|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:57 am Post subject: The State of the Union |
    |
|
Tonight at 9 o'clock President Bush will address a joint session of Congress and deliver his State of the Union address. In his speech, he is expected to announce his plan to reform Social Security (or at least the direction he wants to go with it,) a plan for a guest worker program for illegal aliens and he is going to propose some sort of freeze on non-defense spending. I guess he's finally done spending hundreds of billions of dollars on new entitlements.
Anyway, he is also going to report on foreign policy. Things in Iraq have suddenly taken a serious turn for the better, and the Democrats have been muzzled on that issue following the successful elections over the weekend. Since Sunday we have heard nary a peep out of the likes of George Soros, Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter, who flat out said elections weren't possible. In other words, there are a lot of those on the left that now have egg on their face. Bush will be riding high when he takes to the podium tonight.
After the speech, the Democrats will deliver their response. Their strategy is going to be to demagogue the issue of Social Security. They are going to lie over and over again and claim that President Bush wants to cut the benefits of retirees. You will hear time and time again about President Bush wanting to "gamble" the Social Security trust fund. By the way, that's another lie. There is no Social Security trust fund.
This will be the official kickoff of the second term battle  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rikilabellevie
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: belgium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rikilabellevie
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: belgium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rikilabellevie
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: belgium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes riki, there were moans and groans from the left last night.... the part of George Bush's speech that brought the moans was his assertion that by year 2042, Social Security would be exhausted and bankrupt. No no no's were heard from Democrats. Can you believe it? Never in the history of the State of the Union Speech have boos been heard. Tradition, courtesy and protocol means nothing to Democrats when it comes to expressing their hatred of George Bush, their pathological dismay at losing the reigns of power in Washington, and their fear of Social Security privatization.
Now ... the Democrats will tell you that the boos were deserved; deserved because of Bush's statement that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042. Democrats will point you to the ephemeral Social Security Trust Fund. They will tell you that there is plenty of money in the Trust Fund to take care of things for fifty years or more into the future.
Come on, folks. I know you aren't buying that one. Listen closely. There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. It is gone. All of it. Spent. Every single year for decades Democrats and Republicans have raided the Social Security Trust Fund of every single penny that was left after that year's benefits were paid. That money was taken and spent on various vote-buying programs. All that Social Security has left is some IOUs sitting in a grey metal filing cabinet in West Virginia.
Think this through. What happens in 2042 (or earlier) when working Americans are not paying enough in Social Security taxes to cover the benefits for retired Americans. Some of those IOUs in that filing cabinet are going to have to be cashed in. And where is that money to come from? The U.S. Treasury, that's where. Can you tell me where the huge surplus resides from which that money can be drawn? Yup, you're right. There is no fund anywhere just waiting to cough up the money to cash in those trust fund IOUs. This means that our congress will have to either (a) cut spending in other areas to come up with the cash; (b) raise taxes to come up with the cash, or (c) borrow the money. That's a crisis, folks, by any definition. A crises denied by Democrats .. denied for purely partisan reasons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the irony of the guardian making fun of the state of the union is something |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't surprise me....the left-wing newsrag with editor Howell Raines, who was at one time the executive editor of The New York Times. Remember it was the Guardian that was printing how President Bush was a member of the conservative, greedy wing of the Privilege party. . . . George W got into the Air National Guard when others couldn't through his father's political pull, . . . he got into flight school ahead of others due to his father's political pull, . . . he was allowed to skip his normal weekend drills and make them up without being punished because of his father's political pull. . . . Cheney used graduate-school deferments to beat the draft. . . . The incumbent looks like Goofy when he smirks."
Now, how many of you think that you can convince the rational world that the Guardian even attempted to oversee a balanced, objective reporting of the State of the Union  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you claiming that the Guardian was wrong in ANY of the above-mentioned assertions, about Bush and/or Cheney?
As to Social Security, no, Democrats are NOT claiming that all is hunky-dory "for fifty years or more" -- another foolish and insupportable exaggeration, Donald; who is it you expect to fool with such claptrap -- yourself? Democrats see the need for change; they just aren't in the mood for fiscal suicide.
You are right about the "trust fund" -- as I pointed out last year, in quoting Pete Peterson, who reminds us that it is" neither trustworthy nor funded." What responsible people wish to see is a) a reversal of the indefensible "tax cuts for the wealthy," b) modification to the present cap on payroll taxes, currently at $90,000, and c) the minor changes to the present income stream necessary to stabilize the future of the system. (Notice that NO-ONE is suggesting that the super-rich be exempt from receiving benefits. . .!)
What responsible people DO NOT want to see is the apparent attempt to gain new revenue sources for the banking and stock-investment industries (by encouraging private investment accounts), nor the tragedy-in-waiting that will be the outcome for those who gamble a portion of their retirement funds in the stock market, and lose. It's another example of the wild-west, every-man-for-himself (as long as I've got mine) mentality of the New American Century boys. Do they really think that everyone wins, on Wall Street?
The other insupportible result of the White House proposal, is the trillions that will be wasted in the process of setting up the new system. Altogether, it is simply "not in the cards" for the Congress and the public to swallow this turkey.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It seems to me that the "no new taxes" crowd, who formerly used that ploy to pander to the greed, venality, and/or just plain "fuck you, I've got mine" portion of the public, have finally swallowed their own bullshit, and actually come to believe you can have Something for Nothing! How else to explain the rampant spend-it-all-and-borrow-more proposals and actions emanating from the (presumably, formerly) fiscal Conservatives now in power? They love the Less Government is Better Government line, while happily extending the power of government further into the lives and business of the People, and spending the People's monies, often extravagantly, as they see fit. (The present White House has quadrupled the amount it spends on PR to further its ambitions, for instance, according to a recent story.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
A poll was taken by (who else) CNN/USA Today/Gallup that asked how Americans think the Social Security crisis should be handled. Naturally, 'screw the rich' took the checkered flag in first place. Are we starting to see a pattern here?
More than two-thirds of adults contacted over the weekend said it would be a good idea to cut benefits for rich people and to raise taxes on wealthy retirees to cover any Social Security shortfall. Naturally, the non-rich would be exempted from any such cuts or tax increases. It all sounds so good, doesn't it?
The rich in this country, that is the top 20% of all income earners, pay 80% of all income taxes. That's where the vast majority of George Bush's $2.57 trillion budget is going to come from. What do you suppose would happen if the rich decided to stop paying taxes? What if they threw up their hands and stopped bearing the load?
Perhaps people will think about that the next time they talk about 'the evil rich.' It feels so good to say it though, doesn't it? Sitting there...in your miserable job...blaming your lot in life on somebody that is actually succeeding? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Sitting there...in your miserable job..."
now Donald the thing that you have to understand about the notion of trust and the rich is that it usually refers to offshore trusts.
no, they are not offshore to help the gentle fisherfolk of the islands, but because they evade (or is it avoid ?) paying tax.
but obviously a high roller like yourself would know that.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did you catch that quote from White House budget director Josh Bolten? This week he was talking to reporters about Bush's new budget. Some reporter jotted down this gem from Bolton:
"If you look at the president's tax cuts as a totality, the income tax, those at the upper end of the spectrum are now paying a larger share of the income tax than they were before. An example, the top 5 percent in income in this country -- that's people making above about $140,000 -- without the president's tax cuts that top 5 percent would be paying about less than 52 percent of our total income tax revenue. After the president's tax cut that group is paying more than 54 percent of our total tax revenue. So the notion that the president's tax cuts have somehow made the code less progressive is wrong. The president's tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive."
Do you feel good about that? Of course you do! There's nothing like starting out a fresh new day with the knowledge that the evil, filthy, hated rich are being punished for their achievements |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LindaP
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: down south
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Frankly, I don't really recall any budget that any president in my lifetime has put out that everyone has been happy about...
(not that I am totally disagreeing with you or anything...but...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
