For some reason folks keep asking me, and no, I didn’t see the State of the Union because it was my bowling night. Nor am I overly interested in watching his royal smugness for any extended period of time anyway…a sentiment I know he’d agree with. After all, he said just a couple weeks ago that if Americans are concerned with disturbing or revolting images on their TV screens, they’ve really no cause to complain because there’s an off switch. And I concur, which is why I just turn the set off when he comes on.
From what I’ve read subsequently, he glossed over Iraq, which is smart, as Bush’s List grows and grows. And I think that the business of privatizing Social Security is antithetical to the very concept. Social Security stems from a time when the country endeavored to pull together generationally, with the young paying in to support the elderly. Privatization is a nice, neutral word to cover what it really is: Every Man For Himself. It has less of a feel of trying to fix the ship of state and more a sense of abandoning a sinking vessel.
Cling to the clock and pray the country survives him.
PAD
• 
But Peter, it’s not the “Privitization” of social security, it’s setting up “Personal Accounts”. Maybe you didn’t get the memo from the White House. We can’t use “Privitization” in reference to Social Security. Personal Accounts, ok? Great. I’m glad we’re on the same page.
Doesn’t matter what they call it – it’s just another Bush scheme to make sure the Haves have more.
Mark
Agree 100%. I considered it, but figured that it would simply end with me mumbling at the television and wondering why I didn’t simply watch the Dead Like Me Season 1 set on DVD that I’m digging.
Turns out I did myself a favor as I’m loving DLM more with every episode and between the morning paper and NPR does in the am and pm to and from work, I was able to hear sound bites and commentary enough to tell me it was more of the same. A statement that includes both “America is better off with…” and his proposed Social Security changes left me shaking my head wondering how anyone can say for certain that a country is better off when initiating a program that has not yet begun and has no comparable predecessor. More magical thinking from the leader of the free world.
Fred
And I think that the business of privatizing Social Security is antithetical to the very concept.
The Democrats seem to forget that they gave Bill Clinton a standing ovation when he suggested setting up personal accounts. As Bush mentioned in his speech, the very members of congress and other federal workers have this very benefit. You may have personally been consistently opposed to this idea, but the Democratic Party are hypocrites in their opposition to it.
To say there is no need for change is the real lie. If Bush’s idea is a bad one, then the Democrats need to come with a real one (other than just raising the payroll tax itself).
Iowa Jim
Cling to the clock and pray the country survives him.
Trust me, it will. We survived the damage of Bill Clinton for 8 years, and we will survive the damage of George Bush. We will also benefitted under both presidents. That is the strength of our system. It is built to survive most things. (Obviously, there if Bush or Clinton decided to launch a nuclear war on China, all bets are off. But neither of them was/is that stupid.)
Iowa Jim
Instead of watching Shrub give his speech, I went to FLIP SIDE, my favorite comic store. Instead of Bush, we talked about new comics, how good was the latest episode of “24” and the Lakers.
Why bother listening to the lies of Shrub? I can read about it the next day. Seeing Shrub for more than a minute is only going to make me sick.
>To say there is no need for change is the real lie. If Bush’s idea is a bad one, then the Democrats need to come with a real one (other than just raising the payroll tax itself).
>Iowa Jim
… or perhaps Bush should put together a Brain Trust to come up with several ideas before he gets the U.S. into another mess by going with his first instincts.
Again, I make no claim to being a genious in the field of economics (… or a genious in any other area actually), but a program set up under the assumption that people have the knowledge needed to make intelligent choices, muchless the monies to lose, while costing 2 trillion to implement as a way to help a system that is, according to him and only him, in immediate “crisis” makes no sense to me.
Fred
Off topic, but….
Fred Chamberlain: “Turns out I did myself a favor as I’m loving DLM more with every episode…”
Well, fred, I gots some bad news for you. The douche bag that runs Showtime cancelled the Show. The reason: he thought it somehow was a rip-off of Six Feet Under (don’t ask me how), which is a show he produces for HBO.
Kinda funny this guy is allowed by Showtime to cancel one of their shows to “protect” an HBO series…
So no more DLM, which is that much less escapism I’ll have to get away from Dubya (hey, got it back margainally on topic).
Why I don’t like Private Accounts? Because I see it as a way of people with large salaries getting larger ones because of inside knowledge, special buying deals such as with the various mutual funds and etc…
Those who don’t have the money or connections, will not get as big as a return and loose money when the scandels hit.
Now i’m not the most educated man, but with china and the foreign investors taking money out of s bonds, it seems to me like bush is trying to keep some money backing our own currency.
I really do not believe that there is an urgent Social Security problem. Nevertheless, if you do believe one exists, why not raise the cap on taxing for social security from $90,000.00 to $150,000.00 a year.
Funny – I just read a filler in the Library Journal about a library somewhere (Bad memory) that sold 2 Norman Rockwell paintings to raise money for the library – because they lost a lot of money in the stock market… It struck me that more people might have to be selling old valuables to keep it going themselves if Social Security isn’t secure anymore….
Transcript of SOTU here 🙂
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/020205.asp
Frankly, and I’m serious here, Bush should just declare victory on social security and take credit for (somehow) lifting it out of crisis. All I’ve heard most of my life is that SS is on death’s door and doomed to fail. Now I’m hearing from Paul Krugman and co that SS is healthy as a freaking horse. Bush should just come on TV, say “Hey, we looked at the numbers and the Democrats are right–we already saved social security! You folks who thought it would never be there when you retired–it will be now! It must have been those tax cuts!”
And then he never has to hear anyone talk about how every dime he proposes for Atomic Death Gel or whatever the military is working on is “taking money that could be used to save social security”.
…grrrr, certainly not showing genius in my spelling of it above. ;p
Clinton talked about Social Security when the economy was bad. At the time, there was concrn. When the economy picked up, SS was doing better. Clinton and Bush have different reasons for suggesting fixes. Bush and Co. are trying to get rid of all the social services provided by the government. When he talks about cutting the deficit, be very afraid. He won’t touch Rummy’s military budget, so all that’s left are the services to those in this country that can least afford to be without them. But, that’s OK. At least the Wall Street brokers will get a few extra bucks off of selling bad stocks to people with no clue for their “personal” accounts.
By the way, I took a pass on the speech, too. Every time he comes on TV I have an irrational urge to kick the set in.
Karen says:
“Clinton talked about Social Security when the economy was bad. At the time, there was concrn. When the economy picked up, SS was doing better.”
So the fact that Democrats say that there is now no Social Security crisis means that the economy under Bush is doing better than the economy under Clinton? Interesting take.
Doesn’t anyone find the irony in the fact that the Shrub is trying to “fix” something that “may” develop problems 40 to 50 years from now? A time when he’ll be biologically degrading into the next generation of fossil fuel. All the while our trade deficite spins out of control, personal bankruptcies are at an all time high and most likely long before we see SS turn belly up we will have survived another event similar to what created it. Of course all you have to do is follow the money and see exactly why the Shrub wants this program, just like he wanted the oil. 2 trillion dollars for his cronies. social Security doesn’t need fixing, washington overspenders need fixed!
there already ARE private social security accounts — they are called 401k accounts (and the similar account for non-profits and schools). And as the chief negotiator for our teachers, I know for a fact that we have around a dozen teachers who were planning on retiring who are still working 3 years later (with no specific retirement date yet), because their private accounts tanked when the stock market corrected itself. If you are going to have people invest in stocks and bonds to “guarantee” their retirement, you might as well let them buy lottery tickets or go to a casino too.
The damages of Bill Clinton? Oh, yeah, that’s right, all those pesky JOBS his White House helped create…
I’d cling to the clock PAD but I think it’s causing problems when i try to load your page I just tried to open it in three windows and two of them froze.
And I think that the business of privatizing Social Security is antithetical to the very concept. Social Security stems from a time when the country endeavored to pull together generationally, with the young paying in to support the elderly.
Those brave souls among us who actually listened to the speech heard Bush’s response to that one: statistics. When the Roosevelt administration created Social Security, they picked 65 as the retirement age for a very simple reason: it was the life expectancy for an American male (which, at the time, was the definition of the work force). US life expectancies have increased by more than 10% since then but people are still retiring at close to the same age (there has been some trivial fiddling with Social Security retirement ages lately; q.v. http://www.ssa.gov/retirechartred.htm ). The young could pay in to support the elderly when the young outnumbered the elderly. Even if you don’t agree with Bush’s solution, the existence of the problem is incontrovertible. Seriously, let me know if there is an actual response to these statements from Dubya:
Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days people did not live as long, benefits were much lower than they are today, and a half century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits. Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today’s world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer — and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it’s only about three workers — and over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.
If Bush’s numbers are right the system will have collapsed three years after I retire at age 67. The cross-generational support idea sounds warm and cuddly, but it only works as a pyramid scheme– if there is a large number of the younger generation contributing a small amount of their personal incomes to produce significant amounts of money for the older generation. Unless the US birthrate changes in a surprising fashion over the next two decades, that’s not going to work. And the birthrate is not going to change to benefit Social Security; birthrates have been declining steadily since the Industrial Revolution. So even if PAD’s right and it’s Every Man for Himself, Every Man for Himself is better than Everyone is Screwed, which is the system FDR left us.
And then he never has to hear anyone talk about how every dime he proposes for Atomic Death Gel or whatever the military is working on is “taking money that could be used to save social security”.
Well…
A) Rumsfeld has asked for money to be put back into a research project for nuclear bunker busters.
Yes, that’s right: NUCLEAR.
B) Bush wants to put a near-freeze on all increases in government spending… except national defense.
Maybe I mentioned this here already, but I don’t think “national defense” includes invading other countries… actually, it likely doesn’t – Bush just wants another $80 billion to blow on Iraq put into yet another wasteful military account.
So the fact that Democrats say that there is now no Social Security crisis means that the economy under Bush is doing better than the economy under Clinton? Interesting take.
Perhaps not the best way to get from A to B, but the economy was far better under Clinton.
Not to mention, scandals like Enron came along, which also robbed thousands of people of their 401k’s.
Halliburton did some robbing of their own recently as well, in a way.
because their private accounts tanked when the stock market corrected itself
Yes, I’ve wondered about this myself – this is why I like the idea of a private account that does not rely on stocks and such, but on (hopefully) more secure interest-gathering methods.
There is really nothing that Mr. Bush would say
that I really need to hear right now.
Let’s all look forward to hearing the 2009 State of The Union address given by Vice-President Obama, (President Edwards will be traveling through the Wastelands speaking to survivors)…
Too bad the Freedom Clock doesn’t come with a Snooze Alarm. Let Freedom Ring!
Ok, so I watched the State of the Union adress. More out of a sense of morbid curiosity than anything else.
To my suprise President Bush’s execution of his speach was well executed, if not well received. What I mean by that is that he didn’t butcher the language enough to provide fodder for late night T.V. Jay Leno took a shot anyway. It was a pretty good shot, too. I think Leno credited Bush with use of the word “strongthusiastic”, but don’t hold me to that.
Also to my suprise it took longer than I anticipated for the President overuse the word “freedom.” Once he got rolling I stopped counting at 11, while the word “justice” was bandied about only 4 times, according to my count (which is probably wrong anyway). I believe that justice is a cornerstone on which freedom stands and it’s interesting to me to see how much President Bush touts freedom over justice. I equate “Freedom” to “The Big Picture” and “Justice” to the details that can be missed when one looks only at the big picture, which is something I think our President does.
At one point in the speech President Bush said that “marriage is the foundation of our society” while speaking in regard to amending the Constitution to defend marriage.
Marriage is the foundation of our society? Says who? The last line of the Pledge comes to mind: “With liberty and justice for all.” For ALL, it says. THAT is a far more apropriate ideal to use as a foundation of society than an often nebulous contract between two people, ratified before a group of spectators, sometimes performed with heavy emphasis on the agrandizement of a non-corporeal entity, sometimes performed in a more secular setting, that has a roughly fifty-fifty shot at the controct being fulfilled (“Till death do you part”).
I’m not saying that marriage is a bad thing. I’m saying that there are far less dubious foundations upon which a society should be built. In fact I’ll go so far as to say that marriage shoud be defended from the people trying to defend it.
President Bush also made clear his intent to ask for more money to put towards a peace initiative for Palestine and Israel.
I’m all for peace in that region of the world. I would like nothing more that for the citizens there to get some rest from war and hate. My only concerns are that the money will be misspent (I.E. pocketed by officials), and that no amount of money can purge hate. I hope at the very least that this endeavor will be a step in the right direction.
Christopher Reeves widow was a guest of President Bush. It looked to me that she was invited as a figure head for the Presidents position stem-cell research. If that is the case then I am deeply disturbed that our state of political mind is so shallow that it would allow the memory of a man who is the very embodyment of the words courage and determination to be used in such a manner. I really hope I’m wrong about that.
Iraq was indeed glossed over with the exception of the ‘Look What We Did For Them’ routine. ‘Nuff said.
Social Security. Well it seems like our elected officials have done nothing more than make it more difficult to see what the facts are on this matter. I’m not suprised. Alot of them have been doing this to us for years. I’m not even going to pretend to be suprised at this point.
Peter I think you were likely better off bowling.
Note to self: Spell check.
P.S.
I wish to offer my personal thanks to Mr. David and Mr. Hauman. You guys Rock. I love this blog and the two of you make it far better for the “User” than a certain site (which will remain unmentioned) where I was a paying member. When I’m filthy stinkin’ rich (be prepared to wait) I’ll be showing my gratitude with more than words.
Mitch Evans
Since it was for his fans why didn’t he take a leaf out of Jackson’s book and just stick it on the net?
At one point in the speech President Bush said that “marriage is the foundation of our society” while speaking in regard to amending the Constitution to defend marriage.
And last I checked, marrige isn’t mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegience, or the “Star Spangled Banner”.
Man, I guess someobdy really blew that one to have missed such an important “foundation” of our society. Hot dámņ.
President Bush also made clear his intent to ask for more money to put towards a peace initiative for Palestine and Israel.
Hmm. This had me thinking: did Bush do ANYTHING in his first four years in office regarding the Palestine/Israel situation?
Bush loves to tout world peace, but he’s invaded two countries in the name of “freedom”, but hasn’t done crap to actually promote peace itself.
Man, it seemed like every other month, Clinton was talking to somebody from Palestine or Israel and trying to get them to sit down and talk.
Bush has just ignored them.
So let’s see…
PAD couldn’t even be bothered to tape the State of the Union because he’s not “overly interested in watching his royal smugness for any extended period of time”. How open-minded!
Fred Chamberlain and J. Alexander would rather watch entertainment.
Karen took a pass because “every time he comes on TV I have an irrational urge to kick the set in.”
How nice! Everyone from the Israelis and Palestinians to street gangs are beng urged to put aside differnces and just see people as people, and those who actually label themselves progressive can’t be bothered to watch our President outline what he wants to do and why.
Of course,Karen,it is actually easier to spit out a slogan like “Bush is ‘gutting’ Social Security than to actually hear what the man has to say, right? I guess it’s “never let the facts get in the way of a good story” (or talking point, slogan or soundbite).
Gene Hall,
“There is really nothing that Mr. Bush would say that I really need to hear right now.”
Without even knowing what he was going to say! Wow! Let’s hear it for the open-minded, critical-thinking members of this blog!
Craig J. Ries: “And last I checked, marrige isn’t mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegience, or the “Star Spangled Banner”.
Man, I guess someobdy really blew that one to have missed such an important “foundation” of our society. Hot dámņ.”
Hi Craig. I have to wonder why the people working on either side of this issue seem to miss such details. I often wonder if a group of no-names should beat these activists with a brain stick.
“Hmm. This had me thinking: did Bush do ANYTHING in his first four years in office regarding the Palestine/Israel situation?”
Not to my knowledge. But now the world has evidence that we’ll invade if we don’t get our way so President Bush may just be further proving that he is an opportunist now that fear is on our side. Although I have to consider, with our military being nearly over committed, the the President is writing check that the U.S. can’t cash. Oh, wait… deficit. He’d just be staying within the projected probability curve.
“Man, it seemed like every other month, Clinton was talking to somebody from Palestine or Israel and trying to get them to sit down and talk.”
I’ve said it before. I don’t like Bill Clinton. At the same time I’m honest enough with myself to recognize and admit that he was a good president.
George Bush #2 on the other hand… well this juror won’t make a final determination untill the Freedom Clock reads 00:00:00. For now I can only say that it’s not looking too good.
Hi Jerome,
You make a valid, if sarcastic, point. Hëll, I like sarcasm!
Forgive me, but I must ask if you have ever blown off a Clinton speech because you believed that you were just being lied to and you were just tired of it? I know I have. It’s part of my genetic predisposition to distrust the body politic as a whole.
Genetics aside, if you answer “Yes” do you believe it’s possible for another to have a similar feeling/reaction to President Bush?
Without even knowing what he was going to say! Wow! Let’s hear it for the open-minded, critical-thinking members of this blog!
Out of curiosity, how long, in your view, is someone to be accorded benefit of the doubt before a (potential) listener can safely say, “This person will, at best, mostly likely say nothing of interest to me.”?
Because, see, I gave “Dubya” the benefit of the doubt when, as a resident of Texas, he was Governor. During that period, and looking back at his track record, I saw nothing appealing.
Then, beginning during the 2000 presidential race, and the ensuing years, similar to Karen’s reaction, I do seriously find myself getting angry every time I see “Dubya” on television and/or hear even a moment of his speeches. As a result, I, too, skipped the State of the Union. Unfortunately, our VCR recently died, and – thanks to “Dubya’s” economy – we don’t have the money to replace it, else we’d have tried catching up on the Stargate shows and Battlestar Galactica. As it was, we made do with some good music.
As I see it, choosing the option that didn’t raise my blood pressure was the wisest course of action.
Or should I have still said, “Golly gee…for darn near a decade, he’s never had anything to say that put me on ‘his side.’ But maybe tonight’s the night!”?
1.) When President Clinton proposed private accounts for social security, he did so with risk parameters to prevent investments in potentially shaky situations. The preferred vehicle was government bonds. If you look at it from that standpoint, it was a win-win because the account holder would be guaranteed a return while the government would be guaranteed revenue to continue to fund operations and maintain the value of the US dollar.
2.) The controversy over whether SS will be bankrupt by 2042 is questionable. For one thing the assumption is that the workforce will not keep pace with the number of claimants. This would assume no economic growth of any consequence. It would also assume that all those currently drawing benefits would continue to do so while new beneficiaries would continue to come on line. That is, current beneficiaries would continue to live. That is patently impossible. Assuming a reasonable rate of population and economic growth, it would be unlikely that the number of beneficiaries would equal the number of workers paying into the system, as more workers would come on line during any given period than those who would retire.
A better solution to the problem would be to adjust the retirement age to say 67 or 68 to allow an adjustment to the gap between new hires entering the workforce and current workers starting to draw benefits.
I realize that this may be both abstract and oversimplified at the same time, but I’ll bet money that some actuarials out there have actually done the modelling. It would be a much safer solution to the problem, as the idea of investing in markets over which individuals have little or no control is like playing Russian roulette.
3.) As much as I hate to agree with the conservative voices posted above, ignoring the speech on purpose blunts your ability to comment on the President’s policies from a position of first hand knowledge. Because we vehemently oppose his positions, we should make all the more effort to be aware of every opportunity he gives us to make informed criticisms. Here’s hoping that you review the transcripts or a recording.
And yet…many of these same people that skipped the SOTU because they hate Bush and everything he says or stands for are the same people that said that you HAD to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” because you weren’t qualified to talk about it unless you saw it.
And yet many of those same people didn’t comment on the speech… including Peter… instead they commented that they didn’t watch it… Most of those who did comment on the speech DID watch it (many like myself in disgust) and hence could commnet on it. Those that commented instead on SS issues need not necessarily watch a speech to be aware of the situation, all that takes is a little reading and watching… (its been an issue for so long). So stop trying to twist the facts back and forth to fit one slight or another…
Joe K:
>3.) As much as I hate to agree with the conservative voices posted above, ignoring the speech on purpose blunts your ability to comment on the President’s policies from a position of first hand knowledge.
I didn’t ignore anything on purpose. I made a conscious choice to make better use of my time. Believe me, hearing the president say anything at this point shouldn’t give you a sense that you are commenting on firest hand knowledge of his policy.
>Because we vehemently oppose his positions, we should make all the more effort to be aware of every opportunity he gives us to make informed criticisms.
I disagree. I’m a professional therapist. I study human behavior. I have repeatedly seen President Bush twist factual information in an attempt to manipulation his audience. Due to these innumerous observations, I have come to the conclusion that I it is a more beneficial and educational use of my time to read AP and International press news articles, watch a few television news shows weekly whether I agree with the commentators or not, and listen to NPR to get a more realistic sense of what Bush’s policies are.
>Here’s hoping that you review the transcripts or a recording.
Already done. Not only lacking much substance, but not even any big words to add to my vocabulary. 😉
Fred
Why don’t we raise the retirement age? Why not set up some kind of formula that says “we need at least 10 workers per retiree” and set the retirement age for any given generation/year/decade/whatever based on that formula?
My ignorance of the complexities of this situation probably means there’s something very wrong with that statement/idea, but I don’t know what it is. Could someone tell me?
Eric
Everyone from the Israelis and Palestinians to street gangs are beng urged to put aside differnces and just see people as people, and those who actually label themselves progressive can’t be bothered to watch our President outline what he wants to do and why.
See, the problem is is that every time Bush is on tv, I see that crooked smile on that crooked face, and I want to scream about how pathetic and stupid this country was to elect him.
I. Just. Can’t. Stand. Him.
He embarrasses me as an American. Angers me. Makes me desire to live in another country.
And I can’t watch him for more than a few seconds without being disgusted by his very nature.
Why don’t we raise the retirement age?
At this point, why bother letting people retire at all? Why not make us all work till we drop dead?
Why stop at giving 45 years (or so) to The Man when you can work till they’re putting you in your grave?
There is no fundamental right to retire. If you want to be able to retire, then you had best take on the responsibility of saving for your future.
SS was never setup and sold to the American people as welfare for old people. It was sold as a forced savings plan. If you want, as the Democrats do, to do thing such as raise the raise the income threshold at which SS taxes are applied, then you had best be forthright in declaring that SS is welfare. And then watch as public support for SS evaporates, as SS would lose significant luster when sold as a welfare program. However, if you can’t be honest about what the program is, then what’s the point?
And BTW, anyone who solely relies on Paul Krugman as their source for SS commentary had best start investigating other sources of information.
And furthermore, yesterday’s article in the Washington Post (which Krugman used to bolster is commentary), and its subsequent retraction, is yet another disturbing example of poor fact checking by MSM.
I watched a pørņø. I figure if I’m going to see a bunch of bøøbš and people getting f@$*&d, there might as well be a funky 70s soundtrack to go along with it.
Bring on the wah-wah pedal!
Speaking as someone who lost his Social Security Disability money because I got married, (Yes you read correctly) I see SS and the entire USA in deep šhìŧ more and more under that right winged nutjob idiot George W. Bush.
Let me explain the loss of the SS Disability benefits. Apparently under certain SS laws, if I understand correctly, if a disabled person gets married or even has a relationship with someone he or she loves, their SS disability benefits are reduced or in some cases like mine taken completely away. At first, I thought it was because I was marrying a citizen from another country. I’m currently living in Italy with my beautiful Italian wife Laura. It turns out, other disabled people that were in love and married American citizens had the same thing happen to them. One couple, a man and a woman that are both disabled had their checks reduced to one check because they married. Now, they struggle to make ends meet. Many disabled people in America must go to extent of hiding their relationships with the person they love because they risk to lose some or all of their SS benefits.
Italy is not a perfect country. Silvio Berlusconi has made some of most idiotic decisions in the country’s history, and continuously supports Bush like he Dubbya’s boyfriend or something. However, Italy DOES have some things the USA does not.
1. Medical care and hospital stays in Italy for the most part is free. Money from the taxes here is used to help fund doctors and state of the art hospitals. In America, you’re screwed if you need a doctor or hospital without insurance.
2. In order to get disability benefits in Italy, including a pension, It’s sufficent to be declared 100% disabled by a group consisting of at least seven experts. In my case, it was sufficient for me to be unable to walk without ambulatory aids, and I’m not even an Italian citizen yet. It was enough for me to have a residency here. In order to get monetary benefits from Social Security, they told me VERY RUDELY that I must work ten years in order get another disability pension ALSO if I was born without the use of my legs.
There are many things I love about America, but there are also things I dislike about it. They call America THE LAND OF THE FREE. Sometimes, I have my doubts about that.
JHL
Hey, anyone else thought if this yet?
So, the essential problem with SS is that there aren’t enough jobs to fund the program (at current levels) in the future. Waitaminute, does that mean that Bush is saying that all the work he’s doing to create new jobs isn’t enough? Maybe he’ll think of that next time someone asks him about his failures.
All snarkiness aside, who doesn’t think that SS is a welfare program? That’s a new claim I’ve heard.
And if Bush’s plan is to just allow people to invest the money somewhere else, why not give them REAL power and let them decide, totally free of restrictions, where to invest that money. It would save the goverment the trillions of adminstration dollars needed for this program. Just make it a tax cut.
So, let’s see, that makes like 4 viable options I’ve come up with in the past few days on how to address SS. Yet there’s no committee to study this, crunch the numbers, run some models. Just Bush’s idea.
This issue is not about jobs. It is about demographics. There will simply not be enough young people to support the SS pyramid scheme. Believe it or not, this is why many people are pro-immigration, because immigration adds to the worker pool.
If you think that SS is welfare, you should read more about it here. Your SS benefits are a function of what you’ve paid into the system and your income stream. That cannot be considered to be welfare.
I would love it if SS was abandoned totally. However, a lot of people believe that Americans are too irresponsible to be trusted to save for their retirement, thus SS gets forced down all of our throats.
MP:
>I would love it if SS was abandoned totally. However, a lot of people believe that Americans are too irresponsible to be trusted to save for their retirement, thus SS gets forced down all of our throats.
… or it could be the fact that over 40% of all Americans are literally living from paycheck to paycheck and another 20% are just ahead of the game. Don’t mistake economic hardship for irresponsibility.
Fred
J. Alexander, Eliminate the cap on SS period. Apply the SS taxes to the entirety of Hollywood actors, professional athletesd, and the boardroom scum that are killing this country with their greed.
And as for “Personal Investment Accounts”, remember Enron?
Watch the stock market collapse as out of work Americans, downsized by scumbug corporations looking to maximize short term profits, can’t afford houseing and food, much less any of the crap these compaines sell declare bankruptcy by the ton and retail sales drop through the floor…
All that invested money gone…
And to those who did waste their time watching SOTU, did Bush actually say/do ANYTHING new/different than he’s been spewing?
All the SOTU was is a rerun of the past 4 years, and reruns need to be interesting if you want people to re-watch them…
I kinda felt like Bush mistook the SotU address for another campaign speech. Someone tell the poor guy he can stop telling us all that he’s going to do, fer cryin out loud. He won. He’s been sworn in. He can stop campaigning
Clinton’s plan to privatize was based on an active practice of fiscal discipline. We dont have that anymore. Arguing party politics and historical reversals of support will get you nowhere. The GOP opposed HIS plan to privatize THEN.
Jan 20 1999 New York Daily News:
“”Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge: the aging of America,” Clinton said.
After years filled with talk but hardly any action over Social Security’s looming shortfalls, the plan was hailed for moving the debate forward. But it faces an uphill battle in the GOP-run Congress.
Many Republicans want to use more of the surplus for across-the-board tax cuts and favor a gradual phasing out of the Social Security system, to be replaced by individual private-sector retirement accounts.
Clinton said his plan would push the date the Social Security trust fund would run dry from 2032 to 2055. He called for Congress to work with him to find other ways to extend it until at least 2075.
Another $ 33 billion a year from the surplus would help create a new Universal Savings Account for all Americans, with government matching funds tailored to encourage lower-income people to save more for retirement. Clinton did not provide a specific formula, but economic adviser Gene Sperling explained it this way:
A family making $ 40,000 would get a flat annual amount, perhaps $ 100, into their account.
If they put in $ 600 of their own money, the government would kick in another $ 300.
Over a lifetime, that family would have $ 130,000 of additional savings.
The idea that government instead would invest in financial markets perhaps as much as $ 700 billion set off alarms from conservatives and some liberals wary of government becoming a stock market Bigfoot.”
I feel some people are missing a simple point.
If Social Security were in glowing health Bush would still want to privatise it.
Mr. David,
You keep referring to something called “Bush’s list.” Can we infer from this that you place no moral responsibility whatsoever for the enemy soldiers and terrorists who are, in fact, the ones actually killing American soldiers in Iraq?
Maybe if the Federal government wasn’t imposing a 15% SS tax on everyone you wouldn’t have such an economic hardship issue.
If you want to eliminate the SS cap, then you’d better be prepared to fess up and start calling SS welfare, because then it would clearly a socialist wealth transfer scheme.
People who had their entire retirement savings in a single equity (Enron) were clearly not diversified enough to mitigate their risk. That is there own fault. No one forced them to save for retirement in that fashion.
Besides, holding up Enron as a representation of the entire corporate world in America is simply ludicrous.
And Clinton’s plan, to my knowledge, did not involve the direct ownership of assets by the American citizens. Instead, the Government would own/manage the assets, which is a horrible idea.