedom rain

[usernotfound]

I was more amazed that he dared use the word 'sovereign' in this speech without defining it after this well known disaster: http://www.campchaos.com/show.php?iID=868

Re:Let freedom rain

[superyooser]

First, he almost never defines these terms.

This criticism is brought to you from the party that doesn't know what the definition of "is" is.

Re:Let freedom rain

[cheezedawg]

Actually, I think you make a good point. Bush's detractors learned a lot of this behavior from Clinton. Clinton was always trying to twist words and semantics. Now it has got to the point where people think that "freedom" is a code-word for "baby killing" or something.

The definition of these words is widely known. If you want to know how he defines the word, go find a freaking dictionary.

If politicians really wanted to fix SS

[Anonymous Coward]

They could promise TODAY to vote NO on any budget that mixed the SS trust fund with the general fund. They won't. They like spending our money too much. They will leave the problems until it is a crisis, but most importantly, somebody else's crisis. Just like they always do. This SS ponzi scheme is just a slush fund for over-spending politicians. And they like it that way.

Keep counting

[AtariAmarok]

Keep counting. If you correlate these numbers with the counts of "umm err" in the debates and the number of smirks in press conferences, the numeric relationships can be used to decode the mysteries of the universe.

Re:Silly

[foistboinder]

And Cheney is obviously some kind of cyborg.

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:Typical assinine name-calling

[(trb001)]

SS won't be solvent forever...it *will* start running a deficit and eventually be bankrupt. How is pursuing change a bad thing? You can argue that his plan sucks, and plenty of people do, but letting a faulty program run its course is being irresponsible.

--trb

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?

Re:FMA

[gothzilla]

If marriage is so sacred then why such a high divorce rate? Why such a high spousal and child abuse rate? Marriage is only sacred in books and movies anymore. It stopped being more than just a legal agreement a long time ago and now only exists as sacred in the minds of people who've never tasted it's reality. Yeah there are some that work out, but not anywhere near enough to keep calling it something sacred.

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.

Re:liar, liar, pants on fire

[(trb001)]

liar, per:

Social Security actuaries project the trust fund will last until 2042. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts that date at 2052.

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.

"conservative" and "stock funds" do not go together

Do you have a retirement account? In most diversified plans, one is a conservative growth fund. Mine lost very, very little throughout the stock plunge and started doing better much, much sooner...that's what it's designed for, to be recession proof.

after all, he obviously has.

Why don't you just call him a "poo-poo head"?

now that the election is over, it's time to cater to religious zealots

He backed the marriage amendment when it was voted on DURING his reelection campaign. To say "now that the election is over..." is disingenuous and ignorant of (recent) history.

--trb

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.

Government should stay out of peoples love-lives!

[torpor]

marriage didn't start to 'be an issue' (or rather, -divorce- didn't start to be an issue) until the government took over all marriage licensing in order to protect its tax revenue.

before the 30's (i think the marriage act was passed during the depression ..) marriage was something pretty much for two people to share, with whatever 'registered minister' they chose, for record-keeping.

but now, marriages have an impact on the governments tax revenues. this is the only -real- reason behind why the gov't is perpetually screwing with peoples relationships .. its got nothing to do with gay/anti-gay, that is just the media front to keep the argument unsolved .. and thus, the government perpetually ensnared in the issue.

if people, either way, just say "whatever, i don't give a fuck if you're gay-married or straight-married, just as long as you're not registered with your fascist dictatorship government", then the issue would go away .. its only because people are ignorant to the fact that this is *ONLY* about tax revenue, that they get all snarled up in the straw-man issues being promoted as part of an agenda of obfuscation.

repeal the laws which government -any- say whatsoever over marriage, and while your'e at it, get rid of your criminal income tax laws, and the U.S. might have a chance in the 21st Century .. right now, however, too many fake arguments are being proferred in order to keep the real fires burning while everyone is chasing embers ...

Interesting beliefs

[benhocking]

Too bad they're completely wrong! ;)

For sake of argument, I'll accept your correlation, but I find it very hard to accept your causation. I think divorce rose merely because (a) women became more financially independent and (b) it became more acceptable.

Secondly, your government paranoia dismisses the fact that the majority of Americans support laws forbidding homosexuals the ability to marry one another. These people (and I'm not one of them) don't support these laws because they'll give the government more control or more money, and at least some of them are not doing it out of hatred towards gays either. Some of them support these laws because their religious beliefs tell them that homosexuality is a sin (and some of them truly hate the sin, but not the sinner) and see no constitutional problem with laws that eliminate such sins. (After all, we have laws against and our attitudes against that are supported by religion.) I'm definitely not trying to convince you to change your beliefs, merely pointing out that you are drastically missing the reasons behind the FMA. If you don't understand those reasons, you won't be able to successfully fight them.

Having said all that, I support the idea that we should keep the government out of marriage, at least to the extent that they keep out of other contracts. (Judges will still need to get involved during some/most divorces, etc.)

What was most surprising

[saddino]

was Cheney's attire

Re:Typical assinine name-calling

[(trb001)]

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

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:Typical assinine name-calling

[tha_mink]

Really? I'll submit that while it's a flawed system, the same can be said of many social programs, especially when we're trying to apply New Deal economics to today's markets.

But that doesn't mean it's time to do away with the whole thing. What I should've said was, if you oppose Bush's idea of SS reform, then, you're only playing politics - and this "with us or against us" administration certainly believes it has the clout to paint its opponents that way.

I don't see how you can have an option to take money out of a system that will already have a shortfall / be broke in 50 years, and somehow not come up in the red, even sooner than if we keep the current system and stop spending the cash set aside for it like it's a fucking money tree for Bush's wars.

When did he say he wanted to "do away with the whole thing"?

Furthur, his plan is to allow people to "opt-out" of to a certain level and put that money elsewhere. (which I would prefer) I would much rather take a chance with my money than let my government take a chance with it. I mean, your social security is YOUR money. Wouldn't you like to be in control of as much of it as you can?

Plus, politicians play politics. Especially now-a-days when the democrats are outnumbered. They said themselves that they are going to "draw a line in the sand" on this issue. Well how open minded can you be staring at a line in the sand. Although I agree that the present administration has a with-us-or-against-us policy, so do the democrats. That's how politics work.

Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo

[MetaPhyzx]

I've heard that one from a few of my coworkers as well. I'm not opposed to those who are "not indigent or needy" (wait 'til you get to be 70 after this administration is done, you might be more likely to be one of the two) OPTING out of the system. If you make enough money and think you can do a better job of it, sure.

I don't think though, that's what most people are thinking. The thought seems to be "I'm tired of PAYING for the poor or elderly." at times it smacks of selfish greed. Social Security is equated as a tax for welfare. It's not. It's a form of pension. In principle, it's not much different than drawing a pension from a company. A certain amount of current wages go INTO that pension plan to pay the retirees.

That's the way the system is. Today's workers pay the pension of yesterdays workers, as tomorrow's workers will pay the pension of ours. It's not a tax. Besides, what protection to people who DON't have big fat 401k's and IRA's and are working for next to minimum wage have?

Add to that the fact that Americans are notoriously poor savers, so now you're going to force people who full may not understand the dynamics of money, and in some cases don't make enough to save to plan for a retirement future? Everyone in society isn't going to grow up an be a millionaire.. Society requires people to perform different duties at different levels of compensation. Social pension makes sense when you consider that.

My grandmother worked in a steel mill in the midwest, and for TRW, only to watch her pensions
evaporate. In her later years she had to depend on cleaning the homes of those who sure as hell didn't have to worry about retirement to supplement her income from SS. Otherwise she'd have been working til she was 80, or to death just to live.

Those are the fears I have, that the latter will become much more common not by the insolvency of SS, but by privitization.

Seperation of Facts and Fiction

[Ahaldra]

Whoa, what's the matter with you people? I've seen waaay too much bashing in this thread and waayy too much discussion about interpretation of minor stuff. But no juice.
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.

Re:Typical assinine name-calling

[MetaPhyzx]

And when is the last time he's listened to anyone that wasn't with his plan? Heck, name a potential voice of dissent in his administration? I'm not some bleeding heart liberal, but for a guy who says he believes in bipartisanship, you'd think his cabinet would reflect that. And there's precedent for it.

Case in point: Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense in his second term was Bill Cohen. He's a Republican. In his first term, he was occused of not having enough "grown-ups" in his decision making team. He sought out well-respected Warren Christopher to round out his cabinet.

This guy promoted from within, replaced from within and just handed out medals like hotcakes. He also, as someone has said here has devastated the surplus (blame that all you want on the ressessive slowdown of 2000-2003, but there's no way we're in this deep a hole if he doesn't), Cut taxes.. DURING a time of war...

And, I'm going to trust his judgement with this?

There is a problem with Social Security.

[Shivetya]

I am not going to read any of the posts here because I can summarize them very quickly.

"Bush is Liar"

Simply put there is so much Bush-Hate that too many people posting on /. 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.

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".

Re:liar, liar, pants on fire

[snwcrash]

My biggest concern with "fixing" SS is the potential for corruption that comes in when you start having fund managers. Right now SS only buys treasury bonds, no conflicts of interest or anything to worry about there. Once it becomes more like a 401k manager there are going to be companies lobbying to have their stock make it into one of the funds (talk billions of dollars invested into companies).

Also think of the impact on the stock market. The goverment would be capable of swing stocks instantly higher or lower. Insider information on their transactions would be invaluble to private sector investors.

The government hasn't traditionally been good about controlling corruption. I'd imagine this would be a massive pork fest until some scandal broke out.

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:liar, liar, pants on fire

[TGK]

The entire point of social security is to provide a safety net. It is there to be the last fall back in the event of total economic catastrophe.

ALL investments follow a simple rule. More risk = more reward. Social Security isn't even an investment, it's a wealth redistribution system designed such that individuals who pay into the system fund those who are no longer able to.

If we redesign the system to involve trust funds, we make is less secure. That lack of security derails the entire point of the program. It's called Social Security for a reason.

Sure, your account didn't loose a lot of value, but it could have. If it had, if your retirement accounts had been completely wiped out, you'd still have social security to fall back on.

What if social security had been wiped out? What would you do then? Keeping the social security fund from capsizing (following it's legally questionable and morally objectionable raiding by the GOP in the 1980s) is very important. Preserving its character as the last, best defense against economic failure is yet more important. Re-engineering the system into a stock and bond fund only serves to provide security to the securities industry. Bankers make billions and Grandma's monthly check is tied... no matter how loosely... to the fickle whim of the stock market.

That's not security. That's not the point. That's not what we should be doing.

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.

Re: The many errors

[dpille]

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.

Re:FMA

[Fjandr]

Since states would have a hard time enforcing legislation to deny certain types of couples marriage (mostly interracial), they created licenses as a way to allow local officials the opportunity to exercise the extralegal power to deny specific marriages arbitrarily.

I'm not a fan of the religious right, but I think governments should keep their nose out of marriage completely.

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:We need to fight back

[rhuntley12]

What about the future of all the families of the slain/wounded? You don't hear about the tens of thousands wounded/disfigured. Or how about Americans children are going to have to pay back the deficit that has been enlarged by this war. We have serious problems at home, especially monetary, so we are going to throw money and lives to help others first? I donate to charity when I can, but not before I have taken care of myself.

Re:We need to fight back

[Straif]

Here's a interesting page detailing a leftist view of the war that doesn't start with "Bush is pure evil". While I am definitely a Conservative, despite the source, I think this is one of the best defences for the war (and from a Marxist no less).

http://www.marxist.org.uk/htm_docs/comm12.htm

It does a pretty good job both pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left as well as giving some very strong reasons why Iraq was a good idea.

Personally, I have no trouble with someone disagreeing with me on what they believe is the better solution to a problem. On the other hand when they refuse to even see a problem or refuse to look at alternatives solely because of their emotions, then I have a problem.
You may try to put the President into the latter group but can you honestly point to anyone on the left who was offering alternatives that you couldn't find in a cheap fortune cookie. Platitudes are not alternatives.

Well, time to begin the weekend and get out of here. Everyone enjoy the Superbowl. And if you don't like football, enjoy the commercials.

P.S. I haven't really looked at anything else on the above site, besides this one page, so I won't even try to defend anything else on it.

Re:We need to fight back

[mre5565]

> 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??

Because history tells us the Allies forced democracy on Japan and Germany after we
defeated them in WW2.

And BTW, US troops are still occupiers there.

You probably think the USA's democracy was a
peaceful event? Every hear of the Revolutionary
War? You think the majority of Americans were
into fighting and stuff then?

Ever hear how England became a democracy? Look
up the Magna Carta and why the King signed it.

France? Can you say Guiolltine?

Post-Soviet Russia's a real peaceful right?

Force has created more democracies than you
wish. Sheesh, the crap that gets modded 5
around here.

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.

Groundhog Day v. State of the Union Speech

[mbstone]

The fact that Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Speech both fall on Feb. 2 represents an ironic juxtaposition:

One involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication; the other involves a groundhog.

Re:Typical assinine name-calling

[tha_mink]

This guy promoted from within, replaced from within and just handed out medals like hotcakes. He also, as someone has said here has devastated the surplus (blame that all you want on the ressessive slowdown of 2000-2003, but there's no way we're in this deep a hole if he doesn't), Cut taxes.. DURING a time of war...

We were not in a time of war during his "handout", which by the way I was against. Plus, his point is that the government shouldn't have to bail out a program like SS, since it should be set up to take care of itself. If the government does have to bail out the program, then it's not doing the job it was intended to do, which was to provide retirement benefits without using taxes outside the SS structure.

Re:Typical assinine name-calling

[Weird_one]

Schemes for Social Security privatization, like the one described in the 2004 Economic Report of the President, invariably assume that investing in stocks will yield a high annual rate of return, 6.5 or 7 percent after inflation, for at least the next 75 years. Without that assumption, these schemes can't deliver on their promises. Yet a rate of return that high is mathematically impossible unless the economy grows much faster than anyone is now expecting.

is countered by

An investor entering the market at today's high stock prices may earn less than the long-term historical average. Two fundamental measures for evaluating stock prices are the dividend yield--the ratio of annual dividends to stock prices--and the price-earnings ratio. According to an analysis of historical stock performance, returns on stocks over 10-year periods have been well below average when the dividend yield was low and the price-earnings ratio was high. Indeed, the stock market has been at record high levels in recent years, and the dividend yield is below long-run historical values. Likewise, the price-earnings ratio is well above its long-run average. Some analysts have estimated that recent price-earnings ratios would be consistent with a 1 percentage point decline in the long-run return on stocks; in other words, future stock returns could decline from the historical real average of 7 percent to 6 percent over the long run.

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

For example, see John E. Golob and David G. Bishop, "What Long-Run Returns Can Investors Expect from the Stock Market?" Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Third Quarter 1997), pp. 5-20 and John H. Cochrane, "Where is the Market Going? Uncertain Facts and Novel Theories," Economic Perspectives, Vol. XXI, Issue 6 (November/December 1997), pp. 3-37.

Social Security Reform For Dummies

[cmholm]

The Bush plan operates in three distinct phases, and it's important to understand all three, and to understand them as separate, because only phase two is even remotely construable as an effort to improve Social Security's finances.

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.

I suppose

[Tragek]

This means no one is going to insure me from an American invasion.... I mean, liberation. After all, my country is going to hell in a hand basket, gay marriage, relaxed dope laws, liberal policies.

facts against v. facts for

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Vision

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why Government needs Families

[siriuskase]

Outside of this particular time and place, I don't think marriage has much at all to do with romantic love. It has always been primarily about responsibility for those other people who are your family. Marriage doesn't even have to be voluntary. It is nice if the people entering into a marriage relationship have a romantic interest in each other, it makes the bond stronger, but it is entirely optional. Frankly, the government doesn't care if you love each other just as long as you relieve the government of the burden of taking care of you, your spouse, or your kids. Some needs can be satisfied by the government, the marketplace, and other institutions, but quite a few people think marriage is better at it than such methods as government paying women so they can afford to stay home and have kids, or government deciding your course of medical treatment instead of your "next of kin", or government "disciplining" young men in correctional institutions because their fathers did not feel obligated to take on this task themselves.

I am old fashioned enough to think that fathers are better at some parenting tasks than mothers. Women may not need men, but children need fathers. But, then families are as diverse as individuals. What works for one family might not work at all for another. If they don't have fathers, they can have an extended family with uncles and grandfathers. That is what makes families so ideal for raising young people. Parents have much more in common with their kids both culturally and genetically than government bureaucrats. If anyone is going to understand a confused young person, it is much more likely to be his parent than a jailer or a social worker.

Individuals are not always able to do it all for themselves and free markets, governments and other such institutions don't always work as well as the family. Historically, parents are responsible for their children when young and children are responsible for their parents when old. Also, historically, people who enter into marriage assume certain responsibilities towards each other (and any children they may raise). These responsibilities can be considered a contract although different societies assign different legal interpretations to this contract. When marriages are weak, people must get their needs satisfied in other ways. Sometimes it's the government, sometimes it's the marketplace. I don't simply mean sex, I mean advocacy for someone who is not conscious, I mean financial support when one doesn't have their own income, I mean procreation and any other project that is better done with a partner than alone.

For extreme conservatives, government IS the family. The family is the oldest form of government, much older than monarchy, theocracy, and especially demococracy. A good family is a benevelent dictatorship, something that is very hard to achieve outside of a family. So conservatives are for anything that enables families to take care of themselves, leaving governments and other nonfamily institutions as a last resort. Many people recognize that not all families are very good at support of their more needy members. While conservatives might prefer that government fix the family (or allow the church to fix it), liberals think it is better for the government to step in and take its place. I, like most people, am somewhere in the middle. There really are some lousy families, but if you treat all individuals who need help as though they come from lousy families, people from good families might turn to outsiders when it might actually be better for everyone for them to get help from the family.

If outsiders make it very easy to go outside of the family for help, then the family has no need to exist and may go away. Likewise, for people who do not have a functional family, depriving them of a means to form one makes no sense either. In the issue of gay marriages, pro family and pro gay marriage advocates are on the same side if a more modern term such as civil unions can be accepted by all. This is not a liberal issue at all. It is just a new twist on the conservative notion of solving problems by encouraging the formation of strong family units.