State of the union

[Schweddy]

How did President Bush do?

 

[Gabo]

The speech infuriated me.


He kept mentioning how he's trying to increase our freedom and blah blah blah, yet he's doing nothing of the sort. What he IS doing is taking freedoms away via the Patriot Acts etc.

Then he mentions how we're better than Iraq because we aren't trying to FORCE our government upon them. Which we totally are. We say, "Ok, everyone WILL vote now for a President. And you WILL have democracy because we say so." I would consider that FORCING.


His speech had promises sounding quite libertarian (and why not, because libertarian promises make everyone happy), but what he is actually doing is completey different from what he promises.

Yet people continue to believe he's doing what he says, with standing ovations every 30 seconds.

 

[Blue Hobgoblin]

The State of the Union was a great theatrical performance. Politically rotten, but Bush put on a great show. arty

 

[Chaos10187]

It sounded good, but I really want to see just how much he follows through with some of the things he promised.

 

[Fantasea]

The speech infuriated me.

From my reading of your writings, this is to be expected because everything, it seems, infuriates you.

He kept mentioning how he's trying to increase our freedom and blah blah blah, yet he's doing nothing of the sort. What he IS doing is taking freedoms away via the Patriot Acts etc.

Please list for us some of the freedoms the Patriot Act has taken away. Added security related to travel doesn't qualify as infringing on freedom.

Then he mentions how we're better than Iraq because we aren't trying to FORCE our government upon them. Which we totally are. We say, "Ok, everyone WILL vote now for a President. And you WILL have democracy because we say so." I would consider that FORCING.

My, my, what a short memory you have. Have you forgotten that during his thirty-five years in office, the people of Iraq voted several times to elect Saddam Hussein to be the president of The Democratic Republic of Iraq?

His speech had promises sounding quite libertarian (and why not, because libertarian promises make everyone happy), but what he is actually doing is completey different from what he promises.

You also seem to have forgotten that any 'promise' requiring legislation must be introduced, debated and passed in both houses of Congress before it can become law?

Yet people continue to believe he's doing what he says, with standing ovations every 30 seconds.

That is because the president has proved to the world that, regardless of all else, he's a man of his word who can be trusted to keep his promises.

It's too bad that more politicians don't follow the admirable example he sets.

 

[Fantasea]

The State of the Union was a great theatrical performance. Politically rotten, but Bush put on a great show. arty

Politically rotten? How so? Some specifics would help clarify things and allow for rebuttal.

 

[Fantasea]

It sounded good, but I really want to see just how much he follows through with some of the things he promised.

Stay tuned for further developments.

P.S. How many promises can you cite that he has broken in the past four years?

 

[MeChMAN]

Me personally I don't watch a presidents speeches. They always have a way of exciting me when they make them and then let me down real hard when they don't follow through with their plan. So I just sit back and wait to see what happens.

 

[Gabo]

From my reading of your writings, this is to be expected because everything, it seems, infuriates you.

That is because our sweet and innocent land of the free has become a giant monster that sees no problem in breaking even the laws it has set for itself.

Please list for us some of the freedoms the Patriot Act has taken away. Added security related to travel doesn't qualify as infringing on freedom.

1) The money the government steals from me (politicians like to use the name 'taxes') now goes to pay for the Patriot Act. Stealing is against the law.
2) People can now be held indefinitely without trial, searched without warrants, and have property confiscated without a trial.
3) "Terrorist" has been redefined so broadly by the Patriot Act it could include thousands of regular US citizens as suspected terrorists.
4) Privacy is completely invaded, now that the government has granted itself the right to tap into anyone's computer. Furthermore, it forced all virus protection companies to comply and make the government spyware undetectable. They can now track each and every website we visit, even track each and every stroke of the keyboard.

My, my, what a short memory you have. Have you forgotten that during his thirty-five years in office, the people of Iraq voted several times to elect Saddam Hussein to be the president of The Democratic Republic of Iraq?

Their system of government was quite different from ours. Now we are FORCING our type of gov upon them. We gave them no choice as to what government style they would adopt, only allowing them to choose who would represent them.

It's too bad that more politicians don't follow the admirable example he sets.

Yes, every Pres should not veto a single bill their entire first term!

 

[Pacridge]

Stay tuned for further developments.

P.S. How many promises can you cite that he has broken in the past four years?

He promised most of the tax breaks he was giving would go to the poor. They didn't.

Plus- Bush is a good politician, he doesn't give promises. But if you just look at what he's lied about- that's a whole another story.

He said "I would balance the budget except in war or a national emergency or foreign crisis"- another lie.

Plus right now he's lying about social security. He's trying to dupe people into believing that if you don't let the government put part of your money in the hands of Wall Street, well then it's going to go broke. Which it will; in about 50 years- witout any changes. No sense just upping the age of retirement since people are living longer. No sense repaying the monies he and other admins have taking out of it. No, we must give our money to Wall Street because everyone knows they never steal from anyone. They will save us.

 

[Chaos10187]

He promised most of the tax breaks he was giving would go to the poor. They didn't.

Plus- Bush is a good politician, he doesn't give promises. But if you just look at what he's lied about- that's a whole another story.

He said "I would balance the budget except in war or a national emergency or foreign crisis"- another lie.

Plus right now he's lying about social security. He's trying to dupe people into believing that if you don't let the government put part of your money in the hands of Wall Street, well then it's going to go broke. Which it will; in about 50 years- witout any changes. No sense just upping the age of retirement since people are living longer. No sense repaying the monies he and other admins have taking out of it. No, we must give our money to Wall Street because everyone knows they never steal from anyone. They will save us.

Correct me please, if im wrong. But I think Bush said in the SOTU that he was going to try this plan, to open funds. Where you take money out of your pay check that goes to the government, then when the time comes, the money is put twords your Social Security. Seems Viable, if I understood him correctly.

 

[Pacridge]

Correct me please, if im wrong. But I think Bush said in the SOTU that he was going to try this plan, to open funds. Where you take money out of your pay check that goes to the government, then when the time comes, the money is put twords your Social Security. Seems Viable, if I understood him correctly.

I really not sure what he said in the SOTU. His plan, so far as it's been disclosed, is to allow people to stop putting some of their retirement money into SS and rather invest it with Wall Street. Which doesn't sound all that bad until you realize that the people paying into it today are funding the people retired today. So when you make that change your going to have to come up with a huge amount of money to continue paying the retirees of today. The part he's been lying about is to what degree the system is hurting. He first claimed it was going to be bankrupt by 2042 then when it was pointed out that in 2042 it would only be 12% short of meeting it's needs he changed that date to a later date. I'm not sure what date he's currently trying to scare people with, but it's a lie too. The sytem needs to be fixed. One of the best ways to fix it would be to repay all the money that's been borrowed out of it. Another would be to simply up the min. retiremnet age since people are living so much longer. Taking large amounts of the funding from the system and giving to Wall Street to watch, and charge management fees on, isn't a good way to fix the system. Running around the country and lying to people and telling them it's broke and won't work isn't helping either.

 

[Gabo]

The system should be fully privatized. People have the right to decide where their hard earned money goes, whether that's to parties every night or to a savings account for retirement.

A possible solution so the SS-dependents don't get screwed:
Pass a bill requiring pork in the budget to be reduced enough to cover the costs of these SS-dependents. Then, when all the SS-dependents are done with the system, taxes may be lowered to fill the void they left.

Everyone wins!

 

[anomaly]

Regarding Bush's speech: From what I've seen, it seems as if he did exactly what he promised not to do in the inaugural address-further polarize the country. Notice that when the right stood and cheered the left sat glumly in the seats.

Here's a better solution to SS: Instead of a private account that you can touch any time you want (for parties, right Gabo?) why not have the gov't invest it for you. It has been shown that over time, the market inevitably grows. So if the gov't invests it for us (of course wisely i.e. not all in one stock, but rather a little bit of money in many stocks) and sets limits saying that we CAN'T take that money out until we retire, then we will have ample money to retire on. So if Bush wants to pursue "private" accounts for us to invest a portion of SS money into, have the gov't handle it so people can't, as Gabo suggests, take it out for parties as they wish.

 

[Gabo]

Here's a better solution to SS: Instead of a private account that you can touch any time you want (for parties, right Gabo?) why not have the gov't invest it for you.

Because we are supposed to live in the "land of the free".

It has been shown that over time, the market inevitably grows. So if the gov't invests it for us (of course wisely i.e. not all in one stock, but rather a little bit of money in many stocks) and sets limits saying that we CAN'T take that money out until we retire, then we will have ample money to retire on.

The quality and type of retirement a person desires differs greatly from one to another. There is no reason to put the control once again in the hands of the government, who has proven they can create failure for all.

We deserve the freedom to make the choice on our own.

 

[Fantasea]

He promised most of the tax breaks he was giving would go to the poor. They didn't.

Everyone who pays income tax received a reduction in proportion to what they paid. With all of the 'gimmies' available, nearly fifty million families pay no income tax at all. Of course, the 'poverty pimps', as Bill Cosby calls them, will never be satisfied.

Plus- Bush is a good politician, he doesn't give promises. But if you just look at what he's lied about- that's a whole another story.

He said "I would balance the budget except in war or a national emergency or foreign crisis"- another lie.

Those who understand the meaning of the word 'lie' realize that it is used incorrectly in these statements.

Plus right now he's lying about social security. He's trying to dupe people into believing that if you don't let the government put part of your money in the hands of Wall Street, well then it's going to go broke. Which it will; in about 50 years- witout any changes. No sense just upping the age of retirement since people are living longer. No sense repaying the monies he and other admins have taking out of it. No, we must give our money to Wall Street because everyone knows they never steal from anyone. They will save us.

If you would prefer to see your social security contribution rise from the present 12% to about 50% of your earnings, the way to accomplish that is to do nothing to change the present system.

A recent poll shows that workers in the 18 t0 40 age group prefer the private savings accounts by 2 to 1.

Perhaps they know something that you don't.

 

[anomaly]

ANDREWS (2/4/05): Some Republicans have even gone so far as to suggest the one approach Mr. Bush did not mention in his speech, raising the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes, which is now about $90,000 a year. The idea appeals to some politicians because only about 6 percent of Americans earn more than $90,000 a year. Imposing Social Security taxes on incomes of up to $200,000 would come close to eliminating the entire [$3.7 trillion] deficit.

^^^^From New York Times^^^^

If Andrews is right, then think of what a combination of "raising the ceiling" and raising taxes slightly would do! Or perhaps all Americans could start paying SS taxes, which would alleviate the crisis completely. It would avoid the obvious dangers of privatization (one such danger: if SS is privatized, then whether or not you received retirement benefits would depend on whether the market is up or down when you retire). For more dangers of privatization, go to aarp.org ...

 

[Fantasea]

Me personally I don't watch a presidents speeches. They always have a way of exciting me when they make them and then let me down real hard when they don't follow through with their plan. So I just sit back and wait to see what happens.

That's how I felt during the Clinton years. He kept telling me he felt my pain, but the pain never got any better.

This president, on the other hand is different. He makes a promise; he keeps the promise.

The trouble is that socialist-lib-dems and their media apologists don't like the promises he makes.

 

[anomaly]

I'd just like to correct you...apparently you don't realize that there are no socialists holding office in the U.S.A, and anymore there are few liberals. Most of the Democrats you despise are neo-liberals, that is, they are fiscally conservative. (see my thread in economics: Where are you Liberalism?)

 

[Fantasea]

ANDREWS (2/4/05): Some Republicans have even gone so far as to suggest the one approach Mr. Bush did not mention in his speech, raising the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes, which is now about $90,000 a year. The idea appeals to some politicians because only about 6 percent of Americans earn more than $90,000 a year. Imposing Social Security taxes on incomes of up to $200,000 would come close to eliminating the entire [$3.7 trillion] deficit.

^^^^From New York Times^^^^

If Andrews is right, then think of what a combination of "raising the ceiling" and raising taxes slightly would do! Or perhaps all Americans could start paying SS taxes, which would alleviate the crisis completely. It would avoid the obvious dangers of privatization (one such danger: if SS is privatized, then whether or not you received retirement benefits would depend on whether the market is up or down when you retire). For more dangers of privatization, go to aarp.org ...

Sounds like 'The Old Gray Lady' is once more carrying wter for the socialist-lib-dems who never have a solution to a problem unless it includes taxing 'the rich who really don't need the money'.

A litle quick math reveals that at the current combined rate of 12.4%, a wage earner or self-employed person making $90,000 would be responsible for social security contributions of $11,160 and a wage earner or self-employed person making $200,000 would be responsible for social security contributions of $24,800.

That line about benefits being related to the market being up or down when you retire is an outright deceptive falsehood designed to frighten unsophisticated persons.

 

[Fantasea]

I'd just like to correct you...apparently you don't realize that there are no socialists holding office in the U.S.A, and anymore there are few liberals. Most of the Democrats you despise are neo-liberals, that is, they are fiscally conservative. (see my thread in economics: Where are you Liberalism?)

Are you telling me that leopards can change their spots, that scorpions can change their natures, and that Democrats can do likewise?

Are you saying they have repudiated forty years of the Lyndon Johnson 'Great Society' socialistic entitlement programs which transferred the wealth from those who have it to those who do not?

Are you saying that the socialist-lib-Dems are finally, though perhaps grudgingly, agreeing that the unfettered free market capitalist system of the capitalist-conservative-Republicans is the better way to go?

If so, you have a lot to learn. I am reminded of a line by Shakespeare, "That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."

On the other hand, perhaps there is a measure of truth in what you say. After all, in the span of just six years from 1994 to 2000, the socialistic liberal policies of the Democrats resulted in the loss of control of the House of Representatives, loss of control of the Senate, and loss of the White House. And, in 2004, the White House was retained by the Republicans together with unprecedented increased majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Does the old saw about rats fleeing a sinking ship have application here?

 

[anomaly]

what I'm saying is that there aren't many Dems out there still supporting old liberalism (larger gov't with social programs to help poor) and the higher taxes to fund these programs. Clinton cut taxes during his presidency, and ran one of the most conservative economic policies of the century. And are you telling me that you cannot see politics' movement to the right? Today we view free-market capitalism as unarguably the best form of economy, and few Democrats oppose this view (but hey, I'm sure FDR would have accepted it just as easily). And as I've pointed out, this movement does not mean that conservative economics work better, (I've already used history to expose this myth) in fact, it may be said that FDR's New Deal was the most successful economic plan of the 20th century (it was also the most liberal).

 

[Fantasea]

what I'm saying is that there aren't many Dems out there still supporting old liberalism (larger gov't with social programs to help poor) and the higher taxes to fund these programs.

I guess these are the panderers who will sell out their principles if they think it will get them elected. You know, like Al Gore, who did not support abortion on demand until he accepted the job of Clinton's running mate.

Clinton cut taxes during his presidency,

In the event you have forgotten, Clinton and the Democraticaly controlled Congress gave us the largest tax increase in history. They even taxed social security benefits for the first time.

With respect to the Clinton tax cut, may I remind you that the tax reduction was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. Clinton did not have the guts to veto the Republican tax cut legislation. So you may credit him as you wish. However, first, know the truth.

and ran one of the most conservative economic policies of the century. And are you telling me that you cannot see politics' movement to the right?

After the first two years of his adinistration, Clinton had only two choices; eithter veto or sign the Republican initiated legislation that was laid on his desk.

Today we view free-market capitalism as unarguably the best form of economy,

There was never any argument about that, except from socialists and communists.

and few Democrats oppose this view (but hey, I'm sure FDR would have accepted it just as easily). And as I've pointed out, this movement does not mean that conservative economics work better, (I've already used history to expose this myth) in fact, it may be said that FDR's New Deal was the most successful economic plan of the 20th century (it was also the most liberal).

Perhaps you are not aware, but it took the buildup of the war related industry
that produced the jobs that put everyone to work and ended the 'depression'. Sweeping all of the available manpower into the armed forces kept them out of the labor market. The only thing that could happen was prosperity.

 

[anomaly]

So are you opposed to what FDR's New Deal did? And is it a cardinal sin now to oppose free market capitalism? If so I guess Thomas Frank is truly right in saying that we believe in "one market under God". Liberals have long opposed unregulated corporate capitalism i.e. liberals have always been pro-labor while cons have been pro-business. I suppose the question now is are you pro-business? Do you favor laissez-faire style capitalism in which the government gives few if any regulations and restrictions to businesses. So since it is clear that liberals are opposed to unrestricted capitalism, are we simply Commies and socialists who "just don't get it"?

 

[Gabo]

So are you opposed to what FDR's New Deal did? And is it a cardinal sin now to oppose free market capitalism? If so I guess Thomas Frank is truly right in saying that we believe in "one market under God". Liberals have long opposed unregulated corporate capitalism i.e. liberals have always been pro-labor while cons have been pro-business. I suppose the question now is are you pro-business? Do you favor laissez-faire style capitalism in which the government gives few if any regulations and restrictions to businesses. So since it is clear that liberals are opposed to unrestricted capitalism, are we simply Commies and socialists who "just don't get it"?

If you look at economies through the ages, the more rules and regulations in place, the less success the economy has.

I like to refer to this as "the wealth pie". The more restrictions put in place, the smaller the pie gets. Sure, maybe the less fortunate are getting a larger percentage of the pie, but it is also much smaller. In this way, communism makes the pie so small there's no room for improvements. It makes the pie so small that it's not big enough for the economy, and everything starts to go backwards. Pure capitalism provides the biggest pie possible. And the bigger the pie is, the better the lives of everyone. Also, because the pie is so large people can invest in improvements, which in turn make the pie even larger.

Capitalism is the side where there are no restrictions.
Socialism is the side where everything is restricted.


It only seems logical that pure capitalism brings the best results.