Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

  1. #1
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    "Key Republicans in Congress on Sunday questioned White House assertions that the Social Security system was in crisis, one of President Bush's justifications for acting now on private accounts, and said new taxes should be considered. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Congress should "look beyond" the payroll tax to fund the Social Security retirement system and consider a value-added tax and other changes.

    Though Bush said he will oppose tax increases for Social Security, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, told CBS's "Face the Nation" that a hike in payroll taxes "has got to be on the table" along with other financing options.

    Thomas called the retirement system's finances a "problem" rather than a crisis, distancing himself from the crisis terminology used by the White House in seeking public support for creating private accounts.

    "I think 'problem' really is what we're dealing with," said Thomas, when asked if he thought it was a crisis.

    In a separate interview, moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, of Maine, questioned the White House's proposals and strategy, a sign of trouble for Bush in the Senate.

    Snowe said she does not object to personal savings accounts "per se," but told CNN: "I'm certainly not going to support diverting $2 trillion from Social Security into creating personal savings accounts."


    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rement_bush_dc





    I really am enjoying the GOP coming apart at the seams. They had unity to retain power, but now it's dog eat dog.


  2. #2
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    I vote for extending the working age to 68 and 70, instead of the current 62 and 65, by year 2015. Maybe a buy-in program in the interim and/or an enhanced age-disability program (like SSI). We are just living too long for a 1930's designed system.

    It needs to be on the table. This is less regressive and hazardous than any other suggestion I have heard. And I dreamed it up.

    (Why does it seem I have to do all the thinking for this country?)
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    I agree that the age that people are living to now does need to be considered. I also think that extending the working age is something that is a more than reasonable option.

  4. #4
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    This is pretty standard stuff; propose a more extreme version of a reform in order to achieve more moderated end results. Some presidents have done this better than others. LBJ and WJC come to mind.

    What will kill the GOP's reign isn't their agenda--which has ample support, but their lack of attention to fiscal detail.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  5. #5
    Member HoldThePickle's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    I agree that fiscal detail will be the immediate downfall of the GOP. Many of the longtime Republicans believe in responsibility & accountability and this administration has shown almost none of either and has even gone as far as to recently say they don't feel the need to be. Their hard-core center is going to begin to be very upset by that and turn away their ideas and agenda and look for a new bunch that better represent their true core beliefs, which isn't really all the supposed "moral Values" they are spouting now. It's small government.

    This bunch may have had an short term sucess with their crys for more "moral society" but the reality of the day to day life in the US proves that is not what people really want or how we behave. That campaign is like the Spice Girls, it won't last.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    Sure, there is "ample support", but there is not ENOUGH support for much of it. There is not the die hard party unity that many people thought there would be. Many people are breaking ranks with the party. I applaud anyone in government who uses logic and responsibility to propel their decisions, rather than just a blind sense of party unity. I have little use for parties, and in reality neither does the best interest of the nation as a whole.


  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    I agree that the age that people are living to now does need to be considered. I also think that extending the working age is something that is a more than reasonable option.
    There is a flip side to this, however. Imagine your parents, who are currently say 57 years old, who have been paying hundreds of thousands of dollars into SSI over their working lifetimes, who have also worked and saved for their retirement with 401k's and IRA's, all in the expectation that they could actually retire 5 years from now and enjoy the fruits of their lifetime of labor. Now all of a sudden you're telling them sorry about that - we're not going to pay you the benefits you have been promised for the last 40 years - you have to keep working (and keep paying SSI and income taxes) for 3 extra years at least. In their minds, this isn't much different than having taken out a 40 year mortgage many years ago, making the payments every month as called for in the 'contract', and now with 35 years of payments behind them being told that they'll need to keep making payments for 8 more years instead of 5 before the mortgage is considered to be paid off ! Of course many workers (those now age 50 and below I think) have already been whammied with a 1-2 year retirement age increase as a result of laws passed under the Clinton administration.

    There are also other issues which will come to a head if the "contract" of social security is examined from a practical standpoint. For example it's a statistical fact that women live much longer than men. Therefore it would only be logical to increase the SSI tax rate for working women, or to extend the retirement age for women, beyond that for men ! It is also a statistical fact that blacks have a much shorter average life expectancy than whites. Therefore if social security is examined from a practical standpoint, SSI tax rates on blacks should be drastically reduced or the retirement age for blacks should be reduced to say age 62 to keep things on a 'fair' footing.

    Obviously any attempts to 'meddle' with social security's current "contract" is going to create massive political problems. This is the reason that GWB has instead called for the creation of a new alternative private investment system for younger workers while avoiding 'messing around' with the current social security system other than what will turn out to be across the board benefit reductions (due to changes in the benefit amount formula).

  8. #8
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    Except you are missing a key fact that would have saved you a lot of time in your posting. Most economists (outside of the partisan system) state that there is not social security emergency. Listening to the pundits and the parties tell you what needs to be changed and obeying their talking points to the letter is like listening to Chevy ads telling you why you shouldn't buy a Ford. You'll get information, but only information that benefits themselves.

    What you also fail to see is that a very similar partial investment program was started in the UK with disasterous results.

    There is no social security crisis. The sky is not falling.


  9. #9
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    ^ Nah, the DNC doesn't see a crisis now because they believe they have a political wedge issue. 2042 isn't that far away, and illegal Mexican immigration isn't going to insure the solvency of the program.

    I applaud GWB's addressing of the issue, but the fact that he won't just come out and say, "Yes, age of SS eligibility will go up, SSI eligibility will be more vigorously determined, payroll taxes will go up, SS will be indexed to prices rather than wages, but private accounts will get you much better than the pathetic 2% return that SS currently offers retirees."

    Privatization works when you make it mandatory; that's the Brits' problem--lower class people often opt out, so it costs the system more money.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    I applaud GWB's addressing of the issue
    Actaully, you're applauding Bush for creating an issue that really wasn't an issue. He's on a propaganda blitz of fear, much like he was in 2001 when he was trying to get his tax "cuts" passed. Much like he was when he was selling the fraudulent war. Strange how many republicans agree with me re. Social Security. There is no problem. How many times does Chimpy have to scream WOLF, when there is no wolf, before you fools take notice that he is a snake oil salesman?


  11. #11
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    and have there beeen no Repubs say that SSI is not an emergancy ???

    I think DevilsAdvocat is correct this is more campaign of fear stuff from GW and crew

  12. #12
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    Methinks liberals are just scared that despite 20 years of rhetoric, someone finally wants to do something about the problem instead of just whistling through the graveyard. Whether or not the rest of the GOP leadership has the testicular fortitude to actually state the case and the true costs to the public is another matter entirely, but GWB has successfully put the subject up for consideration, which is a miracle in an of itself considering the sensitivity of the issue.
    LOL! I find it amusing that you complain about rhetoric in this issue, but the entire stance that the social security system is in emergency crisis is just that... rhetoric. They aren't stating any case, they are on full on propaganda mode. Spinning fear, just like they do when trying to get any issue supported. The moderates in the party are not going to be your patsy this time. This is not some alruistic motion by Bush and the radicals in the GOP, it's an effort to get money from the fund into investor's hands. You aren't going to get Bush's radical plan approved. The democrats, the moderates in the GOP and the true conservatives want nothing to do with it. So blame liberals all you want, they aren't your major obstacle with passing this.


  13. #13
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer
    I vote for extending the working age to 68 and 70, instead of the current 62 and 65, by year 2015. Maybe a buy-in program in the interim and/or an enhanced age-disability program (like SSI). We are just living too long for a 1930's designed system.

    It needs to be on the table. This is less regressive and hazardous than any other suggestion I have heard. And I dreamed it up.
    OK, so I don't have all the demographics, actuarials, and calculations exactly perfect. But then I didn't get paid to figure this out either.

    I agree with Melonie that the transition in eligible age needs to be done gradually, maybe in 5 or 10 graduated stages over 20 years instead of 10. It isn't a current emergency but if we don't get started really soon, it will inevitably become one as predicted. However, I don't agree that any degree of disaggregation into classes (gender, race, smoking, lifestyle) has any place in this formula. It is not a commercial insurance policy. Besides that type of classification would actually be discrimination which is constitutionally forbidden.

    If you don't ever change your car's oil at 3-5k miles, it doesn't stop running then. But by 100k miles it is very likely to quit, very expensively and inconveniently.
    Last edited by threlayer; 01-25-2005 at 03:31 PM. Reason: add content
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  14. #14
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    However, I don't agree that any degree of disaggregation into classes (gender, race, smoking, lifestyle) has any place in this formula. It is not a commercial insurance policy. Besides that type of classification would actually be discrimination which is constitutionally forbidden.
    This area of course constitutes 'playing with dynamite', as for example black taxpayers can bring forth ample evidence that the current Social Security system heavily discriminates against them right now !

    I would also make it very clear that it is not the year 2042 but the year 2018 - only 13 years from now - when Social Security cash flows will turn red. At that point, either benefits to retirees will have to be cut significantly or general taxes to workers will have to be raised significantly. Whatever supposed 'Social Security Surplus' which has been taxed from past workers was not turned into 'real money'. It was merely translated into an accounting 'trick' by the issuance of 'special bonds'. In fact the actual money was transferred to US general revenues (and spent in the 90's) in exchange for these 'special bonds'. When 2018 arrives and the Social Security administration needs to start 'cashing in' these 'special bonds' to supplement their negative cash flow, there is NO MONEY sitting in an account anywhere to pay off these special bonds. Instead current taxpayers in 2018 will have to begin coughing up the additional cash then and there to pay off the SSI 'special bonds' out of general revenue (i.e. from income taxes, cap gains taxes, business taxes etc). THIS is the real crisis.
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-29-2005 at 04:05 AM.

  15. #15
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    Social Security is a "pay as you go" system. I keep hearing, but not understanding exactly how, any excess of revenues over entitlement claims, in any particular period, has been going in to the general fund for many years.

    Insurance companies have to keep a large percentage of their expected claims experience as assets they can get to in a hurry (usually this is regulated by state law). I don't see the Fed doing this in any form. They raise the eligible income limit and taxable percentage instead.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  16. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    Social Security is a "pay as you go" system. I keep hearing, but not understanding exactly how, any excess of revenues over entitlement claims, in any particular period, has been going in to the general fund for many years
    Well, that's pretty easy. First think of the Social Security Administration as one branch of gov't and General Revenues as every other branch of gov't lumped together. Now the SSA has their own budget to adhere to, which collects x billions every week in SSI taxes and which pays y benefits every month to SSI recipients. For the last many years since Social Security was 'fixed' during the Clinton administration, the x billions in tax receipts have been greater than the y billions in benefit checks, so the SSA was left with a 'surplus'. Now if the SSA had been a private corporation, it could have invested that surplus in the private sector, meaning that at some point in the future that private entities like corporations or banks would be paying that money back with interest. However the SSA is a branch of gov't so it was only allowed to 'invest' via other branches of gov't. The way it 'invested' the SSI surplus was to issue and sell 'special bonds' to the general revenue portion of gov't. It was not even allowed to issue standard bonds like the US treasury or FannieMae which could be sold on the open market to the private sector or to foreign investors. In other words, the SSA was forced to hand over the surplus money in exchange for a promise from the general revenue portion of gov't that this money would be paid back with a pittance worth of interest at some future date. Of course the general revenue portion of gov't promptly spent the surplus money rather than having to issue standard Treasury bonds or borrow from the private sector or raise taxes (which in part gave rise to the great Clinto free lunch economic boom of the 90's).

    But because these 'special bonds' can only be exchanged with the general revenue portion of gov't, the ONLY source of repayment of these 'special bonds' is the future tax receipts from US taxpayers. This means that in 2018 when the SSA will first need repayments on its 'special bonds' to cover the shortfall between the x billions of SSI taxes coming in versus the y billions in benefit checks it must write, that the general revenue side of gov't will be responsible for coughing up x billions worth of "additional" expenditures to make those repayments beginning in 2018. These "additional" expenditures will be directly competing with the 2018 US military budget, 2018 social program spending etc. for general tax dollars. Whatever gov't is in power in 2018 will therefore face a choice of raising taxes on workers by some outrageous amount to cover the 'special bond' repayments, or cutting future benefit checks to SSI recipients so that the 'special bond' repayments can be avoided, or rejuggling the federal general revenue budget to greatly reduce the military budget or social program spending budget or any other uses of general revenue dollars to 'divert' general tax dollars away from standard programs and use them to repay the 'special bonds' instead.

  17. #17
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    I se how it ties in with what you were saying before.

    If this were a not-for-profit insurance corporation the surplus would have first gone into the Reserve account. Then excess would have gone into investments, and of course mostly to current entitlement payments.

    Seems like the surplus funds could instead go into the investment market to gather up some income, except I know nothing else about these "special bonds." For example do they pay out interest as well to the general fund? If so, this would be the reverse of what one would expect. This is what I do not understand.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Bush=1st lame duck with a majority! LMFAO!!

    Seems like the surplus funds could instead go into the investment market to gather up some income, except I know nothing else about these "special bonds." For example do they pay out interest as well to the general fund? If so, this would be the reverse of what one would expect. This is what I do not understand
    Well if the SSA was structured somewhat like Fannie Mae then yes the SSA would be free to invest in the private sector i.e. it could have theoretically used the surplus dollars to buy corporate bonds which corporate profits would pay off with interest many years down the road, or it would have theoretically been free to deposit the surplus SSI dollars in interest bearing accounts at Citicorp to be paid interest from borrowers taking Citicorp loans made with that surplus SSI money. But doing either of these things, or any other option which truly allowed the SSI surplus to be invested would have deprived the US gov'ts general revenue fund of those surplus dollars - meaning that the general revenues would have had to raise taxes to cover spending on 1990's social programs, or would have had to cut gov't spending on these programs, rather than spending these 'free' surplus SSI dollars.

    As it was structured, the only use allowed for those surplus SSI dollars doesn't actually free them up for actual investment, but requires that they be traded away as bookkeeping entries with the US gov't general revenue fund under the guise of the SSA buying 'special bonds' which the SSA cannot resell anywhere else. My guess is that these 'special bonds' are structured as zero coupon bonds i.e. there are no ongoing payments of interest from year to year from the general revenue fund to the SSA, but with the entire amount of the 'special bond' principal plus accrued interest being due and payable in one big lump out of US gov't general revenues when the bond matures in 2018.
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-31-2005 at 04:38 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. lmfao
    By Chrissy68 in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-27-2007, 05:15 AM
  2. Why Think When the Moral Majority Can Do It For Us?
    By smartcookie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 09:26 PM
  3. Bush company 3 or Great Alaskan Bush in Phoenix
    By honeygirl in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2005, 05:38 PM
  4. Majority: Implants or Real?
    By lilac666 in forum Body Business
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-17-2004, 09:27 PM
  5. Silent Majority???
    By in forum General Board
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-31-2003, 03:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •