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

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: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.

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: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.