How much will Bush screw you? by Spookyjesus

You do understand that the current program is broken? "Your Promised Annual Social Security Benefit Now" isn't a promise, it's a dream! The Dems are using scare tactics, and making promises that no one can keep. Their beloved "New Deal" is dying!

Sorry, but I'd rather have the money from the "Privatization Plan", than even less that will be there when I retire under the current plan.

The program needs to be fixed, and even though Bush's plan is far from perfect, it's better than ignoring the problem, which is what everyone else has been doing, because it's unpopular.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2005 11:46 AM

RADHIL

The Reps are the ones saying the sky is falling, and the DEMS are using scare tactics?

Up really is down.

No, the promised benefit cannot be guaranteed forever. This is fact. It can only be guaranteed up till about... 2050 or so. And then it only needs to be trimmed, not slashed. But why spoil a lie with too much truth?

See, there's this thing called the trust fund. It's got a great big pile of money built up over years and years in it that's supposed to pay the benefits. Except, all that money was loaned out to all the other areas of the government, using bonds and such. Now those other bits of government don't want to pay it back. Which is why there's a "crisis", because in about a decade that fund will be needed. (crap simplified for the stupid)

There's your scare tactics. And it's all smokescreen and BS anyway - Iraq's still in hell, isn't it? - but everyone's buying the kool-aid anyway and thinking this is the real problem, so I should just shut up.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2005 12:16 PM

Wow, after that load of BS, here's a link to some real facts, straight from the source (crap simplified for the stupid)!

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

According to the SSA's own figures, and I quote:
"Unless changes are made, when you reach age 63 in 2042, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2079 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 33 percent from today's scheduled levels."

If you go back to the link at the top of this thread, and figure your own benefits, you'll see that the privatization plan has better benefit payouts, than the 27 to 33 percent cut in the fantasy numbers the Dems are promising. It's a pay as you go system, and the number of those paying will eventually be to small to cover those recieving payouts from the program.

As far as Radhil's comment about money being loaned out, he got it partially right. The Treasury Dept. does borrow surplus funds, but the ARE paying back, and infact paying over $80 billion in interest on these bonds annually.

More facts from the source:
"Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years from retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates."

As I said earlier, the system is broken (flawed), and pointing it out isn't "Scare Tactics" by the Republicans, but FACT!

Lastly, again from the source:
"If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required. Social Security's Chief Actuary states, "If benefits were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2042 and would rise to 32 percent for 2078. Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2042, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 3.1 percentage points (from 12.4 percent under current law to about 15.5 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional revenue needed for 2043 would be equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percentage points for the year. Thereafter, the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll tax rate of about 5.9 percentage points for 2078 (or about 50 percent higher than today's rate)."

Educate yourself on the facts, ignore the political partisan games from both sides, and write your Reps in Washington about fixing the problem, not resorting to petty scare tactics and empty promises. Both sides are experts at that, and we shouldn't tolerate it anymore!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2005 12:28 PM

RADHIL

Good facts. Very good. You did homework. I'm being honest here - not many do (though I will check on the interest bit - I'm curious as to how it's being paid back, it's a new one on me).

'Cept... I don't see the need to contradict any of that. OK, minor benefit cut, check. SS tax increase, check. If that's what's needed, then why isn't that being done, and why isn't that being planned for? What's the big deal? That sounds like a fair plan for the future already outlined right there, on the SS's own page no doubt. Less to go around, but still effective. So why all this privitization talk?

If I want a private account there are any number of retirement investors who are more than happy to take my money and set up a 401 or IRA or any number of odder and more exotic things. This is standard SOP - SS isn't meant to be sole retirement support, just a minimum guarantee. Why do we need to gut a whole SS system and replace it with something that's already available, and FAR less guaranteed?

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2005 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
Good facts. Very good. You did homework. I'm being honest here - not many do (though I will check on the interest bit - I'm curious as to how it's being paid back, it's a new one on me).

'Cept... I don't see the need to contradict any of that. OK, minor benefit cut, check. SS tax increase, check. If that's what's needed, then why isn't that being done, and why isn't that being planned for? What's the big deal? That sounds like a fair plan for the future already outlined right there, on the SS's own page no doubt. Less to go around, but still effective. So why all this privitization talk?

If I want a private account there are any number of retirement investors who are more than happy to take my money and set up a 401 or IRA or any number of odder and more exotic things. This is standard SOP - SS isn't meant to be sole retirement support, just a minimum guarantee. Why do we need to gut a whole SS system and replace it with something that's already available, and FAR less guaranteed?

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

I agree. I have an IRA, 401K, a few bonds, and investments in the stock market. I think I have my retirement fairly well covered no matter what happens to Social Security. The problem is, millions of people aren't as smart about their future planning as we are. If the Government didn't have a retirement program, many people wouldn't have anything. The fact is, most people are stupid with their money. The majority of Americans are in dept up to their eye balls. Stories of athletes and rap stars blowing millions on "bling", and then going bankrupt when their big money careers dry up, is the norm, not the exception! The system is for those idiots that should know better.

As I said before, the privatization plan isn't perfect, but the payout is better than the 27 to 33 percent drop in benefits the SSA predicts will occur. Is it a perfect solution? NO! Is it better than doing nothing? Probably! Something needs to be done, if not for you or for me, then for those that don't plan ahead properly.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 1:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"The problem is, millions of people aren't as smart about their future planning as we are. If the Government didn't have a retirement program, many people wouldn't have anything. The fact is, most people are stupid with their money...."

Do I detect a whiff of contradiction here? Is THIS why we need a "privatization" plan: so that people who can't save for their retirement now will be able count on even less in the future? As was pointed out- nothing prevents people from saving extra for their retirement right now. But since most people can't manage (in many cases because they are "working poor") the privatization plan really only benefits the rich. Now why doesn't that surprise me???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 6:12 PM

Good stuff. A couple thoughts on some of the things MacBaker wrote.

I've read statements by many politicians saying that social security is in crisis. They are rarely from the left side of the political aisle. They usually point to a date, less than fifteen years in the future, when the money coming in drops below the money being paid out. But that's when we start tapping the trust fund. Something will definitely have to be done at this date, either cutting spending or raising taxes, because there's no way in hell that the government will default on the T-bills in the trust fund (at least I hope not). So anyone that uses this date as a crisis point for social security is being disingenuous. It will be a budgetary problem, but not a social security problem.

As you have correctly pointed out, the real problems start down the road when the trust fund is exhausted. Based on the intermediate estimate of the actuaries this was 2042. This date has been moving further out each year, however. So that problem point is moving away from us. But that's no reason not to make some simple changes that would take care of things.

A simple fix would be to raise (or eliminate) the cap. Right now, any income over a certain level is not taxed for social security. Getting rid of the cap would make social security solvent out to the 75 year analysis limit (as close to forever as we can get). Minimal impact (in terms of the number of people affected). Maximum results (in terms of fixing the problem). Small likelihood of happening.

Even the administration admits that their social security privitization/private accounts/personal accounts plan doesn't fix the problems with social security whatsoever. What it does do is start the phase out process.

So we have people saying that there is a crisis and proposing a solution that does nothing to address the problem. It's really impressive. A majority of the people in this country think social security is a good thing. So they get people afraid by saying there's a crisis. Then they propose a solution. Well who wouldn't want to fix any problems there are with social security? It's a great program. But the proposed solution actually starts dismantling social security. The transition costs to implement carve-out private accounts are so high that we really couldn't turn back once we went down that road. Chutzpah. At least the people supporting Rick Santorum outside one of his events last month were honest when they chanted, "Hey. Ho. Social Security has got to go."

I'd rather see us focus more on medicare or the budget deficit. Those are more immediate problems than social security.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do I detect a whiff of contradiction here? Is THIS why we need a "privatization" plan: so that people who can't save for their retirement now will be able count on even less in the future? As was pointed out- nothing prevents people from saving extra for their retirement right now. But since most people can't manage (in many cases because they are "working poor") the privatization plan really only benefits the rich. Now why doesn't that surprise me???

Less than what? Somehow, the point that the current program can't maintain itself keeps being over looked! If we do nothing, and keep our head buried in the sand, people will end up getting 27 to 33 percent less. Under the proposed privatization plan, the payout is better than that. Now why doesn't your "only benefits the rich", surprise me??? One of the other fixes both sides (Dems and Reps) are pushing for, is getting rid of the exclusion for incomes over $90,000.

Under the current plan, money for Social Security, is only taken out from incomes up to 90,000 dollars. Anything over that, isn't affected. If you make 100,000 dollars a year, only the first 90,000 is calculated for social security, the last 10,000 isn't affected.

If that exclusion is removed, the rich will pay into social security the same way everyone else does, and every dollar they make will get calculated. How does changing social security help the rich. I'm sure they would much rather things stay the same.

No one is saying that privatization is a perfect solution, but it's better than just maintaining the current program, which is in serious trouble. The simple fact that the problem is finally being discussed, is a good thing. Political suicide, but necessary! Hopefully other, better solutions will come out of this, but the easy fix (one that no politician wants to touch), is rasing payroll taxes.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 12:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Good stuff. A couple thoughts on some of the things MacBaker wrote.

I've read statements by many politicians saying that social security is in crisis. They are rarely from the left side of the political aisle. They usually point to a date, less than fifteen years in the future, when the money coming in drops below the money being paid out. But that's when we start tapping the trust fund. Something will definitely have to be done at this date, either cutting spending or raising taxes, because there's no way in hell that the government will default on the T-bills in the trust fund (at least I hope not). So anyone that uses this date as a crisis point for social security is being disingenuous. It will be a budgetary problem, but not a social security problem.

As you have correctly pointed out, the real problems start down the road when the trust fund is exhausted. Based on the intermediate estimate of the actuaries this was 2042. This date has been moving further out each year, however. So that problem point is moving away from us. But that's no reason not to make some simple changes that would take care of things.

A simple fix would be to raise (or eliminate) the cap. Right now, any income over a certain level is not taxed for social security. Getting rid of the cap would make social security solvent out to the 75 year analysis limit (as close to forever as we can get). Minimal impact (in terms of the number of people affected). Maximum results (in terms of fixing the problem). Small likelihood of happening.

Even the administration admits that their social security privitization/private accounts/personal accounts plan doesn't fix the problems with social security whatsoever. What it does do is start the phase out process.

So we have people saying that there is a crisis and proposing a solution that does nothing to address the problem. It's really impressive. A majority of the people in this country think social security is a good thing. So they get people afraid by saying there's a crisis. Then they propose a solution. Well who wouldn't want to fix any problems there are with social security? It's a great program. But the proposed solution actually starts dismantling social security. The transition costs to implement carve-out private accounts are so high that we really couldn't turn back once we went down that road. Chutzpah. At least the people supporting Rick Santorum outside one of his events last month were honest when they chanted, "Hey. Ho. Social Security has got to go."

I'd rather see us focus more on medicare or the budget deficit. Those are more immediate problems than social security.

I wouldn't go that far. Even the SSA admits there is a problem. It not that simplistic, but you are right, it's not going to be a problem for most people. Under the current program, I'll be retired and recieving benefits long before it would seriously effect me, but those under 25 will be affected (like my kids), so I'm concerned.

Again, is privitaztion a cure for social securitys woes? No! Is it better than doing nothing? Seems likely. Can we come up with fixes that are even better? Damn, I hope so!

I agree with you, that we should focus on more immediate problems. my wife is an RN, and we both are concerned at how Medicare is a mess no one seems to know how to fix. Lot's of big talk, but no clear solutions. The budget is a joke, and both sides want to point fingers, but neither side seems to understand that they will have to work together to fix it, or even want to work together on it. Partisain politics are the problem, but even the general public is too split between the parties. The chant from both sides seems to be, "Only MY side can fix it!!!"
We, as a people, need to star demanding that our government (not OUR party), fix Medicare and operate under a balanced budget. Until we do, it's business as usual, and typically, nothing really substantial ever gets done. It's so much easier for the politicians on both sides, to point fingers and blame eveyone else, than to actually have to work!

Sorry, getting down off of my soapbox!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 7:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The program needs to be fixed, and even though Bush's plan is far from perfect, it's better than ignoring (i.e. doing nothing about) the problem, which is what everyone else has been doing, because it's unpopular

Quote:
Again, is privitaztion a cure for social securitys woes? No! Is it better than doing nothing? Seems likely.

Quote:
Somehow, the point that the current program can't maintain itself keeps being over looked! If we do nothing, and keep our head buried in the sand, people will end up getting 27 to 33 percent less.

MacBaker- You keep posing the options of (a) doing nothing or (b) privitzation. Thats a false dilemna. Soupcatcher... and many others, including the Chair of the Board of TIAA... have proposed many workable solutions that would put SS into solvency for the forseeable future. In your NEXT reply, try to NOT say anything about "doing nothing" because that is not is what's on the table, OK? Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
MacBaker- You keep posing the options of (a) doing nothing or (b) privitzation. Thats a false dilemna. Soupcatcher... and many others, including the Chair of the Board of TIAA... have proposed many workable solutions that would put SS into solvency for the forseeable future. In your NEXT reply, try to NOT say anything about "doing nothing" because that is not is what's on the table, OK? Thanks.

Who's being naive here? What exactly is on the table? So far, nothing more than the typical bloated talk from our reps in Washington, plans to fillibuster any attempt at change, and no clear plan. Yes, there are several solutions, but most are career killers, like increasing the payroll tax.

The only plans on the "table" are Status Quo/No Change or Privatization. Neither is a perfect solution (one is no solution at all)! As I said before, hopefully, better ideas will come out of all of this. I also listed other options (ones that currently aren't on the table, but should be). One was removing the exemption for income over $90,000, and the other, increasing payroll taxes. They aren't perfect either, but they would go along way to solving the S.S. problem. Your false claim that I'm only offering two options is fallacious!

The SKY IS FALLING types can calm down, Bush said today he was pulling back on the Privatization plan, and is considering other options. I think his plan all along was to force the issue, and make people in Washington and the public in general, talk about the problem. That seems to have worked! As you can see here, people are talking about it.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:07 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
The majority of Americans are in dept up to their eye balls. Stories of athletes and rap stars blowing millions on "bling", and then going bankrupt when their big money careers dry up, is the norm, not the exception! The system is for those idiots that should know better.

I'm going to burst your bubble but people with big money careers blowing their money on bling is not the norm..not by a longshot..that is the exception..the norm is the average American worker espeically those in poverty who don't have money to save or put into a saving account or IRA at the end of the month because its all gone on rent and food and gas and their children that is the norm, I wouldn't say that most people are stupid about money, mis informed and unaware and driven by a materialistic society that says buy buy buy and consume..if you don't have this car or this pair of tennis shoes, or this computer then your not worth anything...that the norm..

Quote:
Sorry, but I'd rather have the money from the "Privatization Plan", than even less that will be there when I retire under the current plan.

my oh my...

the privatization plan is the worse ever, look into the fees the you would have to pay the brokers...its a ruse and Social security was never meant to be invested in the stock market its a government run social insurance program...its not your money its everybodys and actually we had a surplus of money before Bush came along an war mongered it away...

Social Security may need some fine tuning thanks to Bush and his Admistration..but Privatization isn't the answer and the fact that you would be willing to fall for such a load of Crap is scary...now thats whats scary!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:11 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
If I want a private account there are any number of retirement investors who are more than happy to take my money and set up a 401 or IRA or any number of odder and more exotic things. This is standard SOP - SS isn't meant to be sole retirement support, just a minimum guarantee. Why do we need to gut a whole SS system and replace it with something that's already available, and FAR less guaranteed?

you said it...if that is what needs to be done then do it..why the privatization talk...

I can't believe that some are falling for this crap!! we as Americans cannot be that dumb!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:01 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Social Security may need some fine tuning thanks to Bush and his Admistration..but Privatization isn't the answer and the fact that you would be willing to fall for such a load of Crap is scary...now thats whats scary!!!

You are on crack LOL if you think that 4 years of Bush policy is what drained the coffers of SS. It's more like 40 years of government bureaucracy and spending spending spending.

Finish your highschool education, get married have a couple little ones, learn what it is like to try and provide those "Material" things you seem to despise, for your family by working a crappy job for 50% of the time you are on this Earth. Then tell me how easy it is to get by with just the small things in life and how stupid I am for thinking that SS isn't starting to fall apart.

And for God sakes get off the partisan bandwagon. Clinton said SS needed to be fixed and he is the Democratic Golden Child. There are enough soundbites to show both sides claiming the same thing. One thing I do know for certain is I won't ever be able to retire, particularly if they keep raising the retirement age to keep SS solvent. I just hope I die instantaneously, so I don't have to be a drain on my family or try and live on what little assistance I may be able to "qualify" for after my medical bills and what not eat through what ever savings and investments I manage to have.

You can blame alot on Bush..but SS isn't one of them. Privatization scares the bejeezus out of me, because I trust the government about as far as I can throw Rosie O'donnell. Not at all LOL. I hope it doesn't pass..because it will seperate the poor working man even more.

Someone above had it right..when politicians start working for the us rather then themselves..we might get the straight truth on something.

PS: The American Way - Reactive rather then Proactive.

"It's like a finger pointing at the Moon. If you concentrate on the finger, you miss out on all the Heavenly Glory" - Bruce Lee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:49 AM

I've guess I haven't been clear in my own opinion. I'm not convinced Privatization is any real solution or not. I'm not defending it. I'm defending the belief that SS is in trouble, and it needs to be addressed.

Spookyjesus would like everyone to believe that BUSH WILL SCREW YOU.

Piratejenny want's us to believe BUSH'S WAR MACHINE HAS STOLEN FUNDS FROM SS.

Both beliefs are falacious, but typical of rants from Bush bashers. To be fair, I've seen similar tactics used by Clinton bashers when he was in office.

The truth is much more complex. Here's an article covering the "offical" non-partisan review of Socal Security. Yes, it states clearly that Bush's Privatization plan isn't the answer, but it also points fingers at the Democrats for their plan to cut benefits.

If those were the only choices, I'd take Privatization over cuts to benefits. Fortunately, those aren't the only choices out there, and now that the issue is being discussed (Bush's real plan all along, IMHO), hopefully a better solution will come from all of this.

Read it, educate yourself of the facts, and decide for yourself. Then, instead of impotent ranting here, write your reps in Washington, and tell them what you think.

GAO Official: No Crisis in Social Security - AP
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Social Security "does not face an immediate crisis," the head of the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday, but it does face a long-term financing problem "and it would be prudent to address it sooner rather than later."

David M. Walker, who heads the nonpartisan Office of Comptroller General, also criticized President Bush for undertaking an aggressive two-month tour to try to sell his plan for allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Walker suggested that Bush and members of Congress focus on improving financing for the program, which would not be significantly affected by establishment of personal accounts.

The testimony launched formal debate, before the House Ways and Means Committee, on Capitol Hill over Bush's plan to overhaul the federal retirement plan that began as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's post-Depression era "New Deal."

"I would have done it differently, I would have done it differently," Walker said, under aggressive questioning by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the top Democrat on the panel. In his opening statement, Rangel declared, "Private accounts will not be on the table if you are looking for bipartisanship."

The panel's chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said in his opening remarks, "Clearly, the current program, because the American population has changed, is not sustainable based on the old method of financing."

Noting that Congress has not changed the program since 1983, the chairman also chided Democrats for opposing any potential cut in retiree benefits.

"In 1983, under the Democrat leadership, the solution included cutting benefits," Thomas said, adding that tax increases were also part of the 1980s remedy.

With polls showing that people are nervous about future financial shortfalls in the program, House Republicans intended to devote their first hearing to that rather than Bush's less popular idea of private accounts. Nonetheless, the partisan views surfaced in the hearing's opening minutes.

The trustees for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are expected to release their 2005 report on the long-term financial outlook of government programs later this month. Two trustees who appeared at the hearing, Thomas R. Saving of Texas and John L. Palmer of New York, said there have been no major changes in the program's demographics or financial outlook during the past year, but they joined Walker in urging immediate action on long-term program financing.

"We believe that action on it should not be deferred any longer than necessary for due deliberation and decision," the two said in a joint statement released before their formal testimony. "Also, acting sooner rather than later will allow time to spread the burden of any changes across different age groups."

In his remarks, Walker said: "Social Security doesn't face an immediate crisis," but he added, "Time is working against us. The sooner you act, the less dramatic the changes that have to be made."

New Republican polling data shows "there is a rejection of the term `crisis' as an accurate description of the state of the Social Security system, and this rejection increases in intensity as the respondents get older," according to a copy of a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The analysis was based on 14 focus groups held last month in scattered locations paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House GOP.

Older voters view a candidate's views on Social Security to be "as important, or in some cases, more important than issues like the war, health care and education," the pollsters wrote.

When focus groups are given information about Bush's plan, "the written description of the personal retirement account proposal creates majority support among all age groups (including 51 percent favor among seniors)," the memo says.

It also says public knowledge of the plan is sketchy and about half the "facts" that people recited about the plan were incorrect.

Social Security provides retirement, survivors and disability income for 47.7 million Americans, and Medicare provides health care to 42 million seniors and disabled people.

Last year, the trustees estimated that in 2018, the Social Security trust fund would begin taking in less payroll tax revenue than it needs to pay retiree benefits. The trustees estimate that by 2042, the trust fund will be empty and program will have only annual payroll taxes to pay benefits.

Bush has promised that any changes will not affect Americans 55 or older, but he advocates allowing younger workers to divert up to two-thirds of their Social Security taxes into personal accounts in exchange for a reduction in their guaranteed benefit. Supporters argue investment returns will exceed the guaranteed benefit they agree to forgo.

The proposal has been condemned by the AARP, a seniors lobby, and many Democrats, who argue the system can be tweaked to extend its solvency and that investment accounts are more risky than a guaranteed government benefit."

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:52 PM

One of the names from the article you mentioned jumped out at me, Thomas Saving. I'm not sure if this is a conflict of interest but he's also joined the group Progress for America, which is a 501c4 astroturf group working to privitize Social Security.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3056334

Is it a problem when a Social Security trustee is also working with a group whose stated goal is carving out private accounts from Social Security?

* hat tip to Josh Marshall for the heads up

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:01 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

good one here

Quote:
...

Suckered in by Osama, into occupying Iraq, US is on the decline; a new president might have realized that another Vietnam is in the making, and gotten out quickly.

Ban on stem cell research and "gay" marriages reminds me of authoratian religious regimes that the US wants to change in the Middle East.

Religion USA versus Religion Islam ?

I don't know if things are so bad, but here's more news

Bush wants
Regime change at the World Bank
There has been a cool response to President Bush's nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to be the next head of the World Bank, a key development agency.
Mr Wolfowitz, 61, currently US Deputy Defence Secretary, has a reputation as a "neo-conservative" hawk and was a key architect of the Iraq war.
News of his candidacy brought criticism from aid agencies and faint praise from several European government ministers.
Mr Bush described Mr Wolfowitz as a "compassionate, decent man".
French and German ministers were guarded in their reaction, while Sweden's foreign minister said she was sceptical about the nomination.

Aid agencies and development experts lined up to criticise the nomination.

A British-based campaign group, the World Development Movement, described the nomination as a "truly terrifying appointment".
Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner and a former World Bank chief economist, said: "Choosing the right general in the war against poverty will not assure victory, but choosing the wrong one surely increases the chances of failure."
Greenpeace, ActionAid, and Oxfam were among other critics.

Bogus News from Bush reminds some of communist propaganda
administration officials say new Pentagon office should not be allowed to tell lies to promote American views overseas; office has come under criticism, the military is thinking of planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media. A new department has been set up inside the Pentagon with the Orwellian title of the Office of Strategic Influence
propaganda efforts come under increased scrutiny
Media Matters noted a Sebastian Mallaby column in The Washington Post that relied heavily on a deeply flawed study to make the case for "tort reform."

The New York Times joined the fray on January 12, offering an article about efforts at the state level to limit civil litigation. Unfortunately, in reporter James Dao's 1,100-plus word article, only three sentences detailed the reasons to oppose such efforts. That imbalance was unfortunately representative of the whole article. While the article contained quotes from three advocates of lawsuit limits, it contained a quote from only one opponent -- and that was in the last sentence. On several occasions, the article repeated as fact claims from those who support limiting lawsuits -- but failed to provide specifics.

George W. Bush said the U.S. government's practice of sending packaged news stories to local television stations was fine and he had no plans to stop it.
His defense of the packages, which are designed to look like television news segments, came after they were deemed a form of covert propaganda by the Government Accountability Office watchdog agency.

Among the packages the GAO looked at was one produced by the Health and Human Services Department to promote the Medicare prescription drug law. The story included a paid actor who narrated the piece in a similar style to the way a television reporter would.

"The entire story package was developed with appropriated funds but appears to be an independent news story," the agency said.

It added that some stations were airing such pieces without a disclaimer saying they were produced by the government.

Bush said government agencies, such as the Agriculture Department and the Department of Defense, had been producing such videos for a long time and he said it was appropriate so long as they were "based upon a factual report."

He said it was up to the local news stations to disclose that the segments were produced by the government.

It was not the first time the Bush administration has been criticized for blurring the line between media and government. Earlier this year, the Education Department acknowledged that it paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind Act.

CREW has now filed FOIAs with 22 agencies requesting copies of all contracts with public relation firms, including Ketchum and Fleishman-Hillard. Both firms have contracted with the government resulting in similar controversies, and in violation of the Publicity and Propaganda clause. The Williams case is the fourth that has become public. Previously, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticized the Department of Health and Human Services for having Ketchum create fake news footage in support of the new Medicare Bill. GAO is also investigating another contract between Ketchum and DOE and a contract between the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Fleischman-Hillard [sic].
"This type of covert propaganda, [sic] has no place in a healthy democracy," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said
"It is particularly outrageous that the government continues to engage in this sort of illegal activity despite the fact that the GAO has said that it is illegal."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Bush will screw us as much as we let him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bush will screw us as much as we let him.

If by "screw" you mean "boldly lead us into a new age of prosperity and security both at home and abroad and despite the duel challenge of international terrorism and domestic obstructionism", then you are correct, God willing.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
If by "screw" you mean "boldly lead us into a new age of properity and security both at home and abroad and despite the duel challenge of international terrorism and domestic obstructionism", then you are correct, God willing.

Wow. I don't think I've ever come across anything so deluded from a person who's not on thorazine.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
If by "screw" you mean "boldly lead us into a new age of properity and security both at home and abroad and despite the duel challenge of international terrorism and domestic obstructionism", then you are correct, God willing.
Wow. I don't think I've ever come across anything so deluded from a person who's not on thorazine.

Look in a mirror.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:21 PM

I remember reading the NYTimes piece about government created news spots, JaynezTown. There's just so much that is wrong with that practice (from hiring public relations firms with taxpayer money to create "news releases" all the way to the local news stations that run those clips without attribution). This is just an ugly immoral and unethical tactic (and, another example of something Clinton initiated and Bush perfected). And the claim that it's entirely the fault of the news organizations is ludicrous. It's like saying, "It's not my fault that person got killed. I just left the loaded gun out in plain sight and walked away."

A healthy democracy needs a press that is independent of government, not complicit in spreading propaganda. (And don't even get me started on the other use of these created "news segments", to serve as product placement).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hero,

Find a quote from me as over-the-top as yours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2005 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hero,

Find a quote from me as over-the-top as yours.

Ok:

Quote:

Wow. I don't think I've ever come across anything so deluded from a person who's not on thorazine.

Your quote isn't as good as mine, I admit, but its probably the best you can do. All I did was state my opinion, that being 'the President is a force for positive change both at home and abroad'. You disagree, but its not a matter of delusion, its a differance of opinion. I respect your opinion as to the President, but take issue with your comment about me.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2005 9:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Which brings me to the nature of reality....

We all have opinions. But some opinions more accurately reflect reality than others. A opinion that 2+2=5 is simply not borne out in the real world. Unless you want to deny the existance of reality (and that IS a valid philosophical approach) opinions eventually get thrown against the wall of reality to see what sticks. In other words- don't be surprised, offended, or hurt if your opinion is evaluated for the amount of reality it contains. "Just an opinion" is not a protection.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2005 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Which brings me to the nature of reality....

We all have opinions. But some opinions more accurately reflect reality than others. A opinion that 2+2=5 is simply not borne out in the real world. Unless you want to deny the existance of reality (and that IS a valid philosophical approach) opinions eventually get thrown against the wall of reality to see what sticks. In other words- don't be surprised, offended, or hurt if your opinion is evaluated for the amount of reality it contains. "Just an opinion" is not a protection.

The difference of opinion is not whether or not 2 + 2 = 4 (or 5)...nobody is arguing that. What it really comes down to is an argument about the value of "2". But in my experiance, most liberals can't count. To them more is less and less is more. Example, increased education funding that is a "cut" and election results that favor Republicans.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2005 5:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Hero"
In my hospital jobs I've dealt with people on Thorazine, so I know how they talk. And your statement

Quote:
If by "screw" you mean "boldly lead us into a new age of properity and security both at home and abroad and despite the duel challenge of international terrorism and domestic obstructionism", then you are correct, God willing.

sounds a lot like what I've heard from those very same people on Thorazine. I wasn't making an unfounded comparison.

Now, you're exact quote (above) is different from

Quote:
'the President is a force for positive change both at home and abroad.'

It's possible to be a force for positive change and not actually make positive change. It's possible to make positive change but not necessarily lead the US into

Quote:
a new age of properity and security both at home and abroad

Are you already backing away from your over-the-top statements?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2005 11:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If by "screw" you mean "boldly lead us into a new age of prosperity and security both at home and abroad and despite the duel challenge of international terrorism and domestic obstructionism", then you are correct, God willing.

H

I was curious, Hero, when I read this statement and it raised a couple of questions. Do you see international terrorism and domestic obstructionism as equivalent threats? Or, in other words, do you equate international terrorists with domestic obstructionists in terms of their goals and potential for harming this country? Or, maybe a better way to go about this, how would you define a domestic obstructionist? Is it just someone who disagrees with the President on policy and is working to implement alternative policies, or is there more?

Why I'm curious is because, for the most part, I disagree with the President on issues of policy. And so I'm wondering if you would lump me in with international terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2005 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Hero"
In my hospital jobs I've dealt with people on Thorazine, so I know how they talk. And your statement...sounds a lot like what I've heard from those very same people on Thorazine. I wasn't making an unfounded comparison.

I deal with people like you every day as well. They practice a legal tradition known simply as "bullshit". There you liberals go again. Anybody who holds an opinion you don't agree with needs to be "medicated". Anybody who says something you don't like needs "treatment". Your approach starts in grade school with the excuse of ADD to create docile children, then you systematically seek to eliminate competitive instincts, later in life depression gives you the excuse to control. Next thing you know we live in a society of sheep, victims just waiting to be led.

By your standard the 52% of American who voted for the President need to be "controlled" by those of you enlightened enough to know what's best for us. Better call the opinion police cause thats one pill I aint gonna swallow.

Quote:

It's possible to be a force for positive change and not actually make positive change.

Yeah, its like getting your car stuck in the mud. The President is trying to drive the car out of the mud, thus making him a force for positive change, and the mud (ie the liberal Bush-haters) are trying to prevent the President from getting the car unstuck. Hmmm...thats a good analogy since the mud is not only responsible for creating the problem (being stuck) it also opposes efforts to solve the problem. Thank God our President's a rancher from Texas, I bet he knows a thing or two about digging his truck out of the mud. (I'm a lawyer from Ohio, so I buy an SUV and then, if I still get stuck, sue somebody for the costs of getting me out.)

Quote:
Are you already backing away from your over-the-top statements?

Nah, I'm just getting started. You guys are suffering from a lack of vision. Same problem many of you had in 1985. Back then Reagan was heading us down a path towards armageddon by confronting the Soviets. Back then the problem was fear, fear of nuclear war (which is healthy) and fear that ultimately the American system was inferior (which was wrong). Many of those same fears are around today. People fear the conflict of this terror war (and rightly so), but they also either believe or fear that the American system of liberty is the problem (preferring instead the European system that tends to cause World Wars and colonialism, or even the Arabic system of 15th Century values of religious tolerance and social justice...some prefer the Chinease system of State slavery, but those people need Thorazine).

So, is the President building a better world? Yes. But not in the way you think. We, that is red-state Americans are building the better world, same as we've been doing since before the American nation existed. There have always been those who said "no" and "stop", but if we listened to you there'd be a picture of Queen Elizabeth on my computer wallpaper, instead of President Bush taking his 2nd Oath of office.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2005 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

I was curious, Hero, when I read this statement and it raised a couple of questions. Do you see international terrorism and domestic obstructionism as equivalent threats?

Naw. Its like like comparing apples to ants (not oranges). The War on Terror is the dominant world issue. Domestic obstructionism is a dominant domestic issue (I say this becaue it effects in some way every other domestic issue). Its like State and Federal court. In state court we litigate some issues, in Federal we litigate others, there is some overlap, but for the most part they are seperate and distinct. That might not be clear, so I will say that domestic obstructionists are not on the same level of international terrorists. However I do believe that their efforts have, at very specific times and for the most part unintentionally, served to aid the international terrorist agenda (for example, I think domestic and international opposition to the Iraq war, hey 2 years today, helped cause the very war they were trying to prevent by creating in Saddam a lack of understanding about the President's resolve and ability to see it through).

Quote:

Why I'm curious is because, for the most part, I disagree with the President on issues of policy. And so I'm wondering if you would lump me in with international terrorists.

Generally no. Disagreement with the President does not a terrorist make.

All terrorists disagree with the President. Jack is a terrorist, therefore Jack must disagree with the President. Jill disagrees with the President, is Jill a terrorist? Maybe. But given the proportion of terrorists to nonterrorists, I'd say Jill likely isnt a terrorist, so we need more information to make a full determination...thats what the Patriot Act is for.

Now speaking specifically about you...yeah, your probably a terrorist. I urge you to turn yourself in. As a Government attorney I promise you good treatment

a fair trial

and swift execution

.

Remember to tell them I sent you, I need the reward money to pay my student loans, stupid govt salary...well you get the idea.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2005 8:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
So, is the President building a better world? Yes. But not in the way you think.

I'm sure you will point to the progress you think has been made, but not to any caveats, costs, or problems.
For example, I'm sure you believe Russians are better off under gangster-capitalism, since you alluded to that in your post. But you will neglect to note the 20+ year drop in lifespan the new economy caused. It was those economic conditions which handed "KGB" Putin his base.
So no, I don't see attaining an ideological goal as getting to a better world. I look for bottom-line real-world results, with accounting for both pluses and minuses.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You're a government attorney??? YIKES! When I see you make a breathless transition from the statement

"You sound like you're medicated" (paraphrase)

to

"You need to be mediated" (paraphrased from "Anybody who holds an opinion you don't agree with needs to be medicated"

I seriously, and I mean seriously, wonder about your grip on logic. How DID you get from the first statement to the second?? Please, explain in detail, you really lost me there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2005 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
So, is the President building a better world? Yes. But not in the way you think.
I'm sure you will point to the progress you think has been made, but not to any caveats, costs, or problems.
For example, I'm sure you believe Russians are better off under gangster-capitalism, since you alluded to that in your post. But you will neglect to note the 20+ year drop in lifespan the new economy caused. It was those economic conditions which handed "KGB" Putin his base.
So no, I don't see attaining an ideological goal as getting to a better world. I look for bottom-line real-world results, with accounting for both pluses and minuses.

"Pluses and minuses", seems to you that the pluses don't count if there are minues (unless Clinton is President, then its the other way around).

Hmmm...sounds like your just a 'glass half empty' kind of guy. When I hear "American Revolution" I think liberty, you think Articles of Confederation. When I hear "Abe Lincoln" I think freed slaves, you think about, I don't know, maybe the draft (first one you know). "World War 2", thats the liberation of Europe and Japan or maybe justice for the murdered Jews, you think atomic arms race. "Collapse of Soviet Communism", thats the triumph of liberty, you see growing pains.

I know that sells you short. You see more then just one bad thing, you choose to see all bad things, at the expense of any good things or the overall good thing. Your one of those people who can't enjoy the forest because somebody stuck all those damn trees in the way.

To suggest the liberty is responsible for Russian corruption is a fundamental misubderstanding of the Soviet system. The life expectancy was not longer under Soviet rule. A person's life expectancy was only so long as the Soviet government allowed you to live...no longer. The corruption that existed after the fall was not new, it was systemic under the Soviet system, part and parcel, and when the government collapsed, the corruption lost its "cover".

Liberty is not the cause, its the solution, but our own experiance has taught us that liberty is a process, not an instant fix.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2005 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
Naw. Its like like comparing apples to ants (not oranges). The War on Terror is the dominant world issue. Domestic obstructionism is a dominant domestic issue (I say this becaue it effects in some way every other domestic issue). Its like State and Federal court. In state court we litigate some issues, in Federal we litigate others, there is some overlap, but for the most part they are seperate and distinct. That might not be clear, so I will say that domestic obstructionists are not on the same level of international terrorists.

I’m interpreting that when you say domestic obstructionist you are referring to those who are working against the implementation of Bush’s stated policy objectives. Maybe another word to use could be a loyal opposition. I doubt that you think Bush is infallible, so I’m sure you agree that at some point what he thinks is good for this country might not actually be good for the majority of Americans, or even a minority. I doubt that you are arguing that we should give Bush carte blanche since I think we agree that no human being is perfect. The conservatives I know had, at least at one time, a healthy skepticism of big government and a healthy respect for patriotic dissent. I take you to be a conservative like that. Although I could be wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time. Maybe you do think that all Americans should agree wholeheartedly with every single goal of this administration and that anyone who feels differently is a traitor. I give you more credit, however.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
However I do believe that their efforts have, at very specific times and for the most part unintentionally, served to aid the international terrorist agenda (for example, I think domestic and international opposition to the Iraq war, hey 2 years today, helped cause the very war they were trying to prevent by creating in Saddam a lack of understanding about the President's resolve and ability to see it through).

Your interpretation sure gives a lot of power to those who opposed the Iraq War. I did not realize that our actions were so pivotal and actually succeeded in altering the course of two nations. But I think you’re reading events incorrectly. Another interpretation is that Hussein felt he couldn’t allow his neighbors to learn he had limited offensive capabilities and that Bush, and his advisors, were determined to invade Iraq no matter what the outcome of the inspections (not for WMDs, not for al Qaeda ties, not because al Qaeda would get WMD from Hussein to attack the domestic US, but instead to start a domino effect of democracy in the Middle East – the PNAC goals. Whether or not the US should be involved in forcibly creating democracies around the globe is a question for debate – I come down on the side that we shouldn’t). The millions of people who protested pre-invasion worldwide had no impact whatsoever on the actions of Bush and Hussein. What did have an impact was the personality of the two men: stubbornness and egotism on the part of Hussein and a strong and resolute belief in his own intuition on the part of Bush. From the second Congress passed the resolution there was no doubt that we were going to war with Iraq, at least in my mind. My personal opinion, which I took to the streets with before the invasion, was that invading Iraq was a distraction from our efforts in Afghanistan going after al Qaeda – a fight against an already identified enemy who had attacked us on our own soil. At the time, I felt that we should be going full force in Afghanistan. Now, I just want us to get Iraq into a stable enough situation so that we can bring our troops home. In other words, I’m hoping and praying for a good outcome to a bad decision.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
Generally no. Disagreement with the President does not a terrorist make.

All terrorists disagree with the President. Jack is a terrorist, therefore Jack must disagree with the President. Jill disagrees with the President, is Jill a terrorist? Maybe. But given the proportion of terrorists to nonterrorists, I'd say Jill likely isnt a terrorist, so we need more information to make a full determination...thats what the Patriot Act is for.

Keeping America safe while protecting the civil liberties of all Americans is hard work. This isn’t Democratic-Republics for Dummies, we’re running a cutting-edge post-graduate level country here. And we’re a work in progress. Sure, it would be easier to limit some of our freedoms so that we could be safer. Sure, the job of law enforcement would be easier if we didn’t have to worry about probable cause, and invasion of privacy, and the right to a speedy trial, and the right to representation, and other notions like that. Sure things would be easier if we moved in the direction of a police state. Bush was right when he said that things would be a heckuva lot easier if this was a dictatorship. But we’re Americans, damnit. We don’t do things the easy way. We’re not lazy, sniveling cowards willing to sell out the blood and sweat of past generations for a perception of security. Maintaining liberty and justice for all in the presence of a terrorist threat is hard work. But we’re up to that challenge. We can meet this threat without trampling our civil rights. Onward. Forward. Upward. Not backward.

On a lighter note…

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
Now speaking specifically about you...yeah, your probably a terrorist. I urge you to turn yourself in. As a Government attorney I promise you good treatment a fair trial and swift execution .

Remember to tell them I sent you, I need the reward money to pay my student loans, stupid govt salary...well you get the idea.

H

You want me to do all the work for you? You looking for a hand out? You think you deserve to get a reward for doing nothing? What kind of a librul are you? TANSTAAFL!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:07 PM