You Know What’s Disgusting?
Hopefully you guys won’t mind a shameless plug for my blog at:
http://tuffbeingright.blogspot.com
Which included a commentary on January 4th, titled “Social Insecurity” that included the following, fairly obvious statement:
“This should explain why Ted Kennedy, Bella Pelosi, and every other leeching liberal politician hates the idea of a privatized social security account for American workers. It has nothing to do with your best interest. It has everything to do with politicians giving up revenues that are suddenly removed from the black box of government control and influence and placed into an account - your account. Who knows, people may start getting the nutty idea that they, not Congress, control their destiny.”
The full article is at:
http://tuffbeingright.blogspot.com/2005/01/january-4-2005-social-insecurity.html
(Check it out. I know the author - he’s a genius!)
Last night, if you watched the State of the Union address, you heard President Bush say:
“Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver, and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and—or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4476370
The camera shot after that last sentence - “And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away” - spoke more than the required 1,000 words. Every Republican stood and cheered - every Democrat silently pouted like bad children who just had their chocolate chip entitlement cookie taken away.
The Democrats are dead. Dead in the water. Dead on a stick. Dead. Dead. Dead.
Only a politician can screw up the momentum the Republicans have built.
How do I know the Democrats are dead?
Because rigor mortis set in on Nancy Pelosi during her rebuttal.
Because Democrats are focusing on the “torture” of terrorists in Iraq. “Torture” that includes having female interrogators prance around in short skirts rubbing their boobs against them. The last time I was “tortured” like that was at my stag.
Because Kerry and Kennedy said our military is part of the problem in Iraq and their election should not be over-hyped.
Even Hillary Clinton is making superficial gestures towards the center.
Dead. Dead. Dead.
Hi all,
I believe the outrage ocurred when Bush lied in saying that in 2042 the system would be “bankrupt”. It’s not the sex, folks, it’s the LYING. If left untouched, it is possible that at around 2050 (new estimate pushed it out a decade), revenues would not match benefits. Incidentally, this makes SS more secure than any other gov’t program, because it has a couple trillion in assets and combined with revenue is set for decades—not true of defense or any other program.The other side of the outrage is the deception about the proposed plan. If you take the time to study the proposed plan, you realize that in addition to causing a couple trillion in borrowing just up to 2015 (when it goes up dramatically!!!), the plan calls for decreasing benefits, and a little detail called benefit offset, which means… you lose. Even the MSM occasionally notices:
Even more curiously, a “senior administration official” who briefed reporters on the Social Security proposal earlier today disclosed details of the White House plan that I don’t think will play well in Peoria. Most significantly, this official revealed that most or all of the earnings from new “personal” or privatized accounts will be paid not to the holder of the account, but to the government. The senior official called this a “benefit offset.” It’s one way to finance the creation of these private accounts, but it’s going to cause quite a political stir, I think.
Source for quote aboveThe restrictions on the private accounts are outrageous, and the benefits accrue to the gov’t. Learn and weep, or fight this crazy super-expensive borrow-till-we-die plan. The numbers don’t add up.
Got it? It’s not my ideology or anyone else’s that is relevant here, it’s that the MATH DOES NOT ADD UP.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 09:38 AM
So what are you suggesting? Roll back the Bush tax cuts and leave well enough alone??
Read up:
Bush’s Social Security plan akin to a loan. Participants Would Forfeit Part of Accounts’ ProfitsBush’s plan is a twist on the Ponzi scheme. Now the gov’t (us) get to BORROW trillions in order to afford… same or lower benefits!!!
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 09:51 AM
What gets me is that all those folks under 55 are still paying the higher FICA tax recommended by Alan Greenspan as head of a committee back in the 80s to forestall the clear problems of the boomer retirement numbers.
And the workers went along with it for the last couple decades as necessary to maintain benefits.
And it worked, because the surplus is still increasing annually in preparation, which is why SS is solvent till 2050 OR MORE, according to best projections. To reduce the benefits for those paying the higher rate so many years is dishonest.
To increase the federal deficit with further borrowing puts a double whammy on the younger generation.
To have workers pay the higher rate, AND increase the debt load per person, AND REDUCE BENEFITS while maintaining a cap on gains (see above) is triply dishonest.
The problem is that there is not ENOUGH outrage, yet.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 10:38 AM
stick to the farm, catman. stay away from the news, it will only frighten you.
I read your article tubino. It does not look good, but I take everything from the W-Post with a grain of salt.
So again, what are suggesting as a solution - if anything?
You are learnin’ you left-wing-Socialist-fruitcake tubino. The Prez prefers to change the name from privitization to personalization with mega options. So thank you for saying “Personal Accounts”.
The other thing the Prez insists on is the term “Ponzi Scheme” like Vilmar did and you repeated, so that’s good too. May I suggest you also include the eye openin’ Polling that more young people believe in UFOs than Social Security being there for them. UFO polling always means a lot.
OH - new polling indicates 30% of young liberals believe in Personalization of Social Security with Mega Options, you know, FDIC Insured or mutual funds.
So as everyone ages the Democrats become merely a bad nightmare, that has long ago lost every congresscritter they ever had, and the name Democrat can only be found in American history books of the future, or as American slang meaning dead smelly rat.
Social Security is a racist biggotted Ponzi Scheme that needs to be put down - bad, for the sake of poor Black women who need their dead husband’s “Personalized Account” instead of giving all the money back to the government who give it to those who live the longest - old White women, like my 81 year old MOM. Sure she is a Liberal because she only watches CNN.
E.D Hill today on Fox News said, “Payroll taxes are like 6%.” Wake up you tricky ED, Payroll tax for a self employed person is 15.3%
PLUS - Brian said, “Everybody knows Social Security will not be there when the young retire.” That’s a pretty bold statement Brian. I think Social Security will be there in 50 years but it won’t be enough to pay your cell phone bill.
Hey tubino, ask a young person, “You know that money they take out of your paycheck and send to Washinton D.C. - Never to be seen again - How would you like the option of sending that money to your bank in what’s called a “Personalized Account with Mega Options” which means you can invest the money in mutual funds too?
If you ask the question exactly like that 100% say they prefer President Bush’s Option. I tell them just vote against all Democrats - OK? Usually they say, “You got it dog.” It’s the way you ask these polling questions that are important.
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 10:43 AM
My point is that you have no point. Statement like:
...and the rich wil get richer and the poor with get poorer!
- and:
It is a numbers game with unpredictible results, so do not risk pushing some retirees lower on the poverty scale!
...are whining, meaningless drivel. I suspect you are at the age where you are guaranteed your SS benefits. I am not. W’s plan may not be the best, but at least someone is addressing this archaic ponzi scheme without sucking more tax money from me as a knee-jerk fix-all a la Teddy K.
You are spouting the mantra of victimhood. It is getting quite boring.
Z Woof shows that his faith-baseed understanding is completely OFF BASE. Read the details on the Prez plan to see why his piratization scheme means you can’t possibly win, and are guaranteed to lose on inreasing debt.
But he’s right that polls show that a large majority of young people are now brainwashed to believe that if nothing is done, somehow all that money being paid in ... magically vanishes. It’s astounding, but the percentage (high 70s, IIRC) is very similar to the number who became convinced that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
So, yes, the morons can be made to believe utter nonsense, and we will pay the price.
Thanks for making my point, Z Woof.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 10:59 AM
Catman the average lifespan of a Black man is below Social Security’s starting date of 67 years of age for younger workers. So many Black males pay Social Security taxes their whole life then die before their wifes get a penny. Their children don’t get the money.
Social Security keeps the Blacks poor and on the Plantation and Personalized Accounts will turn many Black women into millionaires in retirement. So says the beautiful Star Parker in her new book.
Catman are you a Democrat and a member of the KKK who want’s to leave the present RASCIST Social Security in place without reforms, you cold hearted liberal fruitcake.
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 11:01 AM
tuffbeinright,
The president’s scheme is like saying, the boat will start leaking in a few decades, maybe.
So let’s drill some holes in the boat for the water to drain out.
He wants to use the looming DEFICIT crisis (no SS crisis) as a reason to BORROW LOTS MORE MONEY.
You are deluded if you think the free lunch scheme works forever. It WILL have economic effects on all of us.
Borrow-and-spend Republicanism makes Kennedy’s tax-and-spend look fiscally responsible.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 11:02 AM
Tubino - what do you suggest for a solution? Unless you are busy typing something reasonable, I am starting to believe your solution is higher taxes on whitey.
I see no solution yet Tubino. Maybe you should head over to catman’s farm and feed his goldfish.
I am viewing you with less and less credibility as you continue to go solutionless.
I was initially upset that the Democrats booed and hissed the President while he spoke of his social security plan. Aside from a general lack of respect (which, admittedly, is hard for most children to learn), I noticed it shined a klieglight onto the distrust dems have for the people they claim to care so much about. They don’t want you to make your own decisions about your future, that’s what they’re for!
They also don’t want you to remember that socialism needs a slave class.
So, I stopped being upset and was actually glad that they pissed and moaned. President Bush has consistently let them shoot themselves in the foot by just letting them be themselves. What a genius! Now, I revel in the giant sucking sound the dems make as they circle the drain faster and faster.Posted by Riggs
02/03/2005 at 11:08 AM
Hot damn! This has got to be the best, most rip-roarin’ debate I’ve ever seen on this board!
As for my opinion? SocSec pays what, 1% return? And Mutual Funds, IRA, private investment in stocks/bonds returns on average 8% over a 20-year period? At least that is the number that keeps popping up in my head. Do the math.
One shouldn’t put all their eggses in one basket like Social Security. Likewise, when you invest, you most definitely DO NOT put all your eggses in the same single basket...you spread it out among stocks, bonds, annuities, etc. Vilmar’s post on the subject says a lot more than I can!
In short, I want a shot at prosperity when I grow older and I know damn well the GIANT GOVERNMENT TIT isn’t going to provide it!
tuffbeingright,
You ask for a solution. I would start by asking, what is the problem you want to solve? If the problem is that there is a gov’t program that appears to be adequately funded through the baby boomer retirement hump (by 2050, a lot of them will be dead),and successful programs are perceived as BAD, then I suggest wrecking the program by diverting funds ASAP. The President’s plan is good for this.
Seriously, the solutions are many:
Means-testing
Limit TYPE of benefit
Incrase immigration
Increase minimum wage, which increase FICA revenue
Whatever is done, the numbers have to add up. Borrowing more money on an annual basis for the foreseeable future, to the tune of hundreds of bilions of dollars, to “solve” the deficit problem is worse than silly.
Whatever is done, we should look at other countries and learn what doesn’t work and why.
Whatever is done should
Whatever is done, should be done honestly, openly, and without deception.
So far, all I see is the groundwork for an enormous bait-and-switch that will vastly increase the federal deficit.
Read the articles. I posted LOTS on this topic earlier…
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 11:17 AM
Tubs,
what is the problem you want to solve?
...A bloated government controlling my money.
Seriously, the solutions are many:
Means-testing
...not for me comrade. “To each according to their needs” does not fly. If you put more into SS, then you should get more out. Charity is charity. Don’t penalize me for working while others slack.
Incrase immigration
...I have no problem with controlled legal immigration, but as far as I see it, the current immigration (legal and otherwise) is more of a drain than anything.
Increase minimum wage, which increase FICA revenue
...and kills small business
Whatever is done, we should look at other countries and learn what doesn’t work and why.
...Like who? France?
Whatever is done, should be done honestly, openly, and without deception.
...agreed. Don’t hold your breath though.
So far, all I see is the groundwork for an enormous bait-and-switch that will vastly increase the federal deficit.
...I never trust ‘da gummint.’ Which is why it needs to be limited to the greatest extent possible without compromising nat’l security.
Read the articles. I posted LOTS on this topic earlier…
...can’t, I have a job.
Most of the solutions you suggest sound (to me) like more problems.
The democrats are an absolute disgrace to the nation. Their childish behaviour, and lack of showing even a remote amount of respect for the occasion tells me and the rest of the world that they are total losers.
I also find it sad that anyone expects the *u&king tax payers/government to take care of them in their old age. Screw everyone who cries about social security. If you waste all your earnings while you work, and try to live beyond your own means, then it isn’t my *u$king fault you can’t afford your cat food and tylenol.
SS wouldn’t be in half the wrecked condition it is, if we weren’t spending tens and hundreds of thousands annually on drunks claiming they are ‘disabled’ by their acoholism and can’t work. Wow! What a deal that is. Get tired of working? No problem! Just start drinking..stay drunk..do some drugs..after 18 months of unemployment because you’re a loser, you’ll get disability from SS!
Yeah, we need to keep funding this sort of shit.
Posted by radtec
02/03/2005 at 11:53 AM
Tubs,
I asked about your Wash Post article on Larry Kudlow’s blog:
http://lkmp.blogspot.com/2005/02/sotu.html
Here is a response-
First - to the responses above -
The article referenced above by Jonathan Weisman of the Post, relying on a Brookings analysis, if correct (and I haven’t looked at the plan), is couched in such a way as to imply that private accounts would mostly not accrue to the accountholder/investor, but rather to the government. What he means is that:
a) if you were to continue to get full payout from SS as if you had not invested anything in a personal account; and
b) if payout schedules are such that they are strictly based on a percentage of your donations (they are not that way - people receive a stock amount, regardless of whether they contributed millions or very little;[variances occur due to when elections are made to receive payments, etc.])then - go Messrs. Weisman and Orszag - you would only be entitled to receive, as personal returns, that amount which exceeds the assumed underlying return rate that has been the basis for your payment. Fine - even in this unlikely scenario, many thousands of dollars accrue to the account holder that would otherwise never exist.
So, with assumptions as poor as they could be for the accountholder, couched in the most confiscatory terms possible, they still paint a picture of a better system than the one we have now.
OLDCATMAN tell some 64 year old Black woman that just lost her husband that some other Black guy died young and got some benefits because she had a child under 18 years of age.
Like all KKK members and Democrats you are mixing up all Black males in a single pot, you looser.
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 12:08 PM
tuffbeingright,
Nice wimpout, and very very VERY conveniently overlooks the effect of FEES. British model suggests that gummint will be bailing out the “Bush reform”, in addition to paying off the newly borrowed trillions, in addition to paying off the T-Bonds till 2050, in addition to paying to make up the revenue difference from diverted funds.
There are many other problems that Kudlow ignores. And what, actually, is being SOLVED at this great huge hulking deficit-exploding expense?
The indicated benefit reduction ALONE would make SS solvent for 100 years, without all the add’l debt.
That’s OUR DEBT.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 12:13 PM
Bush’s plan vastly increases gov’t power, and bureacracy over current system. Less than 1% of SS goes to staff, over 99% in benefits.
The Bush plan is great for Wall Street, terrible for the fiscal health of hte country (long-term deficit).
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 12:16 PM
Macker,
You’re a victim of bait-and-switch.
The prez plan is to limit possible benefit of private accounts to the same 3% that the SS surplus earns with T-bonds.
SS benefits are guaranteed by indexing, whereas stock returns are not. If I had time I would link to my earlier posts where I explain that many of you are buying into a description that bears no resemblance to the president’s plan.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 12:19 PM
As I understand it, the proposed change for SS will make it look alot like the “Thrift Savings Plan” currently available to federal workers. I do not see the catastrophe you are warning us of. If there was, I would imagine the Thrift program would have been scrapped a long time ago.
Deficits and debt are not necessarily a bad thing IF they force a restraint in spending. Govt will never voluntarily shrink - it must be choked.
Your solutions are not what I would call pro-growth nor pro-business.
By the way, Kudlow didn’t write it. It was just his blog.
Sorry for the misattribution to Kudlow—not intentional.
There could be some great savings plans to complement SS. Problem is the CARVE OUT variety tht reduce SS revenues, thus creating a crisis where there was none. Drill holes in the boat to fend off a future leak.
You have not read the actual plan, tuffy, and are believing in dreams.
Int’l lenders realized with Bush’s re-election the deficits were not going to be addressed, and look what happened. Fiscal responsibility was Clinton, credit card borrowing is Bush. It matters. US borrows $2B per day.
If REpubs were serious, they coudl reduce govt spending NOW, as they control all branches. But they want to promise you all.
Point: Bush republicanism is not pro-growth or pro-business. It’s all about crony capitalism, and state-sponsored welfare for corporations.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 12:34 PM
>>Point: Bush republicanism is not pro-growth or pro-business.
He has cut my taxes and turned around a recession during a time of war.
You are correct tubs, I have not read the details, but they have not been completed yet. But I am starting to believe your sources slamming the proposal are from NY Times, the previously linked Wast Post, CNN, etc.
If you have the time, please point me to a link from some source I have more faith in (WSJ?) that supports your claims.
Tuffy,
Jobs reports indicate you are effin’ nuts to believe econ is turned around. Deficts as far as eye can see, and worse if you are honest and include the war (they are lying about that too) and the tax cuts (trillion dollar lie).
The info source is not WaPo, CNN, but your effin’ government. Is this hard to understand? The details released are from the Bush admin—though they are insisting on anonymity in many many cases.
Think about it.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 12:52 PM
>>Jobs reports indicate you are effin’ nuts to believe econ is turned around.
I’m telling you what I see. I sell high tech to multiple verticals. Our business is up across all of them, and their business is all up. I am not going to rely solely on a “jobs report” from any admin to determine the overall health of the economy.
I am becoming more and more suspect of your agenda though…
The booing was not unprecedented, which you would know if you had any sense of history. Remember all the way back to 1995? The polite GOP booed Clinton’s speech and some even walked out before it was through. But then again, I guess that’s OK because they’re *Republicans* and anything anyone does to Clinton is OK.
Posted by zen_more
02/03/2005 at 01:12 PM
>> Comparing KKK with Demorcrats!
Are you quoting Sen. Byrd?
Can I throw in some (possibly not) relevant philosophical background to this otherwise not factually based discussion?
1. SS is a Ponzi scheme. There is no way around this.
2. It is based on the false notion of continuous economic and population growth.
3. Why the fuck should I pay my good hard earned money to some stupid system where it won’t earn the full potential it could if I invested it privately?
4. Why should I pay to support a bunch of slack-dick mother-fuckers in their old age just because they didn’t work hard enough on their job skills or education to have enough earning potential to be able to save for their own old age?
5. It’s time to give the whole system the heave-ho and reinstill some values in America that aren’t based on some socialistic sense of entitlement.
Posted by prairie biker
02/03/2005 at 01:47 PM
Sure, sure, spoken like someone whose race lives the longest, I don’t care if Black males lifespans are shorter and they are getting screwed and tattooed by that Ponzi Scheme of Social Security, spews OLDCATMAN the Grand Wazoo of the KKK and far-left-wing Democrat looser.
OK let’s look at the numbers.
1. Democrates spent $.6 trillion and got YoMaMa Usama Obama (D-IL).
2. Current Social Security transition cost = $2 trillion.
3. So Social Security for our entire population is only 4 Obamas with $.4 trillion in change.
4. Every year we wait for reform makes the “transition cost” increase $.6 trillion
(Or in other words ervery year we wait the cost goes up an entire YoMaMa Osama Obama)
5. Jenjis John Kerry [[LOST]] the election and President Bush has a huge ManDate for Reform, sorry but liberals lost.So how many years do you want to wait to Save Social Security and how big will the cost be then, you fruitcake liberals?
Besides, we have to reform Social Security (SS) so we can get to the “Big Guy” (Hagel) in the room, Medicare reform, don’t you love it all you Government Growing (GG) creeps?
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 01:53 PM
Didn’t Galveston, TX opt out of social security? Since CBS news has not been opining on their misery on a monthly basis, I have to assume things are going well there.
Oldfatman- you ignorant hippy barking moonbat fucktard. I didn’t insult you. Why do you have to go there?
You made my argument for me. IF you had invested your money privately it would still be worth something.
SS is a bad investment for everyone.
Posted by prairie biker
02/03/2005 at 02:16 PM
Sure OLDSMELLEYCATMAN you say that Star Parker, she’s beautiful, at urbancure.org is wrong, and she is a racist, when she says you could never get Social Security passed today. She says, “When a Black man dies his tax-free Personal Savings Account (PSA) should be transferred to his family exactly like a tax-free HSA does under federal law.”
She also says the welfare system in this country is why 70% of Black children are born without a father.
In Florida Gov Jeb has uncovered that 25% of all Foster children on the Medicaid program are on Ritlin or some other medication. The general population it is not anywhere near that high.
Die right this second OLDCATMAN and all the taxes you paid, since your twenties would be more correct than only in the 80s and 90s, will go to the government and not your kids. Tell me what kind of return did 10% of your lifetime income in Social Security taxes get if you die now?
Also, because you worked in the Medicare program OLDCATMAN, here is a Medicare question for you too: Should we give more choices, more options, more FREEDOM in Medicare, including Tax-Free Health Savings Accounts (HSA)?
President Bush want’s to Reform Medicare too.
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 02:59 PM
The word is spelled ‘breeding’. Oh, the irony is delicious.
Posted by Riggs
02/03/2005 at 03:07 PM
OCM-
You must not have any mirrors in your house. Again, you show your illiteracy. You shouldn’t have taken that statement to mean you, unless it was true. If you had the income you say you did, and saved, and invested, there is no reason you should have to rely on SS now. You keep making my argument for me. Thanks.
By the way, there is no math involved in my statements. As I said, it’s a philosophical point.
My mil and mother both collect SS. Neither one is dependent on it. They have independent investments as well as business proceeds that take care of them in excellent fashion. The only reason they take the money is it was theirs to begin with.
As I said before, the whole system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be chucked.
Posted by prairie biker
02/03/2005 at 03:22 PM
So let’s see:
You’re ignorant.
You like to complain, but you’re not sure why.
When up against a wall with no tangible argument you have to resort to epithets.
You don’t really wish to debate this issue with anything resembling coherency.hmmm, (wait, I’m doing ‘the math’) You’re just a Moonbat Troll!
I’m sorry I ever replied to you. That’s 5 minutes of my life wasted. Jerking off would have been more productive than talking to you. My folks are doing great. When their investments run out (not likely), they have me to support them. I’m sorry you’re so unhappy, but it’s not my problem.
Ta-Ta
Posted by prairie biker
02/03/2005 at 03:47 PM
Who is the asswipe who will not be effected by Social Security reform yet does not like, not that it matters, younger Americans having Personal Savings Accounts (PSA) in Social Security?
What is the matter OLDFATCAT Medicare guy? You worked in Medicare so your opinion on HSAs in Medicare reform - I’m still waiting, you liberal fruitcake.
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 03:49 PM
On-Topic: How Disgusting Was It?
HISTORY LESSON:
1999: Republicans Booed Clinton’s Entrance
Many Republican lawmakers gave him a cool, though not impolite, reception.
There were a smattering of boos when Clinton first entered the House
chamber, but they were quickly drowned out by applause. Some Republicans
barely applauded, or refused at all to clap. House Majority Leader Dick
Armey (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) were conspicuously silent.
[Boston Herald, 1/20/99]1998: Republicans Booed Clinton’s Medicare Proposal
Clinton’s health-care initiatives, chiefly in the form of a medical bill of
rights, found support on both sides, especially his attack on managed-care
health-care plans. ... Clinton’s proposal to expand Medicare to allow
Americans as young as 55 to buy into the system drew shouts of “no” and some
boos from Republicans during his speech. [Chicago Tribune, 1/28/98]1997: Republican’s Booed Clinton’s Opposition to the Balanced Budget
Amendment
The Republican response was far warmer than perhaps any of Clinton’s
previous four State of the Union speeches. Time after time, Republicans
jumped to their feet to join Democrats in applauding the president. Only
once did they unmistakably and collectively show their disapproval--when
Clinton spoke disparagingly of a GOP-sponsored constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. Many Republicans hissed and some booed. [LA Times,
2/5/97]1995: Republicans Booed Clinton and Walked Out During Speech
The upheaval wrought by the Republican election landslide was visible
throughout the president’s State of the Union address - from the moment
Speaker Newt Gingrich took the gavel to the striking silence that often
greeted Clinton from the GOP. At one point, Republicans even booed. About 20
of them left as Clinton went on and on for an hour and 20 minutes. [AP,
1/24/95]Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 05:28 PM
More On Topic:
WH admits that drilling holes in the boat will not help solve that leak problem that might happen in a few decades, or not…
WH Admits Private Accounts Don’t Solve ProblemI think they actually enjoy being able to lie to you all, and watching you swallow it whole. MMM yummy, isn’t it?
I predicted all this weeks ago in the previous Soc Sec thread.
Posted by tubino
02/03/2005 at 05:31 PM
OK, I just got back from running errands for my folks.
STOP THE NAME CALLING!! This is getting ridiculous.
The debate can be great. The disagreements are obvious and partisan.
Agree to disagree and let it be that.
Thanks!
(gee, I love stirring the pot
Fucktard loser Democrat that OLDSMELLYCATMAN.
I looked at his stooopid blog, pathetic. He has a “dead cat” that he has pictures of and he has dedicated his site too, I hoze you not. Notice his name, sick.
He has every bad picture of President Bush he can find posted. He thinks Hillary will be the candidate to beat in ‘08, slimmy dirtbag.
Why do Vilmar’s posts on Social Security reform bring out these Democrat Socialist trolls thinking about our balls? Darn Barking-Moonbat Socialist Faggots are nothin’ but queers.
Cats make my puppy Polly and me sick. Only good cat is a dead cat like OLDSMELLEYCATMAN‘s cat, it’s dead you know?
Goodbeye Cat lovin Socialist.
(He hates guns too)
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 05:41 PM
Sorry, I meant to say fruitcake.
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 05:42 PM
Wow, what a topic! All this hubbub about letting people be the final arbiters of their own retirement savings? I can build you a killer racing engine for your car or bike, but I am, admittedly, a financial halfwit, because, frankly, it bores the shit out of me. Let’s keep it simple shall we? Here’s what I do know:
First, my 401K continues to grow by leaps and bounds, regardless of how the economy is doing according to the High Priest Greenspan. I look at my quarterly statements and see I have more money than I did in the last statement - and all with no gub-ment interference! Imagine that!
Second, I don’t owe any of you fuckers a thing, and I have no right to expect anything from any of you; and you have no right to expect anything from me. It makes no sense that I work and have money taken from my pay for the gov. to mis-manage by spending that money on shit they have no business spending it on. The primary obligation of the Federal Government is MILITARY FUNDING ("Provide for the common defense"). Public education, healthcare, your retirement - those are not required expenses (thank you, FDR, for the modern welfare state and all the bullshit that has grown from it!). Fuck ‘em! I got mine - go get yours. If you can’t, too fucking bad! Go the way of the dinosaur. Natural selection is a beautiful thing if you let it take its course.
Third, all you old fucks over 65 who don’t like the idea of me saving for my own retirement as I see fit, feel free to die at any time and free up some air and space for the rest of us. Logan’s Run comes to mind…
Lastly, I’m an asshole, and I don’t have a problem with that. Just don’t call me late for dinner!
Vilmar tubino wants to talk like Kerry or Clinton is President instead of President Bush and his ManDate for Social Security reform.
turino says we are “eating" lies that keeping our own money is really bad for us and we should vote for Democrats, it’s insane. He has offended me so you should warn him.
Posted by Z Woof
02/03/2005 at 05:49 PM
WTF - Did I just walk into the Twilight Zone.
Atta Boy Vilmar - You have a shit storm of a thread going here.
As one lone Colorado redneck, let me say I can do better with my money than the Damn Government can do for me. Let me keep my Damn money! Plain and simple.
FETE
Illegitimi-
What bike is that? Picture is too small I can’t make it out. Is that you vintage racing?
I’m 100% with you (as if you couldn’t already tell).
I’m currently building a ‘64 Norton Atlas Cafe Racer and have a full resto going on my ‘52 BMW R51/3.
Posted by prairie biker
02/03/2005 at 07:13 PM
Illegitimi says:
but I am, admittedly, a financial halfwit, because, frankly, it bores the shit out of me
and then says:
I have more money than I did in the last statement - and all with no gub-ment interference! Imagine that!
...you know all you need to know! peace amigo.
Prairie Biker: The bike in my pic is a ‘78 Suzuki GS1000E I originally bought as a bare frame and the rest in boxes for $50. I then built it for vintage superbike road racing, and it makes a very reliable 139hp at the rear wheel (very fast); handles awesome, too. And yes, that is me on it at Willow Springs, circa 1999 or 2000.
Old Nortons are cool
good luck on the Bimmer resto.
I am 65 and collecting social security based
on my good 60-80’s income level and inflation
has made my current SS benefits at poverty
levels --Oldcatman.I’m sorry for getting here a little late. Is that supposed to be an example of how SS is..."working" the way it is currently set up? Don’t you think that the loads of money you paid in could have been a little more wisely invested so that the benefit of the money that you yourself earned isn’t trickled back to you at “poverty levels?”
Posted by Fangbeer
02/03/2005 at 09:12 PM
Good on the GS. I have a mint ‘77 GS750 (I used to have my own shop, I have ten bikes). They’re all smooth and fast.
Allan, why do I need facts? Which part of Ponzi scheme and I can spend my money better than the man is wadding up your skivvies?
Posted by prairie biker
02/03/2005 at 11:00 PM
Geez, I’m sorry that I missed this melee.
NOT.
Posted by Steel Turman
02/03/2005 at 11:07 PM
You’re right BobF
My problem is I forget and call him names because he is such a pathetic looser. It’s like when I gamble I get “the fever” and make emotional gut decisions, if you know what I mean?
If OldSmellyCat says something really stoopid I’m going to count to 10 and think of Bob in a non-Homodrosis way.
Posted by Z Woof
02/04/2005 at 07:47 AM
Interesting that not one of you wankers can even muster enough brain cells to address my point that Dems shouted NO to Bush’s LIE that Soc Sec will “go bankrupt” by 2042.
Bush is using the same scare tactics that were used to sell the Iraq invasion, and the parallels go on.
How many of you know that it was reported a week or two ago that BUSH, back in the early 80s, predicted the BANKRUPTCY of Social Security would occur in the 90s?
Yet you trust him now, when not one reputable economist agrees with his assessment.
You’re worried about the reduction in worker-recip ratio, so endorse a plan to make it WORSE.
The govt plan caps your benefit from a private account to the already-guaranteed SS payout, and so only offers you RISK and a massively increased federal debt. Can you say $4.5 TRILLION over 2 decades? Try it.
It would be funny if the economic future of the country weren’t at stake.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 10:04 AM
tubs,
who said this and when?
“This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.”
and:
“Before we spend a penny on new programs or tax cuts, we should save Social Security first. I think it should be the driving principle”
Answer: Clinton in 1998.
You claim - “Bush’s LIE that Soc Sec will go bankrupt by 2042.”
Ok, so maybe it’s 2043 instead. The numbers being dealt with are PROJECTIONS. But NO SANE PERSON can deny that SS, as it is currently implemented, will be insolvent - maybe in 2042, maybe in 2052, maybe in 2022. Even Teddy (hic) Kennedy doesn’t say SS will last indefinitely.
Bush is being underestimated again. His current 5-state (or whatever it is) tour is specifically aimed at ‘red’ states with Dem senators. Any idea on what is going on?
It’s clever and I love it.
Here you go tubs! Enjoy!
(full article) http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-22-01.html
January 22, 2001
Clinton’s Social Security Chief Backs Private Retirement Accountsby Andrew G. Biggs
Andrew G. Biggs is a Social Security analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Social Security Privatization.
A politician is rarely more honest than when he’s leaving office. The need to shade the truth, make compromises and play politics is gone. The same goes for political appointees, and a recent interview by outgoing Social Security Administration Commissioner Kenneth J. Apfel, a Clinton administration appointee, takes the cake.
While in office, Apfel opposed all attempts to privatize Social Security. Now that he’s leaving office, Apfel says he favors President-elect Bush’s Social Security reform plan, which would let workers invest some of their withholdings in private retirement accounts.
Bush’s proposal, echoing the opinion of no less than six Nobel Prize-winning economists, proposes a fundamental change to Social Security. Rather than staying with pure pay-as-you-go financing, in which each generation of workers supports that generation’s retirees, Bush wants to let workers invest a portion of their 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax in a personal retirement account.
By purchasing stocks and corporate bonds, workers would largely support themselves in retirement. The government would serve as a backup. Prefunding retirement benefits through personal accounts avoids many of the problems of lower birth rates, increased life expectancies and reductions in the worker-to-retiree ratio, which are hurtling Social Security toward bankruptcy. Thus, it minimizes the need for tax hikes, benefit cuts or increases in the retirement age.
Up until election day, Apfel had expressed “severe reservations” about the risks of personal retirement accounts, calling them “ a step in the wrong direction.” He was on board with Vice President Gore’s “risky scheme” attacks on the Bush plan. The SSA itself conducted a quiet press campaign arguing that private accounts would speed the system’s insolvency and leave workers at the whims of the stock market.
In a recent interview with the Boston Globe, however, Apfel all but admitted that some system of personal retirement accounts is necessary. Why? Because Social Security’s future benefit promises cannot be met and must be cut. The political left, Apfel said, “needs to be pushed on their mantra that benefits cannot be reduced, even for future generations. Social Security benefits are not going to be able to be as large as they are now in replacement rate terms for future generations because of demographic changes. The guaranteed benefit, and this is heresy on the left, will have to be somewhat lower.”
So Apfel agrees with Bush, not Gore, that the basic promised benefit coming from Social Security cannot be maintained.
Tuffy exhibits more brain damage and inability to differentiate.
Tuffy, try to address the issue instead of obfuscate. What Clinton said is basically right, and what Bush has done is exactly what Clinton said shoudl NOT be done. Bush has increased the deficit enormously with tax cuts.
Bush’s plan does NOTHING to solve the financing problem, and in fact makes it much worse. He recommends drilling holes in the boat because it might be leaky in a few decades.
Next, you can’t distinguish between a projected shortfall in the distant future, and bankruptcy, so of course Bush’s lie sounds good to you.
Mixing up 2052 with 2022 shows you are ready to have your pocket picked. You’re ready for Bush’s plan! Trillions in Soc Sec surplus? Have to hypnotize the masses to make them forget about it!
Your ignorance is the strength of those in power.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 10:34 AM
How about some dessert tubs! Even your idol says “Social Security must change to keep pace with changing times in America.”
But his solution is to tax the shit out of us…
http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts3.html#28a
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF SOCIAL SECURITY--August 4, 2000
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 4, 2000I am pleased to join my fellow citizens across America in celebrating the 65th anniversary of the Social Security Act.
On August 14, 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act and changed the future of America. At that time, during the darkest days of the Great Depression, the prospect of growing old was frightening for Americans, for it meant little economic security and almost certain hardship. Few older-Americans had pensions of any kind, and more than half of our elderly were living on incomes that were insufficient to meet their basic needs.
But Social Security took away that fear and transformed the lives of our senior citizens. Instead of being the poorest people in our nation as they were 65 years ago, older Americans today are the least likely to live in poverty. Instead of facing an uncertain future, Americans now have the ability to plan for their old age, confident that they will have a secure financial foundation on which to build a comfortable retirement.
While it has been a resounding success for older Americans, Social Security is much more than a retirement program; it is also a life insurance and disability insurance program. The death or disablement of a family wage-earner can be both emotionally and financially devastating. In such tragic circumstances, Social Security has been there to provide millions of families with income protection.
We can be proud of all that we have accomplished under Social Security. But on this 65th anniversary, we must also pledge to make those accomplishments enduring ones. As President Roosevelt himself reminded us, “Social Security represents a cornerstone in a structure which is by no means complete” and “new conditions impose new requirements upon government and those who conduct government.” Social Security must change to keep pace with changing times in America. That is why Vice President Gore and I have worked so hard to preserve and strengthen Social Security.
Today, 35 million Americans are over the age of 65, but that number will soon double in the coming decades, putting financial pressure on the Social Security system. We should take advantage of this moment of prosperity and our unprecedented budget surpluses to strengthen Social Security so that this visionary program, which served our parents and grandparents so well in the 20th century, will be a source of strength and security for our children in the 21st century.
Best wishes to all for a memorable anniversary celebration.
and finally tubs, some sherbert to cleanse your liberal palatte:
http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20050129-095130-1559r.htm
In a recent editorial, The Washington Times reminded its readers that then-President Clinton, in a major policy speech delivered in February 1998 at Georgetown University, warned about “the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security” that “affects every generation.” Today, congressional Democrats are downplaying Mr. Clinton’s “looming fiscal crisis” in an effort to sabotage any reform effort that might include individual (or personal) retirement accounts.
Mr. Clinton had good reason to be worried about Social Security’s long-term future. When he delivered his Georgetown speech, he had been in office for more than five years, during which time he labored over the federal budget and the long-term consequences of fiscal policy. In addition, before the 1998 speech, three national panels had already been commissioned during the Clinton administration to review Social Security reform options: the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform (1993-1995); the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security; and the 1997-1998 National Commission on Retirement Policy.
All three panels offered long-term reform plans that included individual accounts.>>Your ignorance is the strength of those in power.
Your arrogance and the arrogance of the Lewinski’s like you, will be your downfall.
Right tuff but you’re waisting your time talking to turbino, he’s a Socialist.
Turbino has agreed to say Ponzi Scheme a lot so that’s nice. And I have his permission to count future transition cost for the Reform of Social Security with tax-free Personal Savings Accounts (PSA) using YoMaMa Obama (D-IL) as the currency.
The Dems spent $0.6 trillion and got Obama so now turbino and I count the Social Security (SS) transition cost of $2 trillion as just 4 Obamas with $.4 trillion change. That really helps everyone understand exactly how little and itty bitty the transition cost really is.
OK turbano the answer to your question of: Can you say $4.5 trillion in YoMaMa Obamas?
Your answer *SlideRule*: $4.5 T *divided by* $0.6 T (Obama) = 9 YoMaMa Usama Obamas
Financed over 20 years makes it more than affordable even if we use turbino’s [LIAR] figures.
If you think about - it’s Absolutly Free in the big picture. It’s Goodbeye Socialism, Hello Capitaizim
Medicare - now there is a problem.
Medicare reform will cost a mountain of YoMaMa Usama Obamas
Posted by Z Woof
02/04/2005 at 10:43 AM
>>What Clinton said is basically right, and what Bush has done is exactly what Clinton said shoudl NOT be done
clinton is not president, bush is. didn’t you get the memo?
Tuffy,
I knew you would have cite liars. Twenty years ago, the Cato Institute predicted that by now Soc. Security, which is posting RECORD SURPLUSES, would be broke. They are partisan hack liars. They have all the credibity of a leftwing group that in the 80s predicteed a Marxist revolution by the year 2000.
Moreover, their math makes no sense. Reduce SS revenue by carving out accounts, and you drill more holes in the boat.
Idiocy.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 10:45 AM
You say Bush is a liar for saying “Soc Sec will “go bankrupt” by 2042.”
But Clinton was right on the money when he said ““This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.””
And you tell me I am brain damaged and have an “inability to differentiate”?
Clinton’s own SS chief backed private accounts in 2001.
Stock up on kneepads and Scope tubs, Clinton is coming to a town near you
It’s a simple idea, but Z Woof can’t get it.
I am not bothered by the ideology. I’m bothered that the math makes no sense, and is being presented dishonestly.
I addressed all this at length in a previous SS thread on this forum. Would someone be so kind as to post a link to that?
AT that time not one person here could even start to address the math. The situation remains the same, and everyone here woudl rather scream than think.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 10:53 AM
You know turbino that every year we wait it cost an additional $0.6 trillion or one whole YoMaMa Osama Obamas, get real.
The country must act now and save money by reforming Social Security (SS) with tax-free PSAs and let all the children get real rich. All my Grandchildren will be multi-millionaires, even if they work at Burger King because President Bush is targeting wealth to all minorities, like my little Chinese nephew Nick.
Posted by Z Woof
02/04/2005 at 10:55 AM
Tuff, you continue to dodge.
You want to “fix” the problem of revenue by reducing it. Brilliant.
Clinton offered a solution that would ensure that the T bonds could be repaid without great hardship. (That is the real problem)
Bush not only dodges that, he offers to make the problem much much worse by borrowing massively, and creating a much worse long-term deficit problem.
It’s actually pretty simple. Bush says we will have trouble paying the credit card bills in a few years (T-bonds in the trillions owed to Soc Sec Trust Fund). So he says we should put LOTS MORE on the credit card, invest in the market while paying interest on the borrowed money, and hope that we make money.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 11:16 AM
tub-lewinski,
Are you saying Clintons SS chief is a partisan hack as well?
You call Bush a liar for saying the same thing Clinton did 5 years ago.
Cut taxes and choke off government growth by making spending an issue. that is how it works.
Why do you insist on giving gov’t more control and money?
Clinton offered more taxes. No thanks.
All that lewinski-ing you are doing must be cutting off your oxygen.
tub-lewinski,
here is the executive summary, since you are probably busy doing ‘throat exercises’ before your trip to Chappaqua:
“participants would get every single penny of their retirement accounts—both the principal and interest.”
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/february/0204_wh_wash_post.shtml
White House: Washington Post Article ‘Flat Wrong’
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
February 4, 2005WASHINGTON (Talon News)—The White House pushed back against an article in Thursday’s Washington Post, calling it ‘flat wrong’ about the President Bush’s plan for Social Security reform. The article appeared the morning following the president’s State of the Union address in which he provided a list of broad principles that would govern his approach to overhauling the retirement system.
......
The White House voiced its objection to the Washington Post news article by Jonathan Weisman titled, “Participants would Forfeit Part of Accounts’ Profits,” saying that its headline and central assertion were inaccurate. The White House said that the statement about workers who opt for personal accounts “would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system,” is wrong. The White House has asked the newspaper for a correction.
In a press release, the White House stressed, “Under President Bush’s plan, participants would get every single penny of their retirement accounts—both the principal and interest.”
Is this site partisan? Sure. But so is the Wash Post
Um tubino, yer a fucking idiot. Might be
better if you STFU and STFD. And step away
from the keyboard. Here’s how it works ...Government gets 2% return.
T-Bills get almost 5%.
Investing in T-Bills = good for America.
Investing in T-Bills = good for the investment
/banking/credit union/brokerage
industry. = More jobs.More jobs = more money in the ECONOMY
Better economy = more investment.
Click on ‘return’ to return to start.
Posted by Steel Turman
02/04/2005 at 12:46 PM
Hi kids,
Still kicking up sand rather than think and read a little, eh? Still prefer your faith-based ideology, eh?
Steel Turman is wrong about how the govt borrowing is done, and the rates too. He also doesn’t understand that we are talking about the govt borrowing (putting it on the credit card for our kids to pay).
SS Trust Fund surplus is by law put into T bonds. He says investing in T bills is good for America, which is okay, but his elected representatives are saying that those might not be honored. Others are pointing out that that’s a REAL obligation of hundreds of billions per year that will have to be re-borrowed.
Clinton proposed to change the law to permit investing the surplus.
The Bush dodge is to do no such thing, so Tuffy is full of it. Bush plan is to worry about paying the t-bill later, and just borrow $4.5 TRILLION MORE. Steel seems to confuse borrowing with investing, when it is largely foreign investors who are financing the Bush spending spree ($2B/day).
Z Woof can’t be bothered to understand that if 600B is a lot of money, the Bush plan makes no pretense to begin to cover that, and only promises to PILE ON MORE DEBT. So he says that having such an outstanding obligation is a problem, so let’s MAKE IT WORSE. He wants to get to work right away to drill more holes in the boat in anticipation of the leaks. Brilliant.
I could go on, but so far you’re all a bunch of wankers who can’t be bothered to understand your own future. Not one serious challenge here to the facts I’ve stated.
The Bush plan bears no resemblance to what you all imagine.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 02:42 PM
Tuffy, I like how you cite “Jeff Gannon”. “Jeff” is not his real name.
He’s a White House tool who is made to pose as a journalist.
You’re hilarious, and extremely gullible.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 02:49 PM
Not often I run into the same idiot twice in a day. Let me quote ...
...Steel seems to confuse borrowing with investing, when it is largely foreign investors who are financing the Bush spending spree ($2B/day)…
Now that really worries me. Having all
those foreigners holding our debt. Now,
here it comes you fucking moonbat, when
the debt becomes burdensome, we nationalize
it like the fucking Saudis did to our oil
infrastructure and by caveat, the Germans,
Japanese and a whole bunch of other European
countries did with the Marshall Plan.You following me so far?
WTF do you think those ‘foreign’ investors
are going to do? Foreclose on the most
powerful nation on Earth?I don’t think so.
Posted by Steel Turman
02/04/2005 at 02:59 PM
Okay, another point:
You all imagine that the Bush plan reduces govt power and control, by giving the govt the power to borrow an add’l $4.5T (in the SHORT TERM, and much more long term), and by giving the govt the power to determine which stock and bond indexes (new plan says limited to FIVE, yes 5) you can invest in.
So you expect to get opposite results from the actions you endorse.
Figures. And I suppose you see ballooning deficits and proclaim fiscal responsibility.
By growing govt Bush is really making it smaller. And war is peace. Right.
These guys are taking you guys to the cleaners, and you’re falling all over yourselves asking them how you can help.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 03:06 PM
Steel Turman gives more indication that he’s just a temporary visitor to our planet. The US has never failed to honor its obligations, but he’s ready to go third world by threatening to not repay bonds.
Steel, in the real world the US might have a chance to renegotiate—if we have an Argentinian disaster. To state that this is your PLAN is utter madness.
“The most powerful nation on Earth” has a lower GDP and per capita than the EU, which is getting more powerful each year. Look at the trendlines for China, India, and the EU and you’re in for a shock.
Can’t borrow without investor confidence. Without borrowing, how long do you imagine the US can afford 500B for military spending?
This is just pathetic.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 03:12 PM
>> The Bush plan bears no resemblance to what you all imagine.
since no proposal has been submitted for house or senate vote, your statement is true and false at the same time.
your rantings though are consistently liberal as are the sources you use to support them
keep doing the deep knee bends. Clinton is coming for you
>>You’re hilarious, and extremely gullible.
...and you know everything, right?
Tuffy,
I know that if you reduce revenue, it means less money.
I know that if the projected Social Security shortfall after 2050 is a problem of 2+1 not equaling 4, then a proposed solution of 2-1 =4 is no solution.
I know that if the govt borrows money, it has an obligation to repay or refinance. I know that solving a deficit (borrowing) problem with more borrowing is three-card monte—and the taxpayers are the suckers.
I know that the White House has admitted that the privatization scheme does nothing to address the funding shortfall.
As far as I can tell, that means I know more than you guys.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 03:45 PM
>>As far as I can tell, that means I know more than you guys.
And your solution is more taxes. Sell it someplace else - I’m not buying, comrade.
Keep taxes down to maintain the economy. Eventually, debt issues become a real “crisis” that hopefully forces govt to do something never seen - STOP SPENDING.
You and your vast intelligence can watch as SS reform gets passed.
Tuffy gets up on his hind legs and makes these noises:
And your solution is more taxes. Sell it someplace else - I’m not buying, comrade.
Keep taxes down to maintain the economy. Eventually, debt issues become a real “crisis” that hopefully forces govt to do something never seen - STOP SPENDING.
Try to get this: the kind of massive borrowing that Bush is proposing means just DEBT SERVICE (insert BJ joke here) will become an issue, as will the fiscal health of the country.
This wacko idea that the way to get fiscal responsibility is by being fiscally irresponsible… if your father were addicted to cigarettes, would you buy them by the case for him in order to get him to quit?
Clinton balanced the federal budget. He could have reduced taxes and added to the deficit, but instead he took a move to improve the overall fiscal health of the country.
The cheap political move is to cut taxes and run up the credit card. Bush is acting to INSTITUTIONALIZE that attitude of big govt, so that even another Clinton era could not possibly balance the budget.
By the time Bush is through, his admin will have overseen the increase of the fed debt by about 50%. Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 will be responsible for most of the crushing debt that will restrict US options.
The result will be smaller, less powerful government, yes. Think Brazil, or Argentina, or maybe a meaner, less egalitarian version of Canada. Think of a country that can’t get Turkey to help it (2003), that has no viable threat over France or Germany in the UN (2003).
The irony is that the neocon policies of asserting US might will be impossible because of their idiotic economic policies.
You’ll blame Clinton’s penis.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 04:39 PM
I just heard Bush proclaiming that in his plan, you would only be able to invest in “conservative, government-prescribed” alternatives.
Reality is going to hit some of you very very hard.
Here’s a puzzler for you: if the gov’t sells bonds to keep borrowing so that you/it can invest in the presumably-more-profitable market…
then who is dumb enough to keep buying the lower-return gov’t bonds, and why? Why are these wealthy investors not smart enough to make more in the market?
Heh heh.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 05:05 PM
>>This wacko idea that the way to get fiscal responsibility is by being fiscally irresponsible
And your option is to tax the economy out of a recovery and expect government will eventually learn to control its own spending?
You are a lunatic
Clintons projected debt reduction was based on an overheated, unsustainable, and fraudulant economy.
Your socialist notions have failed everywhere else
Tuffy, you’re making s*** up. Clinton did not just leave a “projected debt reduction”. He actually balanced the budget. He kept spending within revenue.
Your borrow-till-we-can’t notions have failed everywhere they have been tried.
Our socialist friends in the EU get more vacation, have higher standard of living on average than US. EU insists on fiscal health standards to join that US couldn’t meet. If that’s failure, I wouldn’t mind some of it.
Funny how nobody points to the failure of communist China anymore.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 05:15 PM
Tuffy,
The way to be fiscally responsible is to spend less and borrow less.Bush is spending more and borrowing MUCH MUCH more. Govt growth in key areas is worse under Bush than under Clinton.
Why is this hard to understand?
Waste is way up. Just today I read about someone in govt who wrote good clear reports about massive waste in the Dept of Homeland Security. The Bush admin reaction was swift and decisive: they canned him in December.
Worst. President. Ever.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 05:32 PM
Tubino, if you think the EU is so great, why do you not move there? Last I heard is that Germany has twice the unemployment of the US, and Berlin has nearly 30% unemployment alone. Sounds great…
All those entitlements like vacation time and socialized medicine come at what cost? The white Europeans have all but stopped having babies, so how is the entitlement society going to sustain itself in the future? That is why they started importing mostly muslims to ensure a sustained workforce. Now they have a real problem with the practioners of the religion of peace - ask some cops or EMT’s in Stockholm how good the muslim subdivisions are there; or the residents of Birmingham, England. I know folks in both places, and it isn’t pretty.
If the euro continues to grow, you will see the EU fall flat on its face because nobody will be able to afford importing their goods. I could be wrong, but just wait and see what happens when it hits 2:1.
As for China, they use humans to do the work of that which we use machines for here. They have to feed them. Food will still be the ultimate weapon to whup their asses, so I’m not too concerned about China.
As for Clinton’s balanced budget, he did it largely at the expense of underfunding the military. Funding the military is the PRIMARY obligation of the federal government. I was in the Marine Corps during those years, and I saw the base closures, the decommissioning of thousands of aircraft and ships, the downsizing of personnel. Take away welfare, foreign aid, and federal funding of roads and public education, and then we can talk about legitimate budget balancing.
Worst president ever? I am no apologist for Bush as he DOES spend money like a drunken sailor and is doing nothing about our border catastrophe-in-the-making, but I would have to say that Jimmy Carter was the worst that I can think of.
Unlike you, I have put my money where my mouth is and left the country that I love and proudly served. It is just easier to watch the ship sink from 10,000 miles away. I have always covered my own ass and never counted on the government to do anything for me.
Hi,
It’s hard to compare unemployment rates, because their numbers are not calculated as ours are. If we did it their way, the numbers would be much closer. No jobs added under Bush, ~140K/month needed for new folks on the market, x 48 months… what percentage should that have added, but didn’t?I digress.
If the economic disaster is not averted here, the EU will be an attractive option. Market forces, you understand. My wife and kids are legal to work there.
The strange thing is that you all seem to think that your low taxes and high spending/borrowing come at no cost. The real cost is coming, and thanks to Bush it will be high. Reality will hit some of you very very hard. Adding $4.5T in debt to a strained economy… possibly adding more unbudgeted wars… add a terrorist event (for which the US remains unprepared) and it could get ugly here.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 08:19 PM
tub-lewinski,
I have many beefs (including spending) with W. The 00 and 04 alternatives were far, far worse.
You have exposed yourself as the socialist fairy that you are. Your answer to everything is “raise taxes”.
You attack details of a plan that is not submitted for vote yet. You have yet to submit a viable article from a reputable source that backs up ANY of your claims - AND YOU NEVER WILL - YOU CANT. You fear that people may get the nutty notion that they are responsible for their own lives.
Nobody points to failures in China because they clamped down on any news getting out of their country you buffoon! Why don’t you move there? Or better, move to your beloved Europe. Move to Germany where prostitution is legal and pimp your family out. Then retire to France so your kids can leave you to die in the heat while they are on a 9 week summer vacation.
Like illegitmi, I’m 40 and have been saving and investing since day 1 of my prof life. I have never planned on SS. My equities and real estate are doing fine, even after the Clinton-Gore recession. And if everything falls apart as you warn - which it won’t - I’ve got guns.
Blog away comrade. Over and out.
Tuffy,
You’re still making up stuff because you can’t argue your points, or counter mine. All you’ve got is silly name-calling. I never said anything about raising taxes.
On a previous thread I posted sources for nearly all my claims. (Can someone just post the link to the previous thread???) No one refuted any substantial claims.
None of you indicate how removing revenue from Soc Sec will help pay the bills when they come due.
None of you face up to the fact that the Repub answer is simply to borrow borrow borrow, as if the bills never come due. It’s pretty funny that all I do is point out fiscal irresponsibility, and you label me a socialist. Apparently you believe only socialists are fiscally responsible. Heh.
I said weeks ago that the Bush admin is preparing the biggest heist of all, and the last few days are bearing this out.
You’re either with the thieves, or against them.
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 10:18 PM
-
See the chart!
Posted by tubino
02/04/2005 at 10:20 PM
02/03/2005 at 05:44 PM
Next entry: A Public Service Message
Previous entry: Sure To Get Some Of You Exercised!