[Buck_W]

So far so good

[funkboy]

Listening to it while doing homework - yay for iTunes, Airport, iBook, and public radio!

[iDriveX]

I agree. I am a hardcore Democrat, but I don't think the republicans are going far enough with Social Security Reform. My solution is this:

Anyone under the age of 30 knows they have to retire one day and they need to save for retirement. If you don't, you're F'd. Back in the day, people weren't as aware of this need.

Anyone under the age of 30, you're not getting a social security check. Ever. The system is dissolved as soon as the last person over the age of 29 dies. If you are under 30, you still have to pay into social security.

Wait, I have to pay into it but I don't get to use it? Yes. Tough luck, think of it as a charitable contribution, who knows, maybe it's all tax-deductible as a charitable contribution.

Of course, I've never run the numbers on this. But something must be done, all ideas that have been proposed so far will only prolong the horrible conclusion we are quickly approaching.

[zerostar]

A lot of booing going on, and some of the Dems are not standing, who did the spine transplants?

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by zerostar:
A lot of booing going on, and some of the Dems are not standing, who did the spine transplants?

Whoever did it, Thank God. I'm glad someone told the Dems they didn't have to take it up the rear and pretend to like it. Now if we can only give some of our party leaders an emotion's chip.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
Now if we can only give some of our party leaders an emotion's chip.

Hey I like some of the dems policies but they have NEEDED to grow a pair for some time.

I saw Howard Dean speak and I would say the man is very emotional, the outburst hurth him but he has the brass to help the DNC

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by zerostar:
Hey I like some of the dems policies but they have NEEDED to grow a pair for some time.

I saw Howard Dean speak and I would say the man is very emotional, the outburst hurth him but he has the brass to help the DNC

He's just too far left though. He doesn't appeal to the majority of our party. Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, and Barak Obama need to step up into the forefront of the party and join the democrats together with one vision and one goal.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
He's just too far left though. He doesn't appeal to the majority of our party. Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, and Barak Obama need to step up into the forefront of the party and join the democrats together with one vision and one goal.

I don't view his as too far left. What particular about him?
I could see boxer, perhaps conyers but schumer and obama are doubtful to do anything meaningful... IMO

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by zerostar:
I don't view his as too far left. What particular about him?
I could see boxer, perhaps conyers but schumer and obama are doubtful to do anything meaningful... IMO

As we've seen, while he is energetic, he does not appeal to the mass of democratic voters across the country. Joe Biden is also one that I feel could step up as well as a voice for the party. Obama and Schumer have character, that is what we need. We have plenty of brilliant minds with great ideas, but we needs some of that with character and edginess. Obama and Schumer have that.

[iDriveX]

When late Marine Sgt. Norbert's mom hugged the Iraqi woman who voted for the first time, I almost teared up. That was very touching. Whether you are a dem or a repub. you've got to admit that was pretty touching!

[Buck_W]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
When late Marine Sgt. Norbert's mom hugged the Iraqi woman who voted for the first time, I almost teared up. That was very touching. Whether you are a dem or a repub. you've got to admit that was pretty touching!

[funkboy]

Nice speech. He didn't back himself into a corner by saying privatization is the only way to Social Security reform, though it was certainly indicated that it was his primary goal.

He didn't say he'd veto anything short of privatization, though (noted by NPR which I'm listening to). That makes me happy.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
He's just too far left though. He doesn't appeal to the majority of our party. Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, and Barak Obama need to step up into the forefront of the party and join the democrats together with one vision and one goal.

You'd opt for Barbara Boxer over Howard Dean as the leader of your party?

When late Marine Sgt. Norbert's mom hugged the Iraqi woman who voted for the first time, I almost teared up. That was very touching. Whether you are a dem or a repub. you've got to admit that was pretty touching!

(edit: typo)

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
When late Marine Sgt. Norbert's mom hugged the Iraqi woman who voted for the first time, I almost teared up. That was very touching. Whether you are a dem or a repub. you've got to admit that was pretty touching!

[Joshua]

It takes a special man to make Bush seem like a dynamic and talented public speaker. Harry Reid is pretty special.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
When late Marine Sgt. Norbert's mom hugged the Iraqi woman who voted for the first time, I almost teared up.

Good. You were supposed to.

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by Joshua:
It takes a special man to make Bush seem like a dynamic and talented public speaker. Harry Reid is pretty special.

agreed.

[saddino]

What surprised me most was Cheney's attire.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by saddino:
What surprised me most was Cheney's attire.

[IMG]snip[/IMG]

Cut him some slack. He was doing some test drilling in ANWR.

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by saddino:
What surprised me most was Cheney's attire.

Very inappropriate for the type of event this was. I was expecting maybe a more formal black coat.

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by Joshua:
It takes a special man to make Bush seem like a dynamic and talented public speaker. Harry Reid is pretty special.

That's the stuff I am talking about Harry Reid is about as dry as my Grandmother's crotch. Get someone with passion that is talking with a vision of change, not someone who is speaking with an aura of defeat.

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Good. You were supposed to.

I know, I'm sure it was another Karl Rove dog and pony show, but it truely was touching. Trust me, a woman who lost her son isn't going to hug an Iraqi unless she means it. She's not going to do it just because some Bush Administration Goon told her to. She's lost everything, she's got nothing else to lose. She did it because she honestly felt that her son did make a difference. I'm sure there was some Bush Administration coaxing involved, but it was still very touching.

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by Joshua:
You'd opt for Barbara Boxer over Howard Dean as the leader of your party?








(edit: typo)

Absolutely. While both of them have some personality, Howard Dean is comparable to Steve Ballmer. We need someone presentable that can represent the party's ideals well. Barbara can do both.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by saddino:
What surprised me most was Cheney's attire.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by saddino:
What surprised me most was Cheney's attire.

That's great.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
I know, I'm sure it was another Karl Rove dog and pony show, but it truely was touching. Trust me, a woman who lost her son isn't going to hug an Iraqi unless she means it. She's not going to do it just because some Bush Administration Goon told her to. She's lost everything, she's got nothing else to lose. She did it because she honestly felt that her son did make a difference. I'm sure there was some Bush Administration coaxing involved, but it was still very touching.

Agreed.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by funkboy:
Nice speech. He didn't back himself into a corner by saying privatization is the only way to Social Security reform, though it was certainly indicated that it was his primary goal.

His primary goal is to modernize the system, making it permanently sound without increasing payroll taxes. The idea of having a VOLUNTARY option for people to put a small amount of their payroll taxes into a personal account is an element that he feels would enhance the system, making the system a "better deal for younger workers".

His point is, if we're going to get our hands dirty fixing the system, we should also try to make it better.

Tax code reform sounded intriguing as well, though I still generally like flat tax ideas. I'm curious to see what Congress can come up with.

[vmpaul]

Am I the only one who thinks the opposition party response speech is useless and unnecessary? After 60 minutes of hypocrisy and empty rhetoric, that last thing we need is another 20 minutes of useless, empty babble - "We believe in freedom and democracy too!" Yeah, great.

It's not like the SoTU is a campaign speech. He's the President.

When and why did they ever start that?

[iDriveX]

It's probably just there to remind the country that the opposition party has the complete opposite view of the President. Our system kinda sucks. There's a lot of stuff I agree with when it comes to fiscal policy with President Bush, but OTOH when it comes to foreign and human rights I tend to side with the democrats.

What sucks is if I was in Congress, I would have stood and clapped for the SS issue. But I would have been ostrasized by my party for not towing the party line. Who cares, Party lines I almost think are for weak minded people that can't think on their own. Maybe one day, we will have a Congress full of people that actually respresent the people that elected them, and things will actually get accomplished.

I'm sure this argument has been said over and over in this forum though, I'm new to it.

[sideus]

[James L]

I didn't watch it, but am I correct in assuming from what some people have said that they had the parent of a US soldier killed in Iraq on stage to hug a lady from Iraq who voted for the first time?

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by James L:
I didn't watch it, but am I correct in assuming from what some people have said that they had the parent of a US soldier killed in Iraq on stage to hug a lady from Iraq who voted for the first time?

Well kinda but not really. In the upper atrium where the first lady sits she was flanked on her left side by a serviceman and a first time female Iraqi voter. On her right, another serviceman and a first time Afghan female voter. Both were referenced during the speech and allowed to stand and get a standing ovation from the Congress. Behind Ms. Bush was the mother and father of a marine killed in Iraq, flanked on their right by a Marine honor guard. When she was asked to stand to receive a standing ovation, she did her wave and with tears in her eyes bent over and hugged the Iraqi woman who had turned to stand and clap and give her a standing ovation. You can draw your own conclusions, see my post above about "nothing to lose".

[Buck_W]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
Our system kinda sucks.

Imperfect? Without a doubt, it is comprised of imperfect people (all the more reason for a balance of power and a government by the people). But as history continues to show, while our form of government is less than perfect to be sure, it trumps all others. (I'm still waiting for Alec Baldwin and his ilk to make good on their promise and scram! Ah. . . but where to go? Yeah. . . I see. . .)

[saddino]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
His primary goal is to modernize the system, making it permanently sound without increasing payroll taxes.

First off, I think this is an admirable goal. My only problem with his appraoch has been:

1) The system will never go "bankrupt." Even after 2042, the interest and pay-in to the system would cover 70% of benefits. For him to say "bankrupt" is to put a false spin on the problem; and

2) The timeline he references (less money in than out in 2018, failure to pay 100% in 2042) are according to very conservative Social Secuity projections of our economic growth (used to figure out the interest gain in the surplus). When Bush talks about his tax cut benefits, the White House economic projections (which the administration insist are valid) are much more aggresive. If we take the White House projections to be true, then Social Secuity will never not be able to pay 100% benefits. So, if one believes the Bush tax cuts are beneficial, then one has to believe that Social Security is in no trouble at all. What bothers me is that Bush wants to use whatever set of projections that help him make his case. There is only one economy. He either believes it will grow one way or the other. He can't have it both ways. Doing so, smacks of desperate politics.

Finally, given that social security is capped, removing the cap would indeed raise payroll taxes (but only for the rich). If there is indeed a problem with Social Security, raising the cap could solve the problem outright without this fancy "restructuring."

[MacGorilla]

Did you catch some of the Democrats coughing and murmuring when Bush started his Social Security spiel>?Pretty funny.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by saddino:
1) The system will never go "bankrupt." Even after 2042, the interest and pay-in to the system would cover 70% of benefits. For him to say "bankrupt" is to put a false spin on the problem;

I saw those exact same words come out of Barbara Boxer's mouth when she was on TV analyzing the speech.

What gets me is, you can continue saying that till the year whenever. "Oh, we won't be bankrupt in 2100, we'll still be able to pay 10% of benefits! We won't be bankrupt in 2200, we'll still be able to pay 0.001% of benefits! (those numbers are completely made up, but you get the idea)" Saying the system will never go "bankrupt" is dodging the real issue.

Social Security does have problems, and while Bush may be using "scare tactics", that doesn't mean there isn't a problem to be dealt with.

[saddino]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Social Security does have problems, and while Bush may be using "scare tactics", that doesn't mean there isn't a problem to be dealt with.

Yes, that's my point exactly. Of course there is a problem, but using words like "bankrupt" and "crisis" is pure political posturing. If Bush honestly wants to engage in ideas for fixing the problems now, that's welcome. Let's leave the scare tactics out of it.

[iDriveX]

I like the phrase "Social Security is Bankrupt". Technically, using the same terminology, the US Government is Bankrupt. We have more going out than we have going in. No problem though right?

[Mafia]

Originally posted by saddino:
What surprised me most was Cheney's attire.

lol

[BRussell]

Originally posted by iDriveX:
There's a lot of stuff I agree with when it comes to fiscal policy with President Bush, but OTOH when it comes to foreign and human rights I tend to side with the democrats.

You agree with Bush on fiscal policy? Come on. Objectively, he's been the worst president in history on fiscal policy - spending more than Democrats ever dreamed and yet cutting taxes, creating large, long-term deficits. At least on his foreign policy it's debatable what the outcome will eventually be. I don't even think Bush's biggest supporters privately agree with him on fiscal policy. He's the worst of both parties on that count. [/mini-rant over]

[nredman]

didn;t watch the state of the union, the wife and i are going to make a drinking game out of it. drink everytime everyone stands up and claps

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by saddino:
First off, I think this is an admirable goal. My only problem with his appraoch has been:

1) The system will never go "bankrupt." Even after 2042, the interest and pay-in to the system would cover 70% of benefits. For him to say "bankrupt" is to put a false spin on the problem; and

2) The timeline he references (less money in than out in 2018, failure to pay 100% in 2042) are according to very conservative Social Secuity projections of our economic growth (used to figure out the interest gain in the surplus). When Bush talks about his tax cut benefits, the White House economic projections (which the administration insist are valid) are much more aggresive. If we take the White House projections to be true, then Social Secuity will never not be able to pay 100% benefits. So, if one believes the Bush tax cuts are beneficial, then one has to believe that Social Security is in no trouble at all. What bothers me is that Bush wants to use whatever set of projections that help him make his case. There is only one economy. He either believes it will grow one way or the other. He can't have it both ways. Doing so, smacks of desperate politics.

Finally, given that social security is capped, removing the cap would indeed raise payroll taxes (but only for the rich). If there is indeed a problem with Social Security, raising the cap could solve the problem outright without this fancy "restructuring."

The whole point is to try and solve problems without increasing taxes on anyone. And as far as I'm concerned, the rich drive this economy. If they don't have money to spend, I hope you'll at least enjoy the depression.

BTW: $90K earner isn't rich by any means.

And removing the cap is an insane idea. WTF would you require someone to pay into a system 2, 3, or 10 times an amount into the system than they would ever get out of it on the receiving end. That is pure bullcrap... freaking robbery , as far as I'm concerned. Just because someone earns a good living is no reason to seize their money.

I love the "Social Security will be still be able to pay out 70% of benefits" bit. Guess what - that IS bankruptcy. That's what happens when people or companies go bankrupt... they end up only paying a percentage of what is owed - like 70 cents on the dollar.

Just say "Bush lies", "Seize money from the rich", and save us all some time.

[spacefreak]

Here...

Specifically, eliminating the cap on taxable wages would:

• Result in the largest tax increase in the history of the United States--$425.2 billion in nominal dollars over five years.
• Fail to save Social Security from bankruptcy; it would push back the system's insolvency date by only six years, from 2013 to 2019
• Increase the top federal marginal effective tax rate on labor income to 54.9 percent, its highest level since the 1970s.
• Reduce the family budgets of 23.4 million Americans by an average of $9,147 in the first year alone after the tax cap is removed.
• Weaken the economy by reducing the number of job opportunities by 219,000 in 2004 and the amount of personal savings by $34.4 billion that year as well.

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You agree with Bush on fiscal policy? Come on. Objectively, he's been the worst president in history on fiscal policy - spending more than Democrats ever dreamed and yet cutting taxes, creating large, long-term deficits. At least on his foreign policy it's debatable what the outcome will eventually be. I don't even think Bush's biggest supporters privately agree with him on fiscal policy. He's the worst of both parties on that count. [/mini-rant over]

I'm sorry, let me clarify. I don't agree with Bush per se on HIS fiscal policy. But I have conservative ideals when it comes to fiscal policy. I think things like Social Security and Welfare should be eliminated all together. Oh crap, a lot of people will be out on their ass and forced to save their own money and get their own jobs! (Disability Social Security should be kept though). In a nutshell, I feel that anyone that has the physical ability to earn their own and save should, and we need to crack down on people bleeding our economic systems dry.

Might have something to do with the fact I am a member of the NASD and a Financial Advisor, but I believe in personal Fiscal Responsibility and handouts for no one unless they are physically or mentally incapable of fending for themselves.

[saddino]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Here...

Thanks for that link to the Heritage Foundation; I'm sure they're not biased. Next time just go ahead and submit a link from newsmax.com.

Now, given you believe all those statistics, what do "personal accounts" do to solve the problem? That's right. Absolutely nothing. So what's Bush's plan to "save" Social Security beside using it as an excuse to pad the coffers of investment bankers and create a Republican-leaning "ownership society?" Can you outline the right's "plan" to save Social Security (which, as I stated before, given the White House economic projections for the Bush tax cut, should never go bankrupt, but nonetheless, let's pretend it will)?

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by saddino:
Thanks for that link to the Heritage Foundation; I'm sure they're not biased. Next time just go ahead and submit a link from newsmax.com.

Now, given you believe all those statistics, what do "personal accounts" do to solve the problem? That's right. Absolutely nothing. So what's Bush's plan to "save" Social Security beside using it as an excuse to pad the coffers of investment bankers and create a Republican-leaning "ownership society?" Can you outline the right's "plan" to save Social Security (which, as I stated before, given the White House economic projections for the Bush tax cut, should never go bankrupt, but nonetheless, let's pretend it will)?

God, I am with you 100% on this issue. That's what's really striking about this Social Security thing. You can invest the money any way you want but it doesn't address the issue. Bush is treating Social Security like a closed system independent of the entire nation's economy. Here are the only broad solutions based on that thinking:

1. Fund Social Security from other taxes to increase the amount of money going into Social Security.
2. Increase Payroll taxes to increase the amount of money going into Social Security
3. Cut Spending.

Situation 1 is good but it means cutting spending in other avenues or raising other taxes. Since the Bush Administration is adamant about not raising taxes, it would have to come from cutting spending. If we could do that, we wouldn't have a rising deficient.

Situation 2 is good as well, but no one will like raising payroll taxes at all, and it would go against their policy of not raising taxes.

Situation 3 would work, except that cutting spending means giving LESS to recipients or (and I don't know how much bureaucracy is involved in the SS Administration) cut costs inside the SS Administration. But again, that would only free up some costs and only helps the problem for a small amount of time.

All of these are only prevent the hemorrhaging in the short term. As far as I can see it, we need a complete overhaul of Social Security to the point where it doesn't even resemble what it used to OR it needs to be eliminated all together.

What the Bush Administration MIGHT be doing is getting people used to having Private Accounts. Every year, the amount put into a private account might be more and more and more, until 100% of your SS check is going into a Private Account and then you get what you put in when you start receiving, almost like a flexible premium Annuity. Gov't Flex Pay Annuities aren't a new thing, teachers have the option to contribute to a Tax-Sheltered Annuity plan instead of a 401(k) plan. They are a good way to save money, and if they are fixed or equity indexed annuities, the insurance companies will take on the risk and not the individual like a Variable Annuity. From what Bush talked about last night, investing in a mixture of stock and bond funds, it sounds like it's going to be a Variable Annuity, which may tie people's retirement savings into a market. Great if you're young, real bad if you are nearing retirement age.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by saddino:
Thanks for that link to the Heritage Foundation; I'm sure they're not biased. Next time just go ahead and submit a link from newsmax.com.

Now, given you believe all those statistics, what do "personal accounts" do to solve the problem? That's right. Absolutely nothing. So what's Bush's plan to "save" Social Security beside using it as an excuse to pad the coffers of investment bankers and create a Republican-leaning "ownership society?" Can you outline the right's "plan" to save Social Security (which, as I stated before, given the White House economic projections for the Bush tax cut, should never go bankrupt, but nonetheless, let's pretend it will)?

Sure the Heritage Foundation is conservative. You don't think that only far-left liberal groups can do research, do you. I especially like how you conveniently dodged refuting any of their findings.

So now the real you emerges. I knew your prior post was a carefully masqueraded sham designed to hide your true agenda. Well guess what... look at the White House. Look at Congress. Look at the governorships. The US is already a Republican-leaning society.

The personal account component would be voluntary. If you don't want it, that's fine. But I do, and I think it's crap that you want to forbid me from investing a small portion of my payroll tax into an interest-bearing vehicle that would be able to supplement MY retirement.

Again, save us all some time by simply posting "Bush lies" and "Seize money from the rich".

[iDriveX]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sure the Heritage Foundation is conservative. You don't think that only far-left liberal groups can do research, do you. I especially like how you conveniently dodged refuting any of their findings.

So now the real you emerges. I knew your prior post was a carefully masqueraded sham designed to hide your true agenda. Well guess what... look at the White House. Look at Congress. Look at the governorships. The US is already a Republican-leaning society.

The personal account component would be voluntary. If you don't want it, that's fine. But I do, and I think it's crap that you want to forbid me from investing a small portion of my payroll tax into an interest-bearing vehicle that would be able to supplement MY retirement.

Again, save us all some time by simply posting "Bush lies" and "Seize money from the rich".

Going beyond "agendas", I think Personal Accounts are great, but I don't think that we should say that Personal Accounts will do anything to help the Social Security situation. In fact, we can go one step further and say that 100% of taxes withheld should be put into a Personal Account for people that know what they are doing. But it still doesn't help the mess.

[saddino]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sure the Heritage Foundation is conservative. You don't think that only far-left liberal groups can do research, do you. I especially like how you conveniently dodged refuting any of their findings.

I especially like how you conveniently dodged the fact that according to the White House's economic projections for their own tax cuts, Social Security will always be solvent.

So now the real you emerges.

Note: pretending you know anything about me is not the best, nor least bit impressive tactic.

I knew your prior post was a carefully masqueraded sham designed to hide your true agenda.

No, you *thought* you knew. There is a difference, but if that escapes you, then I can't help. My prior post speaks for itself.

Well guess what... look at the White House. Look at Congress. Look at the governorships. The US is already a Republican-leaning society.

Yes, which is why the "motivation" towards "reforming" Social Security is pure politics. You do get some things!

The personal account component would be voluntary. If you don't want it, that's fine. But I do, and I think it's crap that you want to forbid me from investing a small portion of my payroll tax into an interest-bearing vehicle that would be able to supplement MY retirement.

You are free to think it's crap. "MY" retrirement, huh? How selfish of you, IMHO.

Again, save us all some time by simply posting "Bush lies" and "Seize money from the rich".

I'm not here to save you time, but you can do that by skipping my posts. You do know how to do that, correct?

P.S. I especially like how you conveniently dodged outlining the Republican plan on "saving" Social Security by instead mkaing this a discussion on "my agenda." I'm sure (excuse me, I *think*) that's a strategy you employ often.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by saddino:
[B]I especially like how you conveniently dodged the fact that according to the White House's economic projections for their own tax cuts, Social Security will always be solvent.[b]

I have not seen any projections showing that Social Security wil always be solvent and always able to pay 100% of benefits forever. Provide a link to these projections, and if I have time, I'll look at them and comment.

Yes, which is why the "motivation" towards "reforming" Social Security is pure politics.

It's only politics to pessimistic, underachieving, obstructionist Democrats. Bush is on the road presenting his plan to the American people. The Democrats are gathered around an FDR statue with their media minions.

You are free to think it's crap. "MY" retrirement, huh? How selfish of you, IMHO.

Yeah... nobody else pays my bills, and I doubt you are going to be cutting me checks in 30 years when I retire. And if my retirement is aided by Social Security reform, chances are most other Americans' will be as well.

I especially like how you conveniently dodged outlining the Republican plan on "saving" Social Security by instead mkaing this a discussion on "my agenda." I'm sure (excuse me, I *think*) that's a strategy you employ often.

Why can't you go to the GOP website yourself? Are you really that lazy that you need me to rephrase the entire plan?