State of the Union 2004

[Rower_CPU]

We all know it's going to come up here and there throughout threads, but I figured it'd be good for people to try to consolidate actual discussion of it to one central location.

So discuss, but, as always, keep it clean. :)

[pseudobrit]

Occurances of certain words:

"Terror" or "Terrorist" - 20

"Iraq" or "Iraqi" - 24

"War" - 12

"Kill" "killer" "killing" - 11

"Drug" "drugs" (not Rx) - 8

"Afghan" "Afghanistan" - 5

"nuclear' (weapon) - 4

"freedom" - 8

"mass destrction" - 3

"troops" - 5

"Peace" - 5

"Safe" - 3

"crime" (domestic) - 1

"victory" - 1

"Love" (noun) - 1

"love" (verb) - 1

"gun" - 0

"Saddam" - 3

"Osama" - 0
Interesting where the vocab. focus is and is not.

[pseudobrit]

WTF is with his steroid thing? I guess it's just an easy target, nevermind the fact that most leagues use regular testing.

The NFLPA already issued a "WTF are you talking about, you ignorant dip****?" statement.

[jayb2000]

I'm sorry, the Democrats use to have speechwriters that came up with "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself" and "Ask not whay your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Instead we get Nanci Pelosi looking like Joan Rivers and talking like a robot.

Obviously what they read was written over the last few days and weeks, so it was not a direct response to the SOTU, but it was so anemic.

President Bush will focus on terrorism and Hussein for the campaign, but poll after poll shows Americans are more concerned with the staggering loss of jobs, with corporate tax breaks, with Enron type scandals, etc. Pelosi and Daschle need to focus on the issues that concern the majority of the US and less on canned replies.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by jayb2000
I'm sorry, the Democrats use to have speechwriters that came up with "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself" and "Ask not whay your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Instead we get Nanci Pelosi looking like Joan Rivers and talking like a robot.

Obviously what they read was written over the last few days and weeks, so it was not a direct response to the SOTU, but it was so anemic.

President Bush will focus on terrorism and Hussein for the campaign, but poll after poll shows Americans are more concerned with the staggering loss of jobs, with corporate tax breaks, with Enron type scandals, etc. Pelosi and Daschle need to focus on the issues that concern the majority of the US and less on canned replies. Lol so true about the joan rivers thing.. bush is going to hammer home saddam is gone,we are chasing terrorists,and that those ceo's and big business loves him. he isnt going to talk jobs because he is exporting them and importing cheap labor, he isnt going to talk healthcare since he is looking out for those HMO's and those Ceo's who profit off the ill and sick, and he wont talk about the economy which he has blown. this guy is spending like there is no tomorrow. he didnt even mention the space program.

[mactastic]

Yeah I can't believe the anemic quality of the response from Pelosi and Daschel, but then again I thought the same thing when Trent Lott gave the rebuttal before. It's much more difficult to give a rousing speech to a camera, and much easier to give it to a cheering crowd.

My favorite part was the convoluted 'dozens of weapons-of-mass-destruction-related-program activities' line. Such a far cry from the lines he was giving a year ago.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Occurances of certain words:

"Terror" or "Terrorist" - 20

"Iraq" or "Iraqi" - 24

"War" - 12

"Kill" "killer" "killing" - 11

"Drug" "drugs" (not Rx) - 8

"Afghan" "Afghanistan" - 5

"nuclear' (weapon) - 4

"freedom" - 8

"mass destrction" - 3

"troops" - 5

"Peace" - 5

"Safe" - 3

"crime" (domestic) - 1

"victory" - 1

"Love" (noun) - 1

"love" (verb) - 1

"gun" - 0

"Saddam" - 3

"Osama" - 0
Interesting where the vocab. focus is and is not.

You forgot one important word. " Economy" it was repeated 14 times.

I thought the speech gave us a small but important glimpse into the campaign style he will utilize. He is known to be a very good campaigner and the effective way he answered some of his critics is something his opponent should note. On the issues of Iraq, Patriot Act, and the economy he shot a few shots across their bow that were rather persuasive to the typical electorate. Once we add good old campaign speeches and commercials the message will become even more effective.

Not once did he mention the words “democrat” and “republican” as far as I can remember nor did he directly attack the opposition. On the other side the democrats mentioned themselves more times than I can count and constantly attacked him. His style is one that appeals to the broad base while the Democratic style is geared only to the Bush haters. And we all know how effective that message was in Iowa for Dean.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Occurances of certain words:

Nice work! Did you do this tabulation yourself?

I'm waiting for one of the pundits to tally the dollar value of Bush's spending proposals.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jayb2000
Instead we get Nanci Pelosi looking like Joan Rivers and talking like a robot.

So true. I don't expect much from these "response" remarks (they're always pretty lame), but I kept expecting Pelosi to growl and snap at me.

[zimv20]

was anyone keeping an eye on the armed services kids? i was continually amazed at how unenergetic (sometimes despondent?) their clapping was.

i wonder how those individuals are picked. you'd think a qualification would have to be a die-hard bush fan.

[Dont Hurt Me]

speech was hollow, sounded good but where are those WMD's or was it dreams of having WMDs so we bombed them, where is that great economy? healthcare my god its a mess and getting worse unless you are a HMO pr Pharmaceutical company. this President is hanging out with those suites instead of the grass root american. he is out of touch with the American. listening to him you would think he won by a landslide when in fact he had less of the popular vote. He has helped the Corporations and is screwing the regular joe. Im a regular joe.

[SPG]

Originally posted by zimv20
i wonder how those individuals are picked. you'd think a qualification would have to be a die-hard bush fan.
I guess it's getting hard to find anymore bush fans left in the military.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by SPG
I guess it's getting hard to find anymore bush fans left in the military.

i admit i would be stunned if the democratic candidate won the (active) military vote.

THEN we'd see some late/problematic ballots disqualified.

[SPG]

Set to stun.

[Dont Hurt Me]

sending them to war and then wanting to cut the pay? wtf, i love the overtime crap they are trying to push. this administration is socking the American unless that american is steve jobs then in that case he is looking out for you.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
speech was hollow, sounded good but where are those WMD's or was it dreams of having WMDs so we bombed them...
From Slacktivist:

March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

I've mentioned this before, but this reminds me of the Cheetoh-factor, in which every additional adjective makes the noun in question less true:

"Cheese" = cheese
"processed cheese" = cheese, sort of
"processed cheese food" = cheese, sort of, plus other stuff that's not cheese
"processed cheese food snack product" = the food in question is orange, but contains no actual cheese.

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2004/01/cheetohs_of_mas.html

[Dont Hurt Me]

LOL very funny but true, end up with nothing but fiction.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by SPG

January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.


next: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activity allegations

(up is down, black is white)

[wwworry]

Originally posted by SPG
I guess it's getting hard to find anymore bush fans left in the military.

maybe it's because they realized they are fighting for fake Turkey.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
next: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activity allegations

Then: weaponized mass cheese food product destruction programs

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Then: weaponized mass cheese food product destruction programs

give me a weapon and that's me :-)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
next: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activity allegations

(up is down, black is white)

I thought it was weapons of mass destruction-related program activity aspirations?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Nice work! Did you do this tabulation yourself?

Yeah, from the official transcript.

[IJ Reilly]

Are we confused yet?

Cheney Is Adamant on Iraq 'Evidence'

Vice president revives assertions on banned weaponry and links to Al Qaeda that other administration officials have backed away from.

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney revived two controversial assertions about the war in Iraq on Thursday, declaring there was "overwhelming evidence" that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Al Qaeda and that two trailers discovered after the war were proof of Iraq's biological weapons programs.

The vice president stood by positions that others in the Bush administration have largely abandoned in recent months, as preliminary analysis of the trailers has been called into question and new evidence — including a document found with Hussein when he was captured — cast doubt on theories that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated.

Cheney's comments were seen as stoking the controversy over Iraq as the vice president was embarking on a trip to an economic summit in Switzerland and meetings with European officials, some of them fierce opponents of the war who have been dismissive of U.S. claims about the threat posed by Iraq.

Cheney has consistently espoused the most hawkish views among senior administration officials. His statements Thursday suggest he intends to maintain that tone as he takes a more high-profile role in President Bush's reelection campaign.

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government," Cheney said in an interview on National Public Radio. "I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."

That assertion appeared at odds with the recent words of other senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who said in an interview this month that he had "not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence" of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Danielle Pletka, an analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, defended Cheney's comments, saying he referred only to a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"Nobody has ever said Saddam directed Al Qaeda in attacks," Pletka said. "But it is clear that had he decided to do so at any point it would have been easy."

Members of Congress and some in the intelligence community said Thursday that Cheney's comments could lead the public to believe there was collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that that was not supported by the evidence.

U.S. intelligence officials agree that there was contact between Hussein's agents and Al Qaeda members as far back as a decade ago and that operatives with ties to Al Qaeda had at times found safe haven in Iraq. But no intelligence has surfaced to suggest a deeper relationship, and other information turned up recently has suggested that significant ties were unlikely.

Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is in custody, has told American interrogators that Al Qaeda rejected the idea of any working relationship with Iraq, which was seen by the terrorist network as a corrupt, secular regime. When Hussein was captured last month, he was found with a document warning his supporters to be wary of working with foreign fighters.

"There's nothing I have seen or read that backs [Cheney] up," said Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who called Cheney's remarks Thursday "perplexing."

Cheney also argued that the main thrust of the administration's case for war — the claim that Iraq was assembling weapons of mass destruction — had been validated by the discovery of two flatbed trailers outfitted with tanks and other equipment.

"We've found a couple of semi-trailers at this point which we believe were in fact part of [a WMD] program," Cheney said. "I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction."

That view is at odds with the judgment of the government's lead weapons inspector, David Kay, who said in an interim report in October that "we have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile [biological weapons] production effort."

In a BBC interview that aired Thursday night on public television in the United States, Kay said that is still the case. He said it was "premature and embarrassing" for the CIA to conclude shortly after the vehicles were discovered last year that they were weapons labs. "I wish that news hadn't come out," Kay said, calling the release of the information a "fiasco."

Experts are still in disagreement over the purpose of the vehicles, with some saying they may have been meant for biological weapons production and others saying it was more likely they were meant for making hydrogen.

Cheney is considered the administration official who has the most influence with Bush. His role in assembling the case for war has been controversial.

His numerous trips to CIA headquarters before the war were interpreted by some critics as an effort to pressure agency analysts to adopt hard-line views. In his public appearances, he often cast the alleged threat from Iraq in a harsh light, warning that United Nations inspectors could not be effective and that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program. Kay has since said there was no active nuclear program.

Since the war, as the administration has sought to deflect charges that it exaggerated the Iraqi threat, Cheney has appeared reluctant to give ground. On occasion, this has created public relations problems for the White House.

After Cheney implied in a television interview in September that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush was forced to acknowledge days later that the administration "had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in Sept. 11.

The White House had no comment Thursday on Cheney's remarks.

Citing Cheney's latest comments, Democrats on Capitol Hill renewed their calls for an examination of the administration's use of intelligence.

"This is the same problem that existed before the war. Leaders are going beyond what the intelligence community said," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The intelligence committees in the House and Senate are nearing completion of reports on intelligence failures in Iraq, but Republican leaders have resisted calls for examinations of claims made by officials in the executive branch.

Cheney insisted the "jury is still out" on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded last year. He said the search for banned arms should continue there.

"It's going to take some additional, considerable period of time in order to look in all the cubbyholes and the ammo dumps and all the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like that," Cheney said.

Bush has staunchly defended his decision to go to war, but has had to adopt somewhat strained language to characterize the threat he says was posed.

With no weapons of mass destruction yet discovered, Bush in his State of the Union address Tuesday said the United States had evidence of "weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-cheney23jan23,1,1979048.story

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Yeah, from the official transcript.
You probably don't need any homework assignments, but how about comparing this word frequency to the 2003 SotU address?

[SPG]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I thought it was weapons of mass destruction-related program activity aspirations?

weapons of mass destruction-related program activity aspirations allegations.

Come on join in! Just add another word and eventually we will wind up at the truth!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by SPG
weapons of mass destruction-related program activity aspirations allegations.

Come on join in! Just add another word and eventually we will wind up at the truth!

Better to just turn it into a catchy acronym.

[SPG]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Better to just turn it into a catchy acronym.
WOMDRPAAA?

[zimv20]

Weapons of Extraordinary Lethality Illegally Excluded from Declaration

W.E.L.I.E.D.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
Weapons of Extraordinary Lethality Illegally Excluded from Declaration

W.E.L.I.E.D.

LOL, you need to copyright that, zim!

[Frohickey]

I liked the "make the tax cuts permanent" and "personal retirement accounts".

I did not like the "limiting growth of discretionary spending to 4%" (should be 0% or negative), and "renew the Patriot Act".

I am ambivalent to the "steroid use".

Oh... here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html) is the actual text of the SOTU 2004.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I liked the "make the tax cuts permanent" and "personal retirement accounts".

I did not like the "limiting growth of discretionary spending to 4%" (should be 0% or negative), and "renew the Patriot Act".

I am ambivalent to the "steroid use".

Oh... here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html) is the actual text of the SOTU 2004.

Today he announced that discretionary spending will be limited to 1% increase in 2005. Wait until the budgets for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 come out. Liberals will be screaming.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Today he announced that discretionary spending will be limited to 1% increase in 2005. Wait until the budgets for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 come out. Liberals will be screaming.

Yeah, wait until that pork hits the fan. We'll all be screaming as the national debt swells. Except you; you'll still be cheerleading and making more bold predictions that won't come true.

Of course, you'll probably have a new screen name by then.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

Of course, you'll probably have a new screen name by then.

:D :D :D lol

Actually many of you will have different screen names.

Since you all think I am who you think I am I will post that person's prediction in January 2003 here. This is to make sure the record remains clear. So far from what I have been able to gather, I wish I could meet this famous person.

NOW FOR 2004 I AM MUCH MORE CONFIDENT

BUSH WILL WIN A MAJOR LANSLIDE AGAINST KERRY/EDWARDS

REPUBLICANS WILL CONTROL BOTH CHAMBERS BY EVEN BIGGER NUMBERS

APPLE WILL FINALLY INTRODUCE A SYSTEM 3X FASTER THAN PREVIOUS

APPLE STOCK WILL INCREASE BY 30%

GDP WILL INCREASE TO 4.0

THE MARKET WILL GO UP 20%

UNEMPLOYEMENT WILL GO DOWN BY 1%

I WILL ONCE AGAIN UPGRADE MY SYSTEM AND BE ON CLOUD NINE:D

[Neserk]

Originally posted by g5man


NOW FOR 2004 I AM MUCH MORE CONFIDENT

BUSH WILL WIN A MAJOR LANSLIDE AGAINST KERRY/EDWARDS



what do we get when you, umm, that person, is wrong? :D

[Dont Hurt Me]

people are forgetting this is a split country 45% demo's 45% repubs and the 10% like me on the fence. that 10% is going to make or break the next election and George's fiscal habits do not inspire confidence. take a look at the Pork bill he just signed. someone is going to get that bill and if it isnt the corporations then it means our children and childrens children.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
and the 10% like me on the fence. that 10% is going to make or break the next election .

yes we are :D

[g5man]

Originally posted by Neserk
what do we get when you, umm, that person, is wrong? :D

I have plenty of predictions on my own. So if any of mine are wrong, you will get to point out that I am wacko as well. But wait some of you already do.

In order for me to be wrong, the economy needs to suck, the Republicans will become a minority party, and Bush would have to either lose or win a very close election.

So you will never have the opportunity to point out that I am wrong.:D

[Neserk]

Originally posted by g5man
I have plenty of predictions on my own. So if any of mine are wrong, you will get to point out that I am wacko as well. But wait some of you already do.

In order for me to be wrong, the economy needs to suck, the Republicans will become a minority party, and Bush would have to either lose or win a very close election.

So you will never have the opportunity to point out that I am wrong.:D

I'm going to have to save this one.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by g5man
Today he announced that discretionary spending will be limited to 1% increase in 2005. Wait until the budgets for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 come out. Liberals will be screaming.

Well, if the 1% increase is correct, and that is under the rate of inflation, then it really is a decrease in the size of government.

Only thing is that the 1% increase does not apply to defense or homeland security (I hate that name).

[IJ Reilly]

Literally, too little too late. According to numbers I've seen recently, the growth in the federal budget under George W. Bush has been 8% per annum. Under LBJ and the Great Society (and the Vietnam War and the Cold War), it was 4%. It must deeply pain conservative Republicans to see their president increase government spending twice a fast as the most reviled of the liberal Democratic presidents. Or does it...?

[SPG]

Originally posted by g5man
Today he announced that discretionary spending will be limited to 1% increase in 2005. Wait until the budgets for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 come out. Liberals will be screaming.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003096.html

[wwworry]

He spends now to win the election - the definition of "pork barrel spending". Then cuts spending later to give more to his corporate donors.

In the last 2 years discretionary spending has increased faster than any time since the 1960s.

The budget deficit has reached all time highs, $477 billion, with no surpluses in sight.

Payroll taxes and middle income taxes are practically the same as when he came in office.

Corporate and taxes on the very wealthiest have dropped considerably.

Very early on, against the reccommendations of Alan Greenspan, Paul O'Neill and many fiscally responsible senators Bush refused to have any sort of triggers so that if the $5.6 trillion surplus disappeared the tax cuts would be revolked. Not responsible - spend what you have. The govt. is being run on borrowed money. Cheney claims "Deficits don't matter. This is our due."

This fiscal policy is irresponsible, dishonest and will hurt this country. Bush should be thrwon out of office for mismanaging our countries finances.

Remember, Bush's previous business experience was all with failed businesses. Let's not let it happen again.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
The budget deficit has reached all time highs, $477 billion, with no surpluses in sight.

Payroll taxes and middle income taxes are practically the same as when he came in office.

Corporate and taxes on the very wealthiest have dropped considerably.

Remember, Bush's previous business experience was all with failed businesses. Let's not let it happen again. [/B]

I saw my income tax drop. My take home pay is higher than it was prior to the tax cuts.

Payroll taxes, isn't that Social Security taxes? Why would that drop?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Payroll taxes, isn't that Social Security taxes? Why would that drop?

And therein lay the smoke and mirrors of the tax cuts: SSI is a regressive tax. Well into the middle income tax payers, SSI is a larger burden then income taxes (especially for the self-employed).

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well into the middle income tax payers, SSI is a larger burden then income taxes (especially for the self-employed).

you ain't kiddin...SSI is a major burden to the self-employed.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
And therein lay the smoke and mirrors of the tax cuts: SSI is a regressive tax. Well into the middle income tax payers, SSI is a larger burden then income taxes (especially for the self-employed).

Regressive tax?

Social Security taxes pay for retirement. The way its set up now, it pays for the retirement of current retirees, while your retirement will be paid for by future contributors. So, its a Ponzi scheme.

If Social Security is a regressive tax, how about if we eliminated it? Then, the poor would not have a tax at all, and they would have their tax cut.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I saw my income tax drop.

Mine went up. Salary's the same.

I guess if I could have just gotten a little raise to mid-six figures, I'd be paying less.

Thanks Bush.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Regressive tax?

Social Security taxes pay for retirement. The way its set up now, it pays for the retirement of current retirees, while your retirement will be paid for by future contributors. So, its a Ponzi scheme.

If Social Security is a regressive tax, how about if we eliminated it? Then, the poor would not have a tax at all, and they would have their tax cut.

Are you saying you don't know the definition of a regressive tax? How about making it progressive, or even flat? (Yes, I know you would be opposed, so it's a rhetorical question.)

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Social Security taxes pay for retirement. The way its set up now, it pays for the retirement of current retirees, while your retirement will be paid for by future contributors. So, its a Ponzi scheme.


social security is merely a stop-gap fund to help augment your retirement...maybe it would pay for "your" retirement but i can assure you the pitiful monthly payments the majority of americans receive are insufficient to retire on. maybe you realise this and you weren't being clear...but it's a peeve of mine when people refer to SS as paying for someone's retirement.

and yes it's a ponzi scheme/death bet much like life insurance.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Are you saying you don't know the definition of a regressive tax? How about making it progressive, or even flat? (Yes, I know you would be opposed, so it's a rhetorical question.)

I know the definition of a regressive tax.

My proposal is that since its a tax, and you call it a regressive tax, how about we get rid of it instead of changing it to a progressive or flat tax.

Just get rid of it.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I know the definition of a regressive tax.

My proposal is that since its a tax, and you call it a regressive tax, how about we get rid of it instead of changing it to a progressive or flat tax.

Just get rid of it.

You mean abandon Social Security? No thanks.

[mactastic]

While we're at it let's just 'get rid of' all the seniors who depend on their SS checks to make ends meet too. Solve that problem nice and neat.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
You mean abandon Social Security? No thanks.

i'd be more willing to consider it if congress first killed their own pensions and those of all WH officials.

[wwworry]

In The Price of Loyalty (I know I keep bringing it up but it's good) Paul O'Neill makes a case for private social security accounts that almost seems plausible. He and Greenspan talk it over and bring up the point that for a while, until people are vested, you have to have two systems. As you know, todays workers are paying todays seniors SS checks. If you siphon some of that money out for private accounts you have to make up the money somehow. They figured the cut off age for getting a private account would be 37 and you would need $1 trillion dollars to fund the transition. Early in 2000 the projected $5.6 trillion surplus made it seem responsibly possible.

Today, with the surplus squandered away, it's not possible. There is no money to pay for the transition. So Frohicky, your little tax cut today combined with "feel-good" military adventures, combined with unchecked discretionary spending, not to mention most of the tax cut went to multi-millionaires blew it. Forget about it. It's not going to happen. Tomorrow's money has already been spent.

[Frohickey]

So, are you saying "In for a penny, in for a pound." Do you also put more money into losing stocks? There comes a time when you need to cut your losses.

Ponzi-schemes are illegal if a private business were to set one up, why is it legal for our government to do it?

So, what are other solutions for making people responsible for their own retirement that you would be willing to accomodate?

[pseudobrit]

SS is in trouble because the fund is constantly being raided to cover general expenses.

There may be no point in arguing over it anymore; I fear the Bush administration has put us in such debt and deficit that SS may not survive the storm. Whether or not they did this on purpose is something we will discover later.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Ponzi-schemes are illegal if a private business were to set one up, why is it legal for our government to do it?


because it was set up by the legislative branch, signed by the executive branch, and not declared illegal by the judicial branch.


So, what are other solutions for making people responsible for their own retirement that you would be willing to accomodate?

i don't think there are any. if we accept that the burden the homeless and disadvantaged retired place on society costs more than an entitlement program, is there any reason to not opt for the entitlement program?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i don't think there are any. if we accept that the burden the homeless and disadvantaged retired place on society costs more than an entitlement program, is there any reason to not opt for the entitlement program?

How about if we accept the burden of housing and caring for disadvantaged retired senior citizens who have the same last name as we did/do, and we call 'mom','dad','grandma','granddad'?

[wwworry]

So do all your grandparents live where you live? Did you go away to school and decide to settle somewhere besides home? What about your wife's parents? Do, by chance, they all live in the same city you do? Do you have 4 children? Are you going to pay for all their medical expenses out of pocket?

'Cause the system you want needs all that.

[mactastic]

So those who don't have kids aren't worthy of a saftey net?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
So those who don't have kids aren't worthy of a saftey net?

Those that don't have kids could have saved enough to have their own safety net. They only had to provide for 1!!!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
So do all your grandparents live where you live? Did you go away to school and decide to settle somewhere besides home? What about your wife's parents? Do, by chance, they all live in the same city you do? Do you have 4 children? Are you going to pay for all their medical expenses out of pocket?

'Cause the system you want needs all that.

If I have 4 children, my private medical insurance would pay for their medical expenses. IOW, my premiums pay for their medical expenses. IOW, I pay for their medical expenses.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Those that don't have kids could have saved enough to have their own safety net. They only had to provide for 1!!!

But suppose they didn't save enough..... I guess that means they deserve to die along with those who can't save enough for health care.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
But suppose they didn't save enough..... I guess that means they deserve to die along with those who can't save enough for health care.

But suppose NO ONE saves at all? We'd all be in the same exact boat, where no one would have retirement income (or your so called safety net).

Remember the childhood fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper (A Bug's Life)? In the fable, the Grasshopper dies.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But suppose NO ONE saves at all? We'd all be in the same exact boat, where no one would have retirement income (or your so called safety net).


But since money was 'stolen' from your paycheck the whole time, the saftey net still kicks in for everyone.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
How about if we accept the burden of housing and caring for disadvantaged retired senior citizens who have the same last name as we did/do, and we call 'mom','dad','grandma','granddad'?

how about if we just magically make everyone immune from disease, as well?

[SPG]

I find it a source of entertainment to listen to Libertarians describe their ideal system. "...and everyone will be responsible for themselves and the net effect will be everyone lives better since they're not burdened with the public yada yada yada.." These greedy little buggers have no touch with reality or the realities of the majority of people.
Most people don't earn enough to have very large retirement accounts. Many who can, don't. Given the choice to have a new TV (or mac) or put away for your possible retirement in 50 years, what are most young people going to do?
Americans as a country save at a lower, if not lowest, rate than the other industrialized nations. We're supposed to be rugged individualists looking out for number one, getting our share of the pie and all that crap. Most people are carrying some amount of credit card debt at 18-22% and you expect them to voluntarily put away at 8% for retirement? Even if they did, they're losing money.
Privatizing everything and making it the individual's responsibility doesn't work so well iin the real world.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by zimv20
how about if we just magically make everyone immune from disease, as well?

that is a major point of the PPP's campaign platform in 2k16.. not only immunity but complete eradication of 100% of diseases *thumbs up*

and here i bet you all thought we were just focusing on wet pants! nope. we've got quite a few tricks up our trousers!

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
that is a major point of the PPP's campaign platform in 2k16.. not only immunity but complete eradication of 100% of diseases *thumbs up*


i will not be satisfied unless the party uses magic to achieve this

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
[B]I find it a source of entertainment to listen to Libertarians describe their ideal system.

Given the choice to have a new TV (or mac) or put away for your possible retirement in 50 years, what are most young people going to do?


When you have a tax system that punishes savings, what else are you going to get? 401K has limits as to how much you can put away every year. Do away with that limit, and you'd see savings soar.

I'd take the freedom to do with my savings as I please, instead of having nanny-government tell me what I have to do.

[mactastic]

If our tax system punishes savings so much, how come capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
If our tax system punishes savings so much, how come capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates?

You just answered your own question.

Which type of activity is more prevalent, capital gains/losses via investments, or income from working at a job?

[mactastic]

Them what you meant to say was that we have a tax system that punishes savings by the not-rich?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
When you have a tax system that punishes savings, what else are you going to get?

i agree that taxing savings is high ************. but let's be honest about the real reason it is taxed -- the US economy relies on consumerism.

if people are encouraged to save too much, it would cause the economy to tank (at least in the short term) plus cut off a big revenue stream to the gov't.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i agree that taxing savings is high ************. but let's be honest about the real reason it is taxed -- the US economy relies on consumerism.

if people are encouraged to save too much, it would cause the economy to tank (at least in the short term) plus cut off a big revenue stream to the gov't.

Yes.

Thats why a small government that only spends stuff on Constitutionally-mandated stuff would be great. No need for a big revenue stream, lots of savings.

Hmm... If the feds sold off the lands that they own in the western states, I bet that would pay for paying down the debt, as well as the added property taxes that these new properties would add to state and local governments.

I bet the Sierra Club would pay a pretty penny for Yosemite Park.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If the feds sold off the lands that they own in the western states, I bet that would pay for paying down the debt, as well as the added property taxes that these new properties would add to state and local governments.

I bet the Sierra Club would pay a pretty penny for Yosemite Park.

one of the roles i see for the gov't is to act as a buffer between capitalism and quality of life.

as a taxpayer, i agree to pay more to protect some percentage of the land.

check out this thing that happened in the suburbs of chicago a few years ago...

a community decided to purchase some farmland and donate it to the school system. their purpose was two-fold: have a local school and keep the community from growing (they didn't want more houses on that land).

the cash-strapped school system turned around and sold the land to a developer. it is now full of houses.

(why there wasn't a contract that prevented that, i don't know -- that's the story as told to me by friends who lived w/in sight of the new development)

[zimv20]

regarding taxes on savings...

i've never liked it, but recognize that eliminating it suddenly would cause issues.

i would support a decrease in cap gains, plus a threshold under which interest and dividends are tax-free. e.g. $10,000

i hate paying taxes on the $6 one of my savings accounts made this year. i mean, give me a ****ing break.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
regarding taxes on savings...

i've never liked it, but recognize that eliminating it suddenly would cause issues.

i would support a decrease in cap gains, plus a threshold under which interest and dividends are tax-free. e.g. $10,000

i hate paying taxes on the $6 one of my savings accounts made this year. i mean, give me a ****ing break.

Unintended consequences, my friend. everything govt does has unintended consequences.

Last I checked, Congress is full of lawyers, a few doctors, and no economists (Phil Gramm retired).

I read about that school selling the land, but what else could it do if the school is not in control of its own finances.

[mactastic]

Everything everyone does has unintended consequences. Even stuff Libertarians would do.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
Everything everyone does has unintended consequences. Even stuff Libertarians would do.

Yeah, but only good unintended consequences.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by zimv20
i will not be satisfied unless the party uses magic to achieve this

well duh, how the **** else would we do it??? we have like 1532 people in the party right now who do all sorts of magic... granted, most of it is damp trouser related, but still....