mixedmedia said:Yes, I agree with you. But I do think there are still liberals & Democrats out there who care about the class of people who built this country. (Even though they are, the middle class, part of a dying class in this society, either moving up or down.)
I think it is time for a new generation of Democrats to take over. I like John Edwards, he spoke often & still does about poverty & the rights of the working class and I think he really cares.
Not sure where Dean stands on labor & industry issues but I would imagine his views are pretty strong on the side of justice.
I agree with what you have said in previous posts about Clinton. I love Bill Clinton, and Hillary!, but he was not the ideal Democratic president. He was our only hope in his place and time and was certainly better than the alternatives. But he did have very moderate leanings on economics & social issues.
I'm still monitoring Barack Obama. I was thinking for a while that he might be our New Hope. Time will tell, though, I was a little disappointed that he voted to confirm Ms. Rice.
I do believe fervently that the Democratic Party needs to back away from moderation. We need to say what we believe and be proud of it and STAND BY IT. After four years of dubya, the country is going to be ready for a profound change. That's my silly dream anyway.
Pacridge said:After four years? Or after four more years?
mixedmedia said:doh! after four MORE years. Four more fabulous years.....America's gonna be ready for James Brown to be president after four more years.
anomaly said:I see that only liberals have responded...Where are those cons who claim that that the Dem party of today is run by left-wing nutjobs and socialists?
Oh, and Barack Obama does seem to be a promising rising star of the party. He voted for Rice, yes, but perhaps that was a peace offering to Bush before the huge debate over Social Security. And how could this debate not happen? Bush's SS plan is total nonsense.
Pacridge said:After four more years we're going owe Asia and the rest of the world so much money we're certainly going to need someone who can sell more CD's then James Brown.
anomaly said:Here mixed media-some info on SS. Here's SS now: out of your income, you pay a total of 6% (leaving decimals out for simplicity, I think its something like 6.2) and your employer pays 6% toward SS, that is, towards todays retirees (pay as you go). Bush's great plan: allowing workers under 55 to transfer 4% out of their 6% (2/3 of your share) into an array of mutual funds. 3 obvious problems: 1) Your retirement! Whether you actually have any money for retirement is entirely dependent on if the market is up or down when you retire. 2) Other people's retirement. Remember, our tax dollars today are going towards todays retirees. So how will Bush compensate for 2/3 of your tax money going into the market? This transition will cost a ton of money. 3) Bush has totally left out 40-54 yr olds. If you are in this age bracket, you will not even have a chance for any kind of increase in your mutual funds. And remember that 4% that Bush is letting younger people invest? That was your SS money!! Again, he will have to tax or something to get that money back.
There is, thankfully, an obvious, reasonable solution to the SS crisis. Right now, there is a $90,000 limit that can be taxed. This means that those who make, say, $200,000/yr only are taxed on their first $90,000 they make. What if these limits are removed? Estimates are that if the ceiling was $200,000 the crisis would be nearly averted. But, of course this would mean taxing Bush's campaign funders more, so that's why he left it out of his state of the union and really hasn't mentioned it at all. In fact, SS isn't really the major crisis confronting us. Healthcare is, and most people agree that the best way to reform it is for national state health care. Perhaps if the ceiling on SS was completely broken (meaning that Roger Clemens would pay 6.2% of his $18 million) national healthcare would be achievable. Maybe Kerry wasn't so crazy...
anomaly said:Oops....I'm sorry Pacridge, but there's just so much wrong with Bush's plan that I forgot some of it!!! Yes, Bush is quite mistaken in saying that SS will be bankrupt in 2042. Obviously W misunderstands SS...it can't go bankrupt! Its impossible.
Also, I'm wondering what liberals think of the "unmentioned alternative" of raising (or removing completely) the ceiling for social security taxes. I think that that is probably the best solution. After SS handle healthcare in two ways which cons won't be fond of. Remove the SS ceiling completely, and instead of borrowing the surplus it gives the gov't, use it to fund national healthcare. If that's not enough money for national healthcare, cut military spending by a little bit (I mean we spend way more on defense than any other country). And speaking of spending, did you guys see Bush's budget plans? He's cutting everything!! 150 social programs? Even cutting national security! Bush has got to be the worst president economically since Reagan.
mixedmedia said:Bush's Middle Class Tax Hike
A closer look at the administration's 2006 budget shows an economic agenda promoting the wrong choices and wrong priorities. Rolling back massive tax cuts for millionaires is off the table, but the Bush administration has no qualms about raising taxes on average Americans. The budget President Bush submitted to Congress yesterday imposes $5.3 billion in new, regressive taxes. (They are conveniently listed in table 18-3 on page 305 of the Analytic Perspectives supplement to the budget.) The administration's budget contains new taxes that will increase the price of a six pack of beer, an airline ticket and prescription drugs for veterans. Meanwhile, the budget cuts funding for education, public health and environmental protection and includes $1.4 trillion in new tax cuts for the wealthy. Welcome to Bushonomics. (Sound off on the president's middle-class tax hike on ThinkProgress.org.)
IT'S A TAX HIKE: President Bush has resisted raising the payroll tax to pay for Social Security reform. But don't be fooled: his Social Security plan is a tax hike. Here's how it works: President Bush is proposing keeping the Social Security wage tax at the same level while reducing benefits for future retirees. "By keeping the tax the same and reducing future benefits," Newsweek reports, "Bush is like a candymaker that cuts 46 percent off a chocolate bar but charges the same 75 cents for it. In other words, his plan would effectively increase the Social Security tax."
mixedmedia said:IT INCREASES THE DEBT: The Bush plan also entails "significant new federal borrowing." Vice President Cheney this weekend admitted the government would have to borrow $754 billion over the next decade to set up the private accounts. (That's low-balling the number – most experts agree the first ten years of the Bush tax plan would cost about $2 trillion.) And after that? "Trillions more after that,'' he admitted. Large-scale borrowing carries a huge price for the middle class. When the federal government runs up a large debt, that means less money is available for average Americans to borrow when they want to buy a house or a car or pay for college tuition. That smaller pool of money available for loans translates into higher interest rates – which not only puts a squeeze on individual consumers but also slows the rate of economic growth. That means, in the long run, fewer jobs, low wage growth and less money coming into the federal Treasury.
Pacridge said:Herein is a lot very important points. One of which is that the increased debt load this country faces will likely have a major impact on interest rates.
mixedmedia said:Incredible. I get so busy seeing the obvious injustices before me, that I neglect the more insidious & probably more harmful ones. Lends a whole new meaning to the concept of "fixing" Social Security.
So this, if it played out as cited, would affect many of the low-income & first-time home owner's who were so gleefully encouraged to take advantage of the low interest rates right after 9/11. Right?
Thanks Pacridge & anomaly both for the insight.
Oh, if I had a hammer.....
Urethra Franklin said:The inherent problem with the US is that you have no left wing. Your liberalism has let you down because it is too wishy washy, on the fence, idelologically flawed and incapable of achieving anything. You may make a few token gestures, but any real attempts to help the poor will be blocked by the real power: corporate America (witness the failure of Clinton's proposed health reforms). Ultimately, like your republican friends, you end up only serving the interests of a rich minority, and frankly, wouldn't know what social justice meant if it slapped you in the face. The world's poor will only be liberated by international socialism, but of course for you guys, you'll just get hysterical televangelists screaming "communists!" and "reds under the bed!"
The closest your poor will ever get to real social security is to go on a TV game show and "Grab That Dough!!!!"*** Sad nation :thumbdown
***Sponsored by McLiving (extra fries)
mixedmedia said:I appreciate your views and thanks for your support.
mixedmedia said:Perhaps it is that the left spends as much time eating itself as it does its opposition.
mixedmedia said:And, sorry, but why don't you defile the name of one of your dynamic European pop stars for a while? Some of us over here admire Aretha Franklin and don't appreciate her being used as a cheap-joke username. Have a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T, why don't ya?
Urethra Franklin said:Thank you darling. You're welcome.
Given that you don't actually have a left in the US, how would you know?
Yeah, like mixedmedia is your real name?
Now lighten up and get a life.
mixedmedia said:And, sorry, but why don't you defile the name of one of your dynamic European pop stars for a while? Some of us over here admire Aretha Franklin and don't appreciate her being used as a cheap-joke username. Have a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T, why don't ya?
Naughty Nurse said:I love Aretha - the true queen of soul. BUT, I'm afraid she's always been called Urethra by us health workers. It's a little joke. Live with it!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?