← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 16561 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2005-02-03
2005-02-03 10:49 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue]The minute you saw The Hug - a laughably orchestrated "real and spontaneous" moment as envisioned by the sort of hacks who write tv-movies for The Lifetime Network - I knew we were fu**ed. The whole purpose of The Hug was to override, through shameless Hallmark Card sentimentality, that little unnerving jolt you felt when Bush used this occasion to drop the word "Iran". And I sure hope, if you're under 50, you haven't been getting clipped, week after month after year after decade, to feed the gluttonous maw of a little something called "FICA", on account of The Commander in Chief just now gave you fair warning, in code - the way a skell on the street running a monte table might when he remarks that obviously you're a smart enough fellow to find the red card - that [I]you're beat for your money[/I].
Here is where you find out what a 98% majority buys you in politics these days: an opportunity to prove your good citizenship by seconding whatever the 2% who own you have already decided you're going to get. Squeak in protest and your file gets routed over to the Department of Chertoff.[/COLOR]
Bush Urges Congress to Save Social Security President Pledges to Promote Freedom, Fight Terrorism By TERENCE HUNT, AP
The president Wednesday pushed personal retirement accounts as an answer to Social Security problems and committed to the "advance of freedom" worldwide. WASHINGTON (Feb. 2) - President Bush challenged a hesitant Congress on Wednesday to "strengthen and save'' Social Security, saying the nation's costliest social program was headed for bankruptcy unless changed. Bush's plan would cut guaranteed retirement benefits for younger Americans but would not affect checks for people now 55 and older.
Bush, in his State of the Union address, pledged to work with Congress "to find the most effective combination of reforms,'' although he has ruled out some remedies such as raising Social Security taxes.
Democrats said that Bush's proposal to divert Social Security revenues into private investment accounts was dangerous and that there were better ways to fix the program, the 70-year-old centerpiece of the New Deal.
Republicans stood and cheered when Bush urged lawmakers to approve "voluntary personal retirement accounts.'' Democrats sat in stony silence, underscoring the partisan divide on an issue likely to dominate the year in Congress. Democrats also groaned and grumbled when Bush said Social Security would require drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing or severe benefit cuts unless the system is changed.
Bush's 53-minute speech spanned problems at home and abroad, but it was the first State of the Union address since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that focused most heavily on domestic issues. Despite Democrats' criticism, he offered no hint of a timetable for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.
The longest applause was when Bush recognized Janet and Bill Norwood, the parents Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed in the assault of Fallujah. In an emotional gesture, Mrs. Norwood hugged Safia Taleb al-Suhail, leader of the Iraqi Women's Political Council.
Bush pledged to confront regimes that promote terror and pursue weapons of mass destruction, and singled out Syria and Iran. Returning to his inaugural address' theme of spreading democracy, Bush hailed the success of Sunday's elections in Iraq.
"And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democracy reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region,'' he said. In a challenge to Iran's government, he told the country's citizens: "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.''
Bush also promised to push forward for Mideast peace, including $350 million in aid to the Palestinians.
"The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, is within reach, and America will help them achieve that goal,'' the president said.
With more than 1,400 Americans killed in Iraq and the United States spending more than $1 billion a week on the war, Bush urged Congress to support his request for an additional $80 billion. "During this time of war, we must continue to support our military and give them the tools for victory,'' he said.
On Social Security: "I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer."
On Foreign Policy: "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies."
On Iraq: "We will succeed in Iraq because Iraqis are determined to fight for their own freedom and to write their own history."
On Terrorism: "Our country is still the target of terrorists who want to kill many and intimidate us all, and we will stay on the offensive against them until the fight is won."
On Marriage: "It should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
While key allies like Germany and France opposed the war, Bush said his administration "will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time.''
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, delivering the Democratic response, challenged Bush on Iraq.
"We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force,'' she said. "Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos. ... We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq.''
Emboldened by his re-election, Bush called on lawmakers to move on several controversial fronts, including liberalizing the nation's immigration laws, imposing limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, simplifying taxes and extending the life of the tax cuts enacted during his first term.
He also urged passage of long-stalled energy legislation and promised to send Congress a budget next week that holds discretionary spending below inflation. Warning Congress that it will face painful choices, Bush said his budget would substantially reduce or eliminate more than 150 federal programs.
Bush said his wife would lead a nationwide effort to reduce gang violence by encouraging young people to remain crime free. In a nod to conservatives, he renewed support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Transforming Social Security is a political gamble for Bush and for Republican allies wary of taking big political risks. While Bush cannot run for another term, most GOP lawmakers face re-election next year and are nervous about tampering with a system that Americans like and see no immediate need to overhaul.
Democrats, on the other hand, face a risk of appearing as obstructionists if they simply oppose all of Bush's plan.
Under Bush's Social Security plan, workers would be allowed to divert up to two-thirds of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts, according to a Social Security expert who was briefed on the plan Wednesday. Contributions would be capped at $1,000 per year, rising each year by $100. Social Security's guaranteed benefits would be reduced to make up for money diverted to the private accounts.
A variety of solutions have been proposed over the years, such as limiting benefits for wealthy retirees, raising the retirement age, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages, discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits and changing the ways benefits are calculated, Bush said.
"All these ideas are on the table,'' Bush said. "I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics.''
Social Security is expected to start losing money in 2018 or 2020, according to differing estimates from Social Security trustees and Congress' budget analysts, and to be unable to provide full benefits beginning in 2042 or 2052.
"It's wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of 40 percent or more,'' Minority Leader Harry Reid said in the Democratic response to Bush's address.
Bush spoke from the rostrum of the House chamber, with Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert seated behind him. More than two dozen guests were invited to sit in the first lady's box, including relatives of fallen U.S. troops, a pilot helping tsunami victims and individuals whose presence were meant to underscore Bush's domestic agenda, such as education, Social Security medical malpractice and other areas.
The capital's political establishment, from members of Congress and the Cabinet to the diplomatic corps and Supreme Court justices, gathered for the address. Security was intense, as it was for Bush's inauguration Jan. 20. Police closed off streets surrounding the Capitol and its office buildings.
Calling for major changes in Social Security, Bush said the program was "created decades ago, for a very different era.'' With financial problems that grow worse each year, he said, the system "on its current path is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security.''
Trying to calm the concerns of older people, Bush said Social Security is strong and fiscally sound for the more than 45 million Americans now receiving benefits and millions more who are nearing retirement.
"I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way,'' the president pledged.
Bush did not disclose how deeply benefits would be cut for younger workers and he did not estimate how much it would cost to divert money from Social Security revenues into private investment accounts.
Anticipating objections, the president pledged that any system of private accounts would have ample safeguards.
[I]Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. [/I]
2005-02-03 11:40 | User Profile
Yeah, the "spontaneous hug" was one of the more vomitous moments of late in our always-nauseous political life.
Really over the top.
But chin up, Spiderman. Worse is better.
2005-02-03 12:44 | User Profile
Reversals of being by sign-use:
l. "Strengthen and save" (social security) = sound bite reversing "destroy and kill"
"ownership society" = ...reversing worker's ownership of their future
"focus of evil" (Iran, Iraq) = essence of what it is to be evil "focused" elsewhere
"freedom and democracy" = ...slavery and tyrrany
"I want to hear specifics, not sound bites" (little old lady in CNN panel before speech) = arranged in advance to cover nothing but
"people of faith" = ...Pod God Sodomizers
"America" = condemned, damned, dead
To Whomever, Jesus called "Father", I pray with all my being ... destroy them, their children, possessions, record of existence forever, whoever calls themselves "conservative" and promotes George W. Bush. Remove all trace of human compassion, solace, help, even as they have done.
In His name, amen.
2005-02-03 12:56 | User Profile
That was quite a dog and pony show last night. I'm sure Sharon was heartbroken by the hug display.
The writer of this story didn't see fit to mention Bush's amnesty. Just as well, for nothing has changed with that, just Bush telling another lie about this not being an amnesty and repeating the misleading Wall Street Journal talking point about "jobs Americans won't do." For those of you who get your "news" from "fair and balanced" t.v. or "if we don't talk about it, it isn't important" radio there is quite a drug war going on along the Mexican border and a number of Americans have been kidnapped. The State Department actually felt compelled to put out a travel advisory warning Americans to stay away from the border. Fox and friends raised hell about this and Fox called Bush. I'd loved to have been a fly on the wall in the Oval office when that call came through. Our punk president is real tough when dealing with fourth rate powers, but when it came to dealing with the macho Mexican I bet Jorge couldn't be obsequious quickly enough to the Mexican megapower. Jorge probably got a few calls from the greed heads of Wall Street as well.
Tancredo will have his work cut out for him. Being inspired by the threads about the late "Phora" I say
"Phuck Bush." :angry: :dung:
2005-02-03 12:59 | User Profile
I didn't watch any of this. I just couldn't. I didn't feel up to dealing with the contempt and loathing that wracks my body whenever I watch one of W's little cue-card recitations. One of my buddies and I briefly considered playing a State of the Union drinking game, in which we would each have to take a shot of Jack Daniels whenever Bush said 'freedom' or 'democracy.' However, we quickly decided neither of us could afford to get that plastered on a weeknight.
2005-02-03 13:24 | User Profile
Q,
That was a prudent decision on your part. :lol:
Bush sounded to me that he had drank a gallon of neocon moonshine prior to this SOTU.
2005-02-03 14:10 | User Profile
Like Quantrill, I couldn't muster the will to watch the smirking simian-in-chief's "state of the union" recital where he'd just blah blah about blah blah. This man and his coterie of neocon sycophants are just too repulsive to even look at with their smug and overflowing self-righteousness. This administration is an affront to millions (ok, maybe thousands) of free thinking Americans and one must be a profound idiot, like FreeRepublicans, to even believe one mispronounced word that comes out of Bush's mealy mouth. His admistration has wrecked this country yet foolish and depraved folks just keep cheering him on. It's astounding.
Yet, I did muster up some will to watch the post reaction discussions with Jim Lehrer and then Charlie Rose. Needless to say, I didn't find nary a dissenting word with any real bite. Just a bunch of cheerleaders. Guess I'm the one with the problem, huh? I should just fall in line with the rest??
What George Bush & Co along with the Jewish media are doing is simply wearing out the Dissidents and critics by simply taking discussion angle after discussion angle away from them, eg. "how could you say the US did the wrong thing in Iraq! Look, they just had an election! You can't be saying that this adventure wasn't worth it, can you!! What, you'd rather the Iraqis still live under Hussein!!"...you get my point. Once the opposition is silenced all hell is going to break loose, Third World Style.
Oh well, worse it will certainly get.
2005-02-03 14:28 | User Profile
One of the silliest things I saw were the idiots holding up their purple index fingers. I wonder if the political whore David Dreier is the one who dreamed that one up. He came on Lou Dobbs Monday and greeted Lou and the viewers with a simpering grin and a purple finger stating he was showing solidarity with the Iraqis. To me he was literally giving the rest of us the finger.
2005-02-03 14:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]One of the silliest things I saw were the idiots holding up their purple index fingers. I wonder if the political whore David Dreier is the one who dreamed that one up. He came on Lou Dobbs Monday and greeted Lou and the viewers with a simpering grin and a purple finger stating he was showing solidarity with the Iraqis. To me he was literally giving the rest of us the finger.[/QUOTE] Maybe he was showing solidarity with criminals who had just been fingerprinted. :wink:
2005-02-03 14:40 | User Profile
Q,
In view of Dreier's treason to America one hopes the day comes when we see him with black ink on all his fingers! :thumbd: :oh:
2005-02-03 14:45 | User Profile
I was and am no Clinton fan but it's becoming obvious to me that the know-nothing jingoism driving the Bus of America these days was forged and honed in the nonstop, ever-ratcheting-upward Clinton bashing of the 90s as exhibited on FREE REPUBLIC, among other venues now clearly [I]neo [/I] but back then, misleadingly characterized as [I]conservative [/I] - which [I]all [/I] of us were guilty of, whether we'd been registered to FR or not.
It's not that the Clinton Administration [I]wasn't [/I] a corrupt wolfpack with a flashing neon FOR SALE sign on at all times. But, in registering our outrage, we made common cause with microencephalic idiots who routinely used heavy artillery on houseflies so often that - by the time some of us were yelling about bombing white Europe in the name of Enforced Diversity, or selling secrets to the [I]Red Chinese[/I], for God's sakes, too many people had heard the [I]exact [/I] sort of high-flown, spittle-spraying outrage over relatively-minor idiocies like [I]real estate scams [/I] and [I]girlfriends sneaking in the back way [/I] and [I]$300 haircuts on the tarmac[/I].
When the time came to fire the real warning shots, we were out of bullets; they'd all been fired over Monica!
And now we who went along on the feeding frenzy are paying for it, because the pinheads we once let hog the podium are [I]still [/I] hogging the podium... and they're all in favor of jailing anyone asking them to acknowledge that [I]this guy's [/I] sins are on a whole [I]other [/I] level of Transgression, [I]This guy's [/I] sins don't involve padding tabs or rigging bids or negotiating a hummer from a curvy DNC bubblehead....they involve deracinating the Republic, dematerializing the economy and - given enough time and tax monies - depopulating the planet. Save one very powerful 'friend'.
If we ever get out of the Bush Administration in one recognizable piece, I think we'd better grow up and understand that the only choice we have anymore is between Boss Tweed and Ernst Stavros Blofeld. We're two weeks removed from the '04 Inauguration and [I]already [/I] I'm dreading the Charades of '08.
2005-02-03 15:11 | User Profile
Il Ragno,
True enough. While removing Clinton for perjury is valid, there were a hell of a lot of worse things he did that mandated his removal. I consider this neoconmania to be backlash from the crap the media pulled over the past 50+ years for "liberals". Those people laid the groundwork for the sorry state of affairs and where I am disappointed is that those who claim to be "conservative" should know better and are acting in an even worse manner than the Clinton defenders. James Carville has nothing over Sean Hannity when it comes to demagoguery.
2005-02-03 17:05 | User Profile
I had a choice either the presidential address or The Invasion of the Body Snatchers so guess wich one I watched? after all they are both the same.
The US will stopp terrorist by being terrorist first, oh well.
2005-02-03 17:08 | User Profile
Talk about yer serendipity; turns out Joe Sobran's been tossing the same dilemnas in his head that I am.
[QUOTE][B]The End of the Search [/B]
January 13, 2005
What can we say? The search for Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” has finally ended. None were found, of course. Even the hawks who insisted that Saddam Hussein had them aren’t demanding that we keep looking.
President Bush, not missing a beat, says the war on Iraq was still justified — even though the very justification he insistently gave for it has been exploded. He now talks as if he’d never believed it himself. He probably didn’t.
Bush and his people — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Tenet, et cetera — repeatedly said there was “no doubt” that the weapons existed, threatening us. Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Britain that an Iraqi attack might be just 45 minutes away. The war propaganda continued, monotonously, for months upon months.
It was all nonsense. But skeptics were scolded for not believing a president who “knows so much more than we do.” What he “knew” was that his CIA director called the evidence of those weapons a “slam dunk, Mr. President.” When people call you “Mr. President,” they’re going to tell you what you want to be told.
As the columnist Richard Cohen points out, CBS News just fired four of its top executives for getting one story wrong. Bush hasn’t fired any of the yes-men who were wrong about a far graver matter. But that’s what yes-men are supposed to do: go with the boss, right or wrong. Maybe especially when he’s wrong.
Back when Bill Clinton was still swearing on his Bibles that he’d done nothing untoward with Miss Lewinsky, he hauled out his whole cabinet to vouch for him. They dutifully did so. You might wonder how, say, his secretaries of state and agriculture could be so sure of his innocence in this matter, but again there was “no doubt.” And having staked their honor on Clinton’s honor, none of them resigned when he finally admitted his lie.
“I’m with you when you’re right, governor, but not when you’re wrong,” an aide is said to have told Louisiana’s legendary rascal Earl Long. Long quickly set him straight: “You stupid son of a bitch, I don’t need you when I’m right!”
Bush doesn’t need his underlings when he’s right, as long as they serve him well when he’s wrong. And they’ve certainly done that. Colin Powell especially sacrificed much of the esteem he’d built over a long career when he parroted Bush’s baseless assertions. The phrase weapons of mass destruction was Bush’s Monica Lewinsky. For months you couldn’t turn the radio on without hearing it.
And once more, nobody is resigning because it turned out to be a deception. Nor is indignation sweeping the country. People who voted for Bush aren’t acting disillusioned. Hawkish pundits aren’t blushing. Even opponents of the war aren’t excited. A cynical resignation seems to be universal.
The only conclusion I can draw is that we all take presidential prevarication for granted now. It’s as if lying were part of the job description for the nation’s highest office.
So here’s the story: Republicans were indignant when Clinton lied about his Oval Office antics. It was matter for impeachment. The Starr Report supplied the details, right down to the cigar. Then Bush restored morality to the White House and lied us into a war, and we lived happily ever after.
Clinton lied so glibly, even when he didn’t have to, that everything he said was taken with a grain of salt. He was already “Slick Willie” before he was president. Eventually his own party had to deal with his notorious character: Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut gave a resounding speech on the Senate floor rebuking him, and Vice President Al Gore, running for president, played down his connection with his own boss.
Nothing like that is happening among Republicans today. The party is united behind a president who started a war under false pretenses, which then veered off into something else. Nobody feels impelled to express even mild reservations. So far there has been no Republican Joe Lieberman, trying to show that the party still has a conscience. Or at least a capacity for embarrassment.
Clinton told lots of little lies, and the habit caught up with him. Bush has told one deadly whopper, and he’s still getting away with it. [/QUOTE]
2005-02-03 21:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Talk about yer serendipity; turns out Joe Sobran's been tossing the same dilemnas in his head that I am.[/QUOTE]
Except that ... though I detested Clinton from the start, and do so even more, now, for not standing up for what he did, if he was going to do it, a. he never lied -- about anything, as far as anyone knows, just mislead. (BJ's are sexual, and relations, but not "sexual relations" as asked by Starr without qualification); and b. Bush hasn't just told one; he IS one. But you 'n Joe are coming along. Except it's too late to count for anything, of course. Why bring it up?
2005-02-03 21:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I didn't watch any of this. I just couldn't. I didn't feel up to dealing with the contempt and loathing that wracks my body whenever I watch one of W's little cue-card recitations. One of my buddies and I briefly considered playing a State of the Union drinking game, in which we would each have to take a shot of Jack Daniels whenever Bush said 'freedom' or 'democracy.' However, we quickly decided neither of us could afford to get that plastered on a weeknight.[/QUOTE]
If you were going to take a drink every time those words crossed the traitors lips, you would become more then plastered, you would probably die quickly of alcohol poisioning.
I could barely tolerate watching this garbage either. I could only handle a few minutes, here and there. He is so full of crap. When he pledged to "confront regimes that promote terror and pursue weapons of mass destruction" does that mean he is going to confront Israel? I think not. No, he is only going to confront those nations that may be a threat to our most rogue and illegitimate "ally". like suggested in his line, about spreading "democracy reformers from Tehran to Damascus", or something to that effect. Al Sharpton, (of all people, lol) pointed out that the name Osama Bin laden was not even spoken. Don't people think it is a little bit strange that the so-called mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, and the reason, we are now involved in this war on terror, is not even mentioned?
It was very amusing, after the state of the union, all of the Republican talking heads, especially on Foxnews were in an uproar about the words "occuping force" that were given in the Democratic response. Just what the hell do they think we are doing if not "occuping" These people are not even good liars anymore. pathetic.
2005-02-03 22:49 | User Profile
Starr,
If the Foxiods want to get mad about the term "occupying force" they better be careful less they be accused of not supporting the "war on terror". Our beloved, wisest of the wise, Geo. W. Bush has used that same language in answering a question.
2005-02-03 22:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Starr,
If the Foxiods want to get mad about the term "occupying force" they better be careful less they be accused of not supporting the "war on terror". Our beloved, wisest of the wise, Geo. W. Bush has used that same language in answering a question.[/QUOTE]
He also said that in the state of the union, but his words were more careful, in that he said "viewed as an occuping force." Which is essentially like he is saying we are not an occuping force, it is just that some may see it that way.
But yes, I can see him saying that in a different manner. He is not the most well-spoken individual. LOL
2005-02-04 02:18 | User Profile
I skipped the SOTU speech and watched Smallville on the WB instead.
One element that never ceases to amaze me is the way Bush is able to advance policies that are clearly intended to benefit only his corporate friends while keeping a straight face as he tells us it's for the common good.
Bush wants to accomplish two things with his social security scheme: 1) eventually phase out the program so the remainder of the budget that is freed up can be diverted into the Pentagon to fund his Perpetual Wars for Perpetual Democracy, and 2) to pump more cash into the stock market for his corporate buddies.
Of course, the Freeper types think Bush's War on Social Security is a great thing--even though most of the Freepers themselves aren't part of the wealthy top 2% or so that Bush is coddling.
"Regular people" need to realize that a privatized Social Security system isn't "secure." The fact of the matter is that when the stock market goes down, and it always does, that's going to potentially take a good chunk of your money that you have to live on for the rest of your life after you retire. And lifespans are only going to increase if advances in the medical technology trend holds out. Not everybody is going to make the same earnings over their working lifetime as Bush's friends do, either. When Bush's wish fully pans out and Social Security is gone, what's going to pick up the slack if the private stock-market based funds crap out? Bush is creating the prospect of 95 year-olds living out of dumpsters in the future.
This is why Bush is using the "age 55" mark--he's weaning the generations off Social Security. He expects that the people who are already too old to build up a private fund will get their checks, and the younger generations won't protest when the program is eventually going to be phased out by a future Bush-style Republican Congress.
I'm 27, and it's my generation that needs to be very careful here. I've already been contributing into my 401k with the full understanding that it's very likely there won't be a Social Security program in place when I'm old, so that's all I've got. But how many people in modern America are going to be as foresighted and disciplined as I am? I'm betting a lot of people aren't going to be serious about consistently contributing to their 401k's--and leaving it alone and not borrowing it out and so on--until they're middle-aged, and they actually start thinking, "gee, I might get old some day." And keep in mind I don't fully trust my 401k as the sole provider of my income when I'm old--how many more "Enron's" will there be in the future to destabilize things for me?
The best solution, and I'm no expert in matters financial, would be to design a "mixed" public/private system where people contribute a certain portion of their own pay into their 401k's over their working lifetimes, with strict regulations that discourage people from messing with the cash before retirement age, along with an ongoing supplemental governmental system that kicks in to "make up the difference" if something goes wrong with the stock market and their 401k's shrink to the point that the disbursements won't let the person support their housing, food, and so on from age 65 or so to death (and who knows how many years that will be?). The goal here is basically a minimum guaranteed annual income for the elderly so they'll know that when they retire and they're old and frail, they'll always have a roof over their head and adequate food and so on. Why live with worry about life's necessities at that age? Maybe Bush is assuming that by then, with a WalMart on every corner, all the elderly will become "greeters."
Bush's plan doesn't convince me that he's not going to leave people to hang out to dry when they're old. I know he's politically astute enough not to screw over the current (and newly rising) oldsters, but my generation is going to have it economically tougher in old age than the previous two or three generations did.
2005-02-04 02:37 | User Profile
PaleoconAvatar,
I think you have good reason to be distrustful. All one has to do is look at who is pushing this besides Bush.
I bet they came up with this scheme from an idea of Jesse Jackson. Some years ago he floated a plan where 15% of all the money in pension plans would be taken from the existing acounts and used to fund crap like low income housing, the usual feel good projects that "liberals" are notorious for. This "reform" sounds like a variation of Jackson's plan. Of course, it can't be bad for "Republicans and conservatives" (sic) support it instead of "liberals and Democrats".
2005-02-04 02:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]PaleoconAvatar,
I think you have good reason to be distrustful. All one has to do is look at who is pushing this besides Bush.
I bet they came up with this scheme from an idea of Jesse Jackson. Some years ago he floated a plan where 15% of all the money in pension plans would be taken from the existing acounts and used to fund crap like low income housing, the usual feel good projects that "liberals" are notorious for. This "reform" sounds like a variation of Jackson's plan. Of course, it can't be bad for "Republicans and conservatives" (sic) support it instead of "liberals and Democrats".[/QUOTE]
Wow, I never heard this Jackson plan before. Let me make sure I'm understanding it right--it sounds like Jackson was saying he wanted to take 15% out of everybody's private retirement accounts and give it over to low-income housing (basically, an inner-city welfare scheme). Did I get that right? I'm serious here--I must be misunderstanding this, because if that's what he really wanted, then all I can say is that's insane. People have a hard enough time diverting part of their paycheck into the retirement fund and then paying all the monthly bills, never mind having what you did set aside basically get "taxed" out.
Was this a one-time thing, or was it a yearly 15%? If it were yearly, then you'd have to pay into the fund 15% over and above what you normally put in, otherwise you'd be losing ground.
Jesse Jackson, huh? It figures--only a Black person could come up with an idea like that.
2005-02-04 11:07 | User Profile
PA,
Check this out.
It was supposed to be a one time levy. Fat chance. This stupid idea is older than I thought. As you can see from below the original idea called only for 10% to be looted back in '88. I first heard about this scheme in the early '90s. At that time JJ was calling for 15%, so I guess that JJ added another 5% for inflation (and perhaps for some additonal swag on the side for coming up with this)
[Jesse Jackson's domestic platform] Original Airdate: 4/4/1988
Length: 00:05:18 Item Type: newstape - edited story master
Go back to main record.
Full Description
1:00:07 Visual: C-Span footage of Jesse Jackson (US Democratic Presidential Candidate) addressing the Democratic Convention in 1984. The audience cheers for Jackson. Footage of Jackson quoting poetry to a reporter. On-screen visuals list details about Jackson's position on the economy. On-screen text reads, "Invest pensions in America."
Meg Vaillancourt reports that Jackson has a stack of position papers on economic issues. Vaillancourt notes that Jackson advocates the investment of pension funds in federally-guaranteed securities; that Jackson would use the capital to fund public housing, roads, and other public works projects; that the investment of 10% of US pensions would yield $60 billion for projects.
V: Shot of Jackson talking about his positions at a forum; of Jackson addressing supporters at a campaign rally. Footage of Domenic Bozzotto (President, Hotel Workers Union) that he likes Jackson' s idea of putting pension money to work for social good; that Jackson's plan also gives a fair return on the investment. Footage of Roger Porter (Harvard University) being interviewed by Vaillancourt. Porter says that Jackson's plan calls for government guarantees on pension investments; that the government could end up paying the difference on a poor investment.
[snip]
[url]http://main.wgbh.org/ton/programs/5694_02.html[/url]
I bet this was the inspiration for Bush's plan. A slug like Gingrich could take this and refurbish it and call it the "ownership society", the difference being that instead of government socialists getting their hands on all this money corporate socialists would get it instead.
2005-02-04 15:18 | User Profile
Paleoconavatar makes a good point when he says that Shrub's SSI reform plan is really just a way to pump money into the overpriced stock market. What's the average price to earnings ratio on the Dow now? I haven't checked in a while, but it's really low, less than interest rateson investment grade bonds, and the retiring boomers couldn't hope to live on their dividends. So as the boomers retire they'll be forced to sell their stock and place it into fixed income instruments, and that would place great downward pressure on stock prices. That could be a real mess given the sheer inertia of the demographic trends involved. This is a way to prime the stock market pump by diverting TAX DOLLARS (and we're talking our tax dollars here, not voluntary contributions) into pumping up the price of some fat cat's stock options, IMHO.
I think that it all misses the boat. We have a pay-as-you-go system. Money comes in from people who work, it goes out to retirees and invalids in accordance with the criteria set by law. The real crime is the idiotic notion of a "surplus." It's a pay-as-you-go system, there can't be a surplus by definition. The only question of any substantive import is the number of workers per retiree. The whole system was predicated on a constantly growing workforce. But that didn't happen, since the Boomers barely replaced themselves, due in no small part to the economic perversity of the SSI tax system, which is horribly regressive and allows no deduction at all for children. Thus, if a Boomer couple wanted to raise four kids thus creating their own replacements that would pay their retirement SSI, the system provided no relief for them, and indeed gave them the same benefits as the childless Yuppie couple. This was a terrible incentive to externalize the true costs of maintaining our pay-as-you-go system;i.e. the costs of raising the next generation of workers. I know lots of couples who did exactly that, all the while telling themselves how noble they were to protect the planet from overpopulation and yadda yadda yadda.
The pressure from the elites to increase immigration at all costs stems partly from this. We Boomers didn't replace ourselves by having children, so now we need to import aliens to pay our retirements.
All that's happening is since Reagan the boomers have overpaid SSI taxes that were then simply transferred by accounting slight-of-hand to the general fund, masking the true size of the deficits in the general fund. Around 2018 the flow will reverse, with the general fund paying over to the SSI system under the phoney baloney bond marker system. But there's really no difference for the workers paying into the system. For them it comes out of their paychecks under either FICA or under the personal income tax withholding, so no matter how it is distributed between the two accounts their take home pay that they'll live on until the next paycheck will be reduced accordingly.
Pulling money out of the system and putting it into stocks doesn't solve the problem, since it's all just the same economy. From a macro perspective, what possible difference could it make whether the money comes out of payroll as FICA taxes or corporate profits as reflected in dividends and stock prices? Corporate profits are driven by payroll to a very great extent, after all. The only differnece from a macro perspective is that risk of loss is far less spread out in the stock market option than when we're talking about in effect securitizing future federal revenues in the form of bonds. It's a sophomoric proposal, at best. It betrays a basic misunderstanding of the way the SSI system works. And the way the stock market works.
The only way to fix the system in the medium term is to cut benefits (by raising the retirment age to 70) and increasing taxes (by increasing the income level subject to the tax, say to $200,000). In the long run, the only way to fix it is to give working people an incentive to have children, by decreasing taxes by, say, 25-0% for each child, such that a married couple with five children would qualify for benefits but wouldn' have to pay FICA. This would send the proper economic signal that investing in children is the only way we can really, in a macro sense, save for our own retirement.
Walter
2005-02-04 15:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The pressure from the elites to increase immigration at all costs stems partly from this. We Boomers didn't replace ourselves by having children, so now we need to import aliens to pay our retirements. [/QUOTE]
No, Walter - although I'm not arguing your logic - the key to the whole mess is our becoming a federal superstate and global supercop at the same time. The Fed has been robbing Peter to pay Paul and back again for decades now; the immigration pressure stems from the projections of revenue we'll need in 25 years to make a dent in today's debts.
Otherwise, how would a nation that worked just fine with a pop of 150 million people suddenly need 450 million wage-slaves to stay afloat by 2030?
If the Fedgov wanted more white babies, they shouldn't've embarked on Wars on Poverty, Great Societies or any of the other culture and nation-destroying initiatives they did 40 and 50 and 60 years ago. How many white babies were [I]never born [/I] due to all the casualties of war we've suffered fighting everybody's battles but our own for the past century?
White Americans - dumb as we can be - still managed to intuit that the future was no longer going to be brighter than today a while back. We are watched, recorded, monitored, probed and regulated by machines operated by men, who longer trust their own ruthlessness enough to do it themselves, for the purposes of keeping us in full view, and a controlled environment, at all times. Our air is foul, our water undrinkable, our food processed, and our barbarians invited through our gates and grovelled before. For the first time in I don't know when, white men and women of good sense no longer look to the future with hope but with [I]dread[/I]. When the prevailing societal meme becomes tomorrow will surely be worse than today, [I]down [/I] go the live births. Tax credits will not solve this. You can't save a cancer patient by offering them money to recover.
2005-02-04 16:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]For the first time in I don't know when, white men and women of good sense no longer look to the future with hope but with [I]dread[/I]. When the prevailing societal meme becomes tomorrow will surely be worse than today, [I]down [/I] go the live births.[/QUOTE]
No doubt, IR, because middle class Whites with even a modicum of common sense know that they simply can not and will not send their kids to public schools, even in the deep suburbs or exurbs, since non-Whites will always be found somewhere to be bussed in and therefore degrade the whole environment. Some Whites, however, just don't have any other options though. Besides the exorbitant costs of private schooling, the costs involved with raising children, as well as the rise in cost of just about everything else, is and can get overwhelming, driving families into debt and despair and dysfunction. And never mind bringing kids up in the Politically Correct Marxist USA where your 13yo daughter thinks negroes are "exotic" and desirable and your 18 yo son thinks Asian chicks are good breeding partners. All this chaos benefits only one group of people, but I won't name names. :angry:
2005-02-04 17:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]No, Walter - although I'm not arguing your logic - the key to the whole mess is our becoming a federal superstate and global supercop at the same time. The Fed has been robbing Peter to pay Paul and back again for decades now; the immigration pressure stems from the projections of revenue we'll need in 25 years to make a dent in today's debts.
Otherwise, how would a nation that worked just fine with a pop of 150 million people suddenly need 450 million wage-slaves to stay afloat by 2030?
If the Fedgov wanted more white babies, they shouldn't've embarked on Wars on Poverty, Great Societies or any of the other culture and nation-destroying initiatives they did 40 and 50 and 60 years ago. How many white babies were [I]never born [/I] due to all the casualties of war we've suffered fighting everybody's battles but our own for the past century?
White Americans - dumb as we can be - still managed to intuit that the future was no longer going to be brighter than today a while back. We are watched, recorded, monitored, probed and regulated by machines operated by men, who longer trust their own ruthlessness enough to do it themselves, for the purposes of keeping us in full view, and a controlled environment, at all times. Our air is foul, our water undrinkable, our food processed, and our barbarians invited through our gates and grovelled before. For the first time in I don't know when, white men and women of good sense no longer look to the future with hope but with [I]dread[/I]. When the prevailing societal meme becomes tomorrow will surely be worse than today, [I]down [/I] go the live births. Tax credits will not solve this. You can't save a cancer patient by offering them money to recover.[/QUOTE]
No doubt we need to rein in our plans. As you know I'm all for that.
My point is really about the SSI system itself - how to make that work without regard to the rest of government expenditures. After all, that's what it was supposed to be - an off-budget program.
I would add that the "trust fund" scam made possible many imperial expenditures that would have been voted down had the elites been forced to ask the taxpayers for the money on the up and up. The elites under Reagan managed to impose an awfully regressive tax increase - a levy on GROSS INCOME, for Pete's sake - and then they used the money to pay for their imperial profligacy from the general budget, while telling the sheeple they were saving for their retirement.
We're talking about trillions of dollars that the next generation of taxpayers will have to pay back - at interest - by increased income taxes beginning around 2018. Reagan's SSI tax increase and resulting surpluses has to be the biggest flimflam jobs in history.
Getting honest about what SSI is and what it's designed to do is a first step to getting a handle on runaway federal spending.