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
• 
Those terrorists killing soldiers in Iraq wouldn’t be doing it if the soldiers weren’t there in the first place. So what’s your point?
“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.”
Speaking for myself, I didn’t ignore the speech. I didn’t watch Bush’s delivery of it. I read extensive coverage of it the next day.
PAD
MP, those Enron employees? They were, in fact, forced by Enron to invest in the fashion that led to their loss of savings.
Interesting to note how, just 6 short years ago, “conservatives” were expressing concern that privatizing Social Security would be a bad thing.
SS tax is 6% of employee income. The rest is made up by employer matching. For the self-employed, they need to pay the full 15%. For the rest of us, it’s taken out by our employer, so it doesn’t count as gross income.
Think how much lower that % could be if it was spread out over more income, instead of just $90K.
No, you should infer that a President is responsible for putting them into harm’s way in the first place. You should infer that going to war is an important decision that a President should not take capriciously, and that the deaths of his countrymen is the consequence, so he’d better make sure the war is justified. That enemy combatants/insurgents/terrorists are murderers/killers is a given.
Rich Drees: I watched a pørņø. I figure if I’m going to see a bunch of bøøbš and people getting f@$*&d, there might as well be a funky 70s soundtrack to go along with it.
Luigi Novi: LOL.
James Heath Lantz: 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
They most certainly were not forced to invest in that fashion. Enron employees held 60% of their assets in Enron stock, but they weren’t forced to. And even if Enron company stock was the only available option in the 401K plan, no-one is forced to invest in a 401K plan.
And again, if it “was spread out over more income”, it would be welfare.
“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?”
No, but I think we can infer from your posting that you’ve never heard of the phrase, “The buck stops here” in regards to the President. Then again, if you embrace Bush’s belief that he’s made no mistakes, and if you think that it’s perfectly all right that no one in his administration has been held accountable for the flotilla of misjudgments and incompetence ranging from the invasion searching for WMDs to the prison torture to the ongoing insurgency they astoundingly never saw coming, then at least you’re consistent.
Can I infer from your posting that you can watch earlier SOTUs where Bush stands there declaring that Saddam must disarm or we will act with a coalition of nations to do the job–knowing that it’s all lies–and not get sick to your stomach?
I’ve never believed that 9/11 was Bush’s fault, despite the indisputable proof that his people–including Rice–were asleep at the switch. But Iraq was all Bush. Yes, he was steered there by his Neocons, but the buck does stop with him and the names of 1400 dead GIs, not to mention the thousands upon thousands who are wounded, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children annihilated by our bombs…
They’re all on Bush’s list.
And everyone who voted for him proudly attached their names at the bottom of that list as signatories.
PAD
Ok, fine, no one forced them to. But someone certainly prevented them from acting to save those founds once things started coming to light about Enron’s true status.
And while I agree with you that personal investment is a personal responsibility, I also think it’s niave to place no blame on the corporations.
How is it no a welfare program now? Just because the middle class is bearing a greater percentage of the burden? Why should income over $90K be exempt from supporting social security?
Blame for what? I can place blame on Enron for screwing up with their administration of the 401k plan such that the employees weren’t able to sell as the bottom was falling out, but I don’t see anything that would lead me to extrapolate this to an indictment on American industry.
As to why SS is not welfare, refer to the government’s SS web site and read up on how you qualify for benefits. It is a function of contributions to the system. It is not simply because you are an old fart.
… 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.
It sounds, from this statement, that you have the two confused. Living from paycheck to paycheck almost always is a case of poor planning and irresponsibility. Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning.
Don’t mistake economic hardship for irresponsibility.
Agreed.
Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning.
Proper financial planning doesn’t do a dámņ thing when your paycheck doesn’t cover the bills – unless you think it’s acceptable in the year 2005 to go without heat or electric just to survive.
Wow, Ken, this statement “Living from paycheck to paycheck almost always is a case of poor planning and irresponsibility. Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning.” describes almost no one I know.
The thing is, most people *feel* financially secure. And most don’t realize just how close to losing all their security they are. having had to deal with bouts of unemployment over the past 5 years (thankfully going on 2+ full years working now) I can tell you just how close the average family is to bankruptcy. College education basically requires someone to take out a loan, buying a car, housing. These three things alone are almost necessities to have any chance to advance in today’s society, and can easily set back the average family over $200,000. With that debt as a starting point, just about no one I know is in a position to financially survive a serious economic blow.
Ken:
>>… 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.
>It sounds, from this statement, that you have the two confused. Living from paycheck to paycheck almost always is a case of poor planning and irresponsibility. Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning.
I’m guessing that you have a job that pays pretty well and allows you to live by this standard of thought. “Economic downtimes”? These individuals are not in situations to ever have an up time. Anyone making minimum wage has next to no opportunity or freedom to even consider the planning or irresponsibility that you present here.
If you can’t pay off your college debt in 10 years, then clearly you spent too much on your college education. One needs to evaluate ROI when deciding where to go to school.
As for a car, I know plenty of people who lease or buy new. Both can be poor decisions, especially when you are just getting your footing.
As for a house, you have to buy what your means allows. If you are spending more than 40% of your montly income on housing costs, then you are living above your means. People complain that there is no low cost housing. That’s not true. There’s just limited low cost nice housing with a yard and lots of space. And that’s simply a function of supply and demand.
But regardless of all this, anecdotes are useless when it comes to public policy discussions.
So now we’re basing SS policy on .008% of the population (assuming a population of 260 million), half of which are under 25? Well that makes sense…not.
MP the problem with ROI (which I’m assuming to mean return on investment) is that there’s a risk involved in that analysis, and that risk is that your ROI is based on a series of assumptions and averages. Using me as an example, I was lucky (or good, I suppose) in that I earned a 4 year scholarship for college, then decided to go on to law school. I was making plans to attent a local school when a national, top ten law school offered me a spot. It literally was an opportunity I could not turn down, even though I knew tuition would be far beyond my means.
6 years after earning my law degree, I’m now working a very satisfying, challenging, and rewarding job on the fringes of the legal profession. The high ROI I estimated I could get with a top ten law degree turned out to be filled by an overpopulation of other top-ten graduates, so the work I was able to attain was far, far below the 6 digit salaries that were dangled in front of our eyes.
I’m not hurting. I made it through a tough market and found a job I love, and pays well. But you and others make it seem like it’s just a simple matter of determining what is “within your means.”
And THAT assumes that you have a financial advisor with you from the time you get your first job, making sure you don’t make mistakes like falling prey to credit card sharking. If our schools spent more time teaching fiscal responsibility rather than advanced math (I doubt I’ll ever need to use calculus in my life, ever again) we’d probably all be better off. But I don’t recall those classes being offered at any level.
It is not just a question of not trusting Shrub, it is the degree that I fear him and what harm he is doing to this country. Seeing him on TV just makes me sick, so I will try to avoid doing so. I can always read his lies in the paper the next day.
Hmm. It sounds like Howard Dean is on the verge of becoming head of the DNC.
And it sounds like other Democrats are afraid of this happening… why? Too liberal? Somebody outside the “mainstream” that produced candidates Gore and Kerry?
Looking back now, I wish Dean had got the nomination over Kerry.
MP:
>So now we’re basing SS policy on .008% of the population (assuming a population of 260 million), half of which are under 25? Well that makes sense…not.
Ok, it took me a while to dig up the info, but the following is taken directly from the U.S. Census Bureau:
2001 (Real Family Income):
bottom 20%: $24,000
Second 20%: 24,000-41,127
Middle 20%: 41,127-62,500
Fourth 20%: 62,500-84,150
Top 20%: 94,150-Up
Top 5%: 164,104-Up
Remember that these are family household incomes, not individual incomes. Information from caensus taken over the years shows a drastic sepreration between the rich and poor with those in the middle getting smaller all of the the time. I find it hard to believe that the majority of the nation are in hard times due to irresponsibile spending habits. If anyone here can explain to me how a family of 4 people can save and prosper with the parents resting during retirement on $30,000 a year, I’ll gladly listen and absorb the knowledge as I am making more than that alone, living within my means, not going out and gambling recklessly or living in excess and don’t have a huge nest egg.
Fred
Oops, I have info on the average household incomes for the groups as well, same source of the U.S. Bureau of Census:
2001 (Real Family Income):
Lowest 20%: 10,136
2nd 20%: 25,468
3rd 20%: 42,629
4th 20%: 66,839
Top 20%: 145,970
top 5%: 260,464
These numbers were even more alarming to me when thinking about a future for the bottom 40%.
>
You can always tell the people whove never had to experience any hardship in their life by ignorant comments like the one above.
“It sounds, from this statement, that you have the two confused. Living from paycheck to paycheck almost always is a case of poor planning and irresponsibility. Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning.”
Or the one below in this case…. (mumblemumblefriggintypekeycrap).
grrr…. I need to breathe and take more time here. The last post is NOT family income, but household income. It could be singles and/or roommates, etc.
The following is family income:
Lowest 20%: 14,021
2nd 20%: 32,466
3rd 20%: 51,538
4th 20%: 76,646
Top 20%: 159,644
top 5%: 280,312
Sorry for the misinformation before. This was quadruple-checked. 🙂
Fred
“Household” is not based on a family of four. Those numbers also do not account for the change in income over time. They are a point in time snapshot. Those numbers do not mean that a Household makes that income level through 40 years in the labor market. Those numbers correlate highly with age groups. Also, they do not take into account the wide variations in Cost of Living by region in this country.
Regardless, they could do it with the 15% a year is taken from them to pay into SS.
MP:
>”Household” is not based on a family of four.
You are correct. I was mistaken.
>Those numbers also do not account for the change in income over time. They are a point in time snapshot. Those numbers do not mean that a Household makes that income level through 40 years in the labor market. Those numbers correlate highly with age groups.
Ok, let’s look at this information(What can I say, I have a file of the stuff).
1979 to 2001 – Real Family Income Growth by Quintile:
Lowest 20%: + 3%
2nd 20%: +11%
3rd 20%: +17%
4th 20%: +26%
Top 20%: +53%
top 5%: +81%
The gap is growing.
>Also, they do not take into account the wide variations in Cost of Living by region in this country.
I’m not sure that cost of living is a helpful argument in this case as $20,000 a year in an area where cost of living is dirt cheap makes it a struggle to survive and in an area where cost of living is high, it makes it near impossible.
>Regardless, they could do it with the 15% a year is taken from them to pay into SS.
Seriously?
“Real Family Income Growth by Quintile” does not track individual households. The households in the lowest quintile in 1979 are not the same households as the lowest quintile in 2001. Proper analysis has to take into account income mobility.
And yes, seriously…assuming income mobility.
The thing is, most people *feel* financially secure. And most don’t realize just how close to losing all their security they are. having had to deal with bouts of unemployment over the past 5 years (thankfully going on 2+ full years working now) I can tell you just how close the average family is to bankruptcy. College education basically requires someone to take out a loan, buying a car, housing. These three things alone are almost necessities to have any chance to advance in today’s society, and can easily set back the average family over $200,000. With that debt as a starting point, just about no one I know is in a position to financially survive a serious economic blow.
All of this boils down to poor planning. Live within your means and these worries won’t exist.
Anyone making minimum wage has next to no opportunity or freedom to even consider the planning or irresponsibility that you present here.
Say it enough times and this might be true, but if someone is able to avoid debt (which is reasonable) than minimum wage does offer reasonable opportunity.
You can always tell the people whove never had to experience any hardship in their life by ignorant comments like the one above.
This is just not true, but no matter the hardship that I have experienced I have never been unemployed for over 24 hours at any time in the last 20 years and I am willing to take work that is below my educational level if it means providng for my family. When I look back almost all hardships that I experienced were due to my lack of planning and could have been avoided if I had made better decisions. But personal responsibility is lost on the liberal mind, I guess.
Live within your means and these worries won’t exist.
Wow, you make it sound so easy.
Why aren’t you out making millions with such sage advice?
Oh, I know: because it’s not that easy.
How does living within your means equate to being able to make millions? In fact, it is just the opposite, it means realizing that you don’t make millions.
What is hard about living within your means?
Oh, and according to the numbers posted, I am in the second 20% and able to live fine.
Wow, Ken, all I can say is can I borrow those rose colored glasses sometime? ‘Cause you speak as if you live in a totally different world from the one I do.
I can tell you that no amount of better planning could have prepared me for extended periods of unemployment. And while I was certainly willing to take lower paying work during that time, doing so would have meant not only giving up my unemployment benefit, but actually making *less* than I did on unemployment. A benefit, by the way, which my previous employers had paid taxes on so that I could have the time to look for work that fit my cost of living requirements, rather than be forced to work 80+ hours in jobs “below my education level.”
And I’m really glad that you’ve never had to experience unemployment. It stinks, really, to high heavan. Unfortunately, not all careers have so many positions open that you can lose one on Monday, and have another one lined up on Tuesday. Some of my time spent in what I call unemployed was spent in contract positions, one of which paid me well over the annual equivilent of $100K a year. That’s an annual salary I’m not likely to see in my current job for at least another 10 years, but it came in a job that literally could have ended at any moment. When those are the conditions under which you’re working, no amount of “good decisions” or “careful planning” can prepare you for when the rug not only gets pulled out from under you, but you discover there’s a long, dark, drop hidden underneath it.
I’ll have to somewhat agree with another post: those that have not come close to hitting rock bottom really have no concept of the term.
Ken:
>>Anyone making minimum wage has next to no opportunity or freedom to even consider the planning or irresponsibility that you present here.
>Say it enough times and this might be true, but if someone is able to avoid debt (which is reasonable) than minimum wage does offer reasonable opportunity.
Has nothing to do with repetition as that does not seem to do any good except with the administration. :p
Avoiding debt is easy enough to say, but unplanned, unavoidable events happen in life. Flood, sudden illness, death, etc. Any one of these situations could and have put families in poverty level situations from which they have little to no chance of recovery, certainly not at $6.00 an hour.
Ken, I don’t know you, nor you me, but we all tend to speak from places of privelege, whether we are aware of it or not. Your educational opportunities alone have put you above the majority of your fellow Americans. If you are healthy both physically, mentally, and financially count your blessings, but don’t believe that you are “the norm”.
Like you, I have busted my ášš (I have always taken any job necessary when needed, shake my head at family members who sit back and collect unemployment, and take full responsibility for where I am today.). I was fortunate enough to have a father who provided me with a solid work ethic. At the same time, I also know that if I don’t see the Tsunami coming, there is no way to avoid it.
Some people are born into it, some have it drilled into their heads, and some have no feasable way out due to the fact their they fall below a financial line where they become unimportant and a Nuisance. If they one no capital, no education or insight, and no way of getting a reasonable loan, how do they join those of us who are “enlightened”?
Fred
Mostly curious, Ken, but does “living within your mean” apply to the government, too? ‘Cause running a deficit when you already have outstanding debt sure doesn’t sound like living within your means to me.
None of that is justification for a state run pension system. If you want to provide welfare for individuals who fail to put themselves in a position to be financially secure, then call it welfare, set it up as a direct wealth transfer from haves to have-nots, and be done with it.
The current government deficit is certainly not “living with your means”. I don’t think Ken is arguing that the government is well managed. In particular, that is further evidence that a government run pension system is a bad idea.
MP, not sure what you’re referring to. If it’s unemployment, in Illinois, it’s a tax-supported system. You are entitled to a limited-time benefit based upon your income record. It’s pretty closely monitored, and you have to be actively searching for work in order to continue receiving your benefit. it’s not welfare. You have to have been employed to receive it.
If we’re back to SS, how would increasing the tax limit for funding it make it a welfare plan? You still have to contribute in order to collect, and your benefit amount is based on your contribution. Those that don’t work don’t collect. welfare systems go to anyone, regardless of contribution.
And you’r right, Ken isn’t saying that the current government is well run. However, his “liberal” comment suggests that he’s a supporter of the current government, and he’s basically saying that living beyond your means is irresponsible. Draw your own conclusions.
Yes, I’m still referring to SS. Unemployment Insurance was not an issue brought up by the SOTU.
Well, if you leave the system such that money in=money out, then I don’t see how raising the cap makes it solvent.
It increases the inflow of funds. More revenue= more interest over time = pushing the negative flow of cash off further into the future or elimintes it all together. If the problem is paying for it, then we just need a way to generate more money. that’s either with additinal jobs, or broadening the tax base.
If you continue to base SS benefits on what you put into the system, then someone who puts more in when the cap is increased will simply get more out. It nets out and doesn’t change anything. The only way increasing the cap works is if the added revenue to paid out to beneficiaries without regards to contributions in, change SS to a redistributive system.
>
No, liberals are actually quite bit a better and honest when it comes to personal responsibilty. Almost as good as conservatives are at being arrogant douche bags.
I was going to say I hope you’d never have to experience true hardship. Things that have happened to my family and others, such as horrible diseases like luekemia and auto accidents (you know, those easily planned for and avoided things), never to happen to yours, even if it meant you’d never learn the error in your position. But you know, I can’t honestly express that sentiment now. Start planning…
It may be “arrogant” to assume that anyone who can’t make ends meet and save is not living within there means, but it is also foolish to assume the reverse.
We all can’t have rich daddies with powerful friends to bail us out like Shrub. By the definition you give us. Shrub should not have been given assistance by his father’s friends to bail out his companies when he drove them to ruin.
Mitch Evans,
No, I never “blew off” a Clinton State of the U for the same reason I have read Michael Moore books.
1.) I refuse to comment on something unless I can do so honestly, critically and with knowledge.
2.) Of all the speeches/ press conferences, the State of the Union sets the tone throughout the year politically. And it is impossible to get the same feeling via transcripts or soundbites.
3.) Maybe, just maybe, something will be said that will make me think differently, however slightly.
4.) Clinton’s initiatives included many I agreed with like welfare reform and the Defense of Marriage Act. Some that sounded good, I would read up on. I mean, after he blew health care reform and lost the House, he never tried implementing anything risky politically that could be truly classified as liberal. Which is so odd, because he truly had charisma and charged his base. But he took the safe way out, and wound up accomplishing much less than he probably could have.
Peter, to be fair, Bush finally conceded that he had made mistakes when he spoke during the debates. He never articulated an example, but at least he corrected his previous statement to the contrary.
“It may be “arrogant” to assume that anyone who can’t make ends meet and save is not living within there means, but it is also foolish to assume the reverse.”
What does that even mean?
Jerome,
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).
I said I wasn’t watching. I did not say I am not informed. Actual economic experts opinions on the issue are more valid than whatever feel good doublespeak Bush is spouting this week.
From Aaron,
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.
The goal is to phase out the safety net that so many rely on. SS is an insurance, not welfare. We and our employers pay a premium with every paycheck. So, those of you who agree with privatization, stop twisting the argument with false definitions.
Last year, I made just over $30k.
My wife is permanently, totally disabled by her depression, PTSD, and OCD. Our daughter is autistic.
I’m working full-time, we’re living in a crappy little one-bedroom slum-level apartment whose one door doesn’t even bloody well close, I drive a decade-old Geo Metro that I keep both because of its fuel economy and because I simply can’t afford anything better, and we eat a lot of pasta (it’s cheap around here). The apartment costs approximately 40% of my income (the non-slumlords around here want it to be no more than 33%, which cuts out upward mobility in lifestyle).
We are indeed living from paycheck to paycheck, with no sign things will get better – I’m too old to work 40+ hours a week, help my family with their needs, and still go to school.
I did make one serious mistake years back, when I got out of the service (during Bush the First). I believed someone who told me he had a COBOL-programming job for me in Seattle. I moved my first family up there, thinking I’d have it made. After three months on unemployment, we found ourselves living in a tent in the woods on the shoulder of Mount Rainier, because we couldn’t even afford the cost of living in the campgrounds any more. An apartment was completely out of the question. Years of hard work pulled us out of that hole, despite Newt Gingrich’s best efforts…
Now, tell me again how I can just make a few changes and suddenly live better.
“The current government deficit is certainly not “living with your means”. I don’t think Ken is arguing that the government is well managed. In particular, that is further evidence that a government run pension system is a bad idea.”
Given how many privately-owned businesses go bankrupt on any given year, I’m not sure the governement is always that much worse.
The thing that gets me about privatization is that it’s an apparent admission that they aren’t competent to run a pop stand. So? What then makes them think they are competent to run a country?
The debt thing is another oddity. Consider the comments made above about educational costs. In Canada, we’ve had that debate, too, with lots of people saying it’s bad for government to get into debt by putting too much money into health and education. So, why is it any better for individuals to get that deeply into debt? Norway manages to have free post secondary education. What’s wrong with us that we can’t manage it? After all, someone university educated should, in theory, get a better-paying job and thus pay more taxes back into the system.
Seems like as good a place as any to mention that the LA Times–no right wing rag they–crunched the numbers of the latest unemployment figure and found out:
“But the bureau also revised its total for the March 2003 to March 2004 period as part of its annual benchmarking. As expected, this added 203,000 jobs to the period.
Coupled with January’s modest growth, this was enough to prevent Bush from becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his administration.”
Now…given the way that some liberals act about predictions that don’t quite come true I suppose one could argue that those of us on the other side could start screaming “Liars! Lying liars of lyingosity, choking on the lyingness of your lying lies!” Except that A- it seemed like it would be true at the time and B- who wants to sound like that anyway?
And exactly how many people died because of that prediction, Bill?
I would hope you would be willing to admit there is such a thing as a difference in degree in such matters…
Sigh…actually I was trying to convey how incredibly foolish people look when throwing around the L word. That’s all.
Yeah, I can get that.
Sorry if I seemed to kinda snap on ya, there was just this sense of deep bitterness to your post that triggered a reaction. (My perception, anyway. But that’s all any of us have to work with, yes? *g*)
There’s more coherent thooughts lurking at the edge of my consciousness, but frankly, I’m too tired at the moment to make them…