PDA

View Full Version : Bush laying it out for Social Security Reform


Hoover
02-02-2005, 08:26 PM
Man, about time someone does it.

i think he's doing a great job, best I've ever heard him speak

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 08:28 PM
How can those jackasses on the left boo SS reform?!?

Hoover
02-02-2005, 08:32 PM
I know, by them saying no, they are telling young people they don't give a shit.

you don't wait to fix your roof when it falls in on you. We have to do something to help younger people prepare for a time when Social Security is not around.

KCWolfman
02-02-2005, 08:33 PM
How can those jackasses on the left boo SS reform?!?
Simple. They don't use the program because they know it is sh*t, but they do have their automatic votes they stand to lose every election year with "they are stealing your social security".

Unfortunately many (including some on this forum) buy the tripe hook, line, and sinker.

Hoover
02-02-2005, 08:35 PM
I pay more Social Security Tax than I do in Fed Income tax. With my income tax I get a national defense, and many other things. With My Social Security Taxes I might not get a damn thing.

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 08:47 PM
The stuff he layed out....I just don't understand how you could be against it.

Cochise
02-02-2005, 08:57 PM
The stuff he layed out....I just don't understand how you could be against it.

The Dems need to quit with their BS "social security reform is bad" position and make up their own version to pimp or something, they are going to get hammered over that.

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 08:59 PM
The Dems need to quit with their BS "social security reform is bad" position and make up their own version to pimp or something, they are going to get hammered over that.

They really need to go with the flow...

Cochise
02-02-2005, 09:01 PM
This is a good speech, IMO. These things don't often hold my interest either.

That part with the woman who just got done voting in Baghdad hugging the Marine's mom personifies it all.

siberian khatru
02-02-2005, 09:02 PM
Man, I just got something in my eye ... excuse me a second ...

Cochise
02-02-2005, 09:03 PM
home run

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:04 PM
Did you see Bush in Lieberman's ear...I bet he said "I know it was you, Fredo."

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:05 PM
This is a good speech, IMO. These things don't often hold my interest either.

That part with the woman who just got done voting in Baghdad hugging the Marine's mom personifies it all.


I agree...they never hold my interest either...indeed a home run

Coach
02-02-2005, 09:15 PM
And there it goes! It might be! It could be! It is! Over the wall! It's a home-run.

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:16 PM
The response thus far is lagging in substance.

Coach
02-02-2005, 09:19 PM
The response thus far is lagging in substance.

Agreed. This guy is horrible. He called it a "Social Security Roulette." He doesn't have much of a credibility.

Cochise
02-02-2005, 09:19 PM
Man this clown is friggin' boring.

Same old blathering... blah blah... risky scheme... we're all about choices except we don't want you to have choices...

I also liked the transparent way that he invoked the G-word in the first 20 seconds of his talk... :rolleyes:

beavis
02-02-2005, 09:22 PM
Does anyone else think Pelosi lost her horns and hooves somewhere along the way? Damn I can't stand to look at that woman.

Cochise
02-02-2005, 09:23 PM
Does anyone else think Pelosi lost her horns and hooves somewhere along the way? Damn I can't stand to look at that woman.

Her hairline is receeding worse than mine is

And whats going on with those parabolic eyebrows?

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:23 PM
So she just claimed...the Iraqi Army is not trained for security of it's own country...yet they should be given control on said security now?!

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:26 PM
Her hairline is receeding worse than mine is

And whats going on with those parabolic eyebrows?


Cripes.....now I can't look at her.


Now she has said we should leave Iraq ASAP...but we should go into the Sudan?

beavis
02-02-2005, 09:27 PM
Her hairline is receeding worse than mine is

And whats going on with those parabolic eyebrows?
I think I've got it...

Coach
02-02-2005, 09:27 PM
Wow, what a horrible statement by both Dumb and Dumber. To pull out of Iraq right now is asking a huge massive train wreck, especially when we are trying to train the Iraqi Army. I have no military experience or anything, but I would assume that it would take at least somewhere within a year to have them fully trained.

siberian khatru
02-02-2005, 09:28 PM
I say this with the most respect (no cheap partisan shots intended): That party desperately needs to resurrect Pat Moynihan or Scoop Jackson -- people who had ideas and principles. Hell, Tip O'Neill would be better than these cardboard dolts. Awful, awful rebuttal.

Jeez, put Barack Obama out there instead of those two. He's been in office less than a month but he's got more going for him in his little finger than Pelosi and Reid do combined.

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:28 PM
Wow...that was like Tyson vs. Spinks....as ass whoopin

Cochise
02-02-2005, 09:28 PM
So she just claimed...the Iraqi Army is not trained for security of it's own country...yet they should be given control on said security now?!

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!

Yeah, this is stupid. I mean, the essence of what she's saying is that the country is in horrible shape, now when are we going to leave? :rolleyes:

Do they want us to do it right or give up?

|Zach|
02-02-2005, 09:31 PM
Wow, what a horrible statement by both Dumb and Dumber. To pull out of Iraq right now is asking a huge massive train wreck, especially when we are trying to train the Iraqi Army. I have no military experience or anything, but I would assume that it would take at least somewhere within a year to have them fully trained.
They didn't say they would pull out of Iraw right now...they actually said they wouldn't pull our of Iraq right now and leave chaos.

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:31 PM
Damn...even CNN gave it a good review

Coach
02-02-2005, 09:32 PM
They didn't say they would pull out of Iraw right now...they actually said they wouldn't pull our of Iraq right now and leave chaos.

Yeah, my apologies. I mis-read that part, but still, I get the vibe that they want to get out early as soon as possible.

|Zach|
02-02-2005, 09:33 PM
Yeah, my apologies. I mis-read that part, but still, I get the vibe that they want to get out early as soon as possible.
ROFL ok...

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:33 PM
They didn't say they would pull out of Iraw right now...they actually said they wouldn't pull our of Iraq right now and leave chaos.


Then what are they moaning about?

Cochise
02-02-2005, 09:34 PM
and this after Reed just said yesterday that he thought every democrat was lined up against SS reform... a proposal that isn't even on the floor yet. Hooray for obstructionism :rolleyes:

siberian khatru
02-02-2005, 09:35 PM
The Dems should hire Amnorix to write their stuff.

Garcia Bronco
02-02-2005, 09:35 PM
and this after Reed just said yesterday that he thought every democrat was lined up against SS reform... a proposal that isn't even on the floor yet. Hooray for obstructionism :rolleyes:


It'll get reformed...in 2 years they'll be even less democrats in the house and senate.

|Zach|
02-02-2005, 09:36 PM
Then what are they moaning about?
I prob should explain it...considering what was said keeps being turned around in this thread.

2bikemike
02-02-2005, 09:37 PM
Her hairline is receeding worse than mine is

And whats going on with those parabolic eyebrows?

Damn face lifts have been pulled too tight. I think its fugging up her rational.

Cochise
02-02-2005, 09:38 PM
Damn face lifts have been pulled too tight. I think its fugging up her rational.

I was noticing that it looked like she had one. yuck

Too bad that whiney old hag has a lifetime tenure in California... no offense... :shake:

2bikemike
02-02-2005, 09:45 PM
I was noticing that it looked like she had one. yuck

Too bad that whiney old hag has a lifetime tenure in California... no offense... :shake:

I am happy with my congressman. The Senators are pieces of shit.

InChiefsHell
02-02-2005, 09:59 PM
It would suck being the poor bastards who had to follow the speech by Bush, which was probably the best damn speech he has given in a long time. They both looked petty, like they are reaching for something to bitch about. Bush is so optimistic, he makes you feel good to be an American. Almost like Reagan, but not quite. The Dems response was almost like the didn't even watch Bush's speech, and it was full of contradictions.

2 trillion dollars to implement SS reform...where the hell do they get these numbers? There is NO WAY to come up with a solid number, hell the plan hasn't even been laid out totally yet. Just another example of how they come up with numbers just to scare the hell out of America. One would think that since they got their asses handed to them in November, they would try for a new strategy, but they don't. There will be a bigger Repub. majority in the house and the senate next go-around, and probably another Republican in the White house in '08.

Dem leadership sucks. Glad to be a Republican...

Iowanian
02-02-2005, 09:59 PM
It should first be said again here, that I wonder why the Dems had Michael Jackson deliver the second part of that speech. Hopefully the camera people kept those hot lights far enough away.


There were alot of things in that speech that made me think at least. I'm glad he called out Egypt, Saudi Arabia....that should make the libs happy.........He pretty much Slapped Iranian and Syrian Leaders with a white glove about the face. That could cause some ugliness, but I'm glad he did it.
I don't agree with giving Palestine $350mil in American Money, when they haven't done much to prove they want peace yet.

Something needs to be done about Social Security...I like the idea of investing my money, and am planning my retirement assuming no money is there for me....even though I've paid since 14. I don't think the wealthy need SS....especially congressmen and Senators, who already are gouging us for life.

I'm all for Tax reform, but I'd like to see Bush listen to the Dems concerning tax loopholes for Companies shipping jobs overseas.

The Marine's mama was powerfull TV.

USA! USA! USA!

Taco John
02-02-2005, 10:00 PM
Man, about time someone does it.

i think he's doing a great job, best I've ever heard him speak



What does a Naderite care?

Iowanian
02-02-2005, 10:01 PM
How about the "overall good of the nation" T@co...

Joe Seahawk
02-02-2005, 10:02 PM
I was just checking out MSNBC.. Ron Reagan jr is such a putz.. I can barely stand to even look at the guy anymore..

RINGLEADER
02-02-2005, 10:04 PM
Did you see Bush in Lieberman's ear...I bet he said "I know it was you, Fredo."


ROFL ROFL ROFL

I thought he stuck his tongue in his ear...whatever it was it sure took Lieberman by surprise...

RINGLEADER
02-02-2005, 10:08 PM
I say this with the most respect (no cheap partisan shots intended): That party desperately needs to resurrect Pat Moynihan or Scoop Jackson -- people who had ideas and principles. Hell, Tip O'Neill would be better than these cardboard dolts. Awful, awful rebuttal.

Jeez, put Barack Obama out there instead of those two. He's been in office less than a month but he's got more going for him in his little finger than Pelosi and Reid do combined.


Reid was on earlier today saying they'll filibuster social security reform, that it's dead and that the president should quit talking about it.

I had to laugh.

Anyway, I was hoping for Biden.

RINGLEADER
02-02-2005, 10:10 PM
They didn't say they would pull out of Iraw right now...they actually said they wouldn't pull our of Iraq right now and leave chaos.


Yeah...it sounds like they're in total agreement with Bush.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again: If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy and/or has any collateral benefits to freedom amongst other countries in the region the Dems won't win another election in a generation.

2bikemike
02-02-2005, 10:11 PM
It should first be said again here, that I wonder why the Dems had Michael Jackson deliver the second part of that speech. Hopefully the camera people kept those hot lights far enough away.


There were alot of things in that speech that made me think at least. I'm glad he called out Egypt, Saudi Arabia....that should make the libs happy.........He pretty much Slapped Iranian and Syrian Leaders with a white glove about the face. That could cause some ugliness, but I'm glad he did it.
I don't agree with giving Palestine $350mil in American Money, when they haven't done much to prove they want peace yet.

Something needs to be done about Social Security...I like the idea of investing my money, and am planning my retirement assuming no money is there for me....even though I've paid since 14. I don't think the wealthy need SS....especially congressmen and Senators, who already are gouging us for life.

I'm all for Tax reform, but I'd like to see Bush listen to the Dems concerning tax loopholes for Companies shipping jobs overseas.

The Marine's mama was powerfull TV.

USA! USA! USA!

Congressmen and Senators are not contributing to Social Security. They may have paid their 40 qtrs int the private sector though. Most of the Federal Govt. does not contribute. They have their own plan. Gee I wonder why? All the congressmen and senators ought to be made to switch into the system or reform it.

Hoover
02-02-2005, 10:27 PM
Man I'm sorry I fell asleep during Reid 2.5 hour fireside chat, what did I miss?

SBK
02-02-2005, 11:34 PM
Yeah...it sounds like they're in total agreement with Bush.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again: If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy and/or has any collateral benefits to freedom amongst other countries in the region the Dems won't win another election in a generation.

Yup. If Bush turns out to be right, the nail has been put in the dems coffin.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 12:14 AM
What does a Naderite care?
He said from his Libertarian platform

tiptap
02-03-2005, 08:01 AM
Yeah...it sounds like they're in total agreement with Bush.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again: If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy and/or has any collateral benefits to freedom amongst other countries in the region the Dems won't win another election in a generation.

Politics is always local. No one will care about Iraq once Americans are not dying there at least with deciding their vote. Republicans will make or break upon economic decisions at home.
After reading the details of the "personal accounts" I am a little less anxious. The government gets 3 percent of the return on these highly directed accounts. This is important because a great number of SS government programs that have been privatized have led to government insolvency especially in South America. In addition most people are not informed enough to make good decisions in investing. This does divert monies into the private sector as opposed to only government bond investment of SS funds. In the short run you'll see the impetus for growth in stocks prices and such. The question will be whether the private sector can be a good conservator of those assets for both present needs and future returns. It is not unlike private companies using their employees retirement program to finance activity.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:18 AM
The Dems should hire Amnorix to write their stuff.

Sadly, I missed both the State of the Union and the response. Wish I had seen them, as it sounds like interesting stuff.

We'll see how Reid is, and Pelosi is still more of an unknown than a known quantity, but I can't say I'm necessarily inspired by them or anything.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:21 AM
Yeah...it sounds like they're in total agreement with Bush.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again: If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy and/or has any collateral benefits to freedom amongst other countries in the region the Dems won't win another election in a generation.

Americans have very short term memories, and tend to vote their wallets more than anything else. You're way overstating it.

Besides, Cheney isn't running for President, and Rummy will be like 80 in 2008. Whoever runs for the Republicans in 2008, much less 2012 or 2016, isn't likely to have much in the way of ties to the Iraq adventure.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 09:13 AM
Americans have very short term memories, and tend to vote their wallets more than anything else. You're way overstating it.

Besides, Cheney isn't running for President, and Rummy will be like 80 in 2008. Whoever runs for the Republicans in 2008, much less 2012 or 2016, isn't likely to have much in the way of ties to the Iraq adventure.
Well I wouldn't count out Cheney, I've heard some rumors that he would love to be President.

The one Dems need to watch out for is Newt, he's running for president.

SBK
02-03-2005, 09:29 AM
Well I wouldn't count out Cheney, I've heard some rumors that he would love to be President.

The one Dems need to watch out for is Newt, he's running for president.

No doubt, Newt brought about the end for dems in congress too. :thumb:

Hoover
02-03-2005, 09:30 AM
Thats why Newt running for President is important for Republicans. He will run on issues, even if he doesn't win, his platform will help shape the party in 2008.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 09:31 AM
No doubt, Newt brought about the end for dems in congress too. :thumb:

you know...I listened to him on O'Reily the other night and he actually made sense.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 09:33 AM
Sadly, I missed both the State of the Union and the response. Wish I had seen them, as it sounds like interesting stuff.

We'll see how Reid is, and Pelosi is still more of an unknown than a known quantity, but I can't say I'm necessarily inspired by them or anything.


The STOU was an honest 8-9

The response was a 3...it was incoherent at best. They should wait a day to respond.

SBK
02-03-2005, 09:33 AM
Thats why Newt running for President is important for Republicans. He will run on issues, even if he doesn't win, his platform will help shape the party in 2008.

Yup.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 09:40 AM
The STOU was an honest 8-9

The response was a 3...it was incoherent at best. They should wait a day to respond.
I don't think they should sit during the responce.

InChiefsHell
02-03-2005, 09:41 AM
The STOU was an honest 8-9

The response was a 3...it was incoherent at best. They should wait a day to respond.

Yet another catch 22. If they waited a day, nobody would see it at all, cuz hardly anyone watches the thing as it is.

homey
02-03-2005, 09:43 AM
Yeah...it sounds like they're in total agreement with Bush.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again: If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy and/or has any collateral benefits to freedom amongst other countries in the region the Dems won't win another election in a generation.

Well damn, you are Sean Hannity. You took those word right out of his mouth.

So what plan did Bush lay out last night? "Here's these guy's ideas. Pick one and let's go with it."

Hoover
02-03-2005, 09:44 AM
Yet another catch 22. If they waited a day, nobody would see it at all, cuz hardly anyone watches the thing as it is.
True, I think they would do better if they had Russert sit down with 2 leaders and shoot the shit about the President's speeck, than watch Harry Reid look like he is passing a huge terd, and Nancy looking like she has to take a piss.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 09:51 AM
Notice that very few lefties are even up in the mix today....why...because they know....they know our President knocked it out of the park last night.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 09:54 AM
Well I wouldn't count out Cheney, I've heard some rumors that he would love to be President.

The one Dems need to watch out for is Newt, he's running for president.

Seriously, Newt is the Hillary Clinton of your party. He's so divisive that he'd hand the Democrats the victory of he won the nomination.

Chief Henry
02-03-2005, 10:04 AM
If you guys can get your hands on a Tuesday February 1st Wall St. Journal, it has a great
article on SS in the B section. I be if you could
go to your public library they would have it.

Just some FYI...

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:04 AM
Notice that very few lefties are even up in the mix today....why...because they know....they know our President knocked it out of the park last night.

Or they just didn't watch.

I do find it hard to believe Bush "knocked it out of the park". He is truly a horrendous public speaker. Better than he was early in his first term, but listening to him speak is generally physically painful.

"I think that....................it's really quite........................necessary for the United................................States to move forward and........................attack.........................Syria".

etc. The random long pauses just kills me.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 10:05 AM
Seriously, Newt is the Hillary Clinton of your party. He's so divisive that he'd hand the Democrats the victory of he won the nomination.
I'm not saying he could win, I'm saying that he will be able to develope a message for the Republicans to run on.

Clinton vs Newt - That would be fun.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:06 AM
I'm not saying he could win, I'm saying that he will be able to develope a message for the Republicans to run on.

Clinton vs Newt - That would be fun.

It would certainly be entertaining anyway...

Hoover
02-03-2005, 10:06 AM
Or they just didn't watch.

I do find it hard to believe Bush "knocked it out of the park". He is truly a horrendous public speaker. Better than he was early in his first term, but listening to him speak is generally physically painful.

"I think that....................it's really quite........................necessary for the United................................States to move forward and........................attack.........................Syria".

etc. The random long pauses just kills me.
I know what you mean, he delivered it well, the best I've seen.

Chief Henry
02-03-2005, 10:07 AM
Notice that very few lefties are even up in the mix today....why...because they know....they know our President knocked it out of the park last night.


President Bush crushed it last night. NOW, lets watch and follow
this historical time in our country. It will be a VERY learning
experiance if you ask me.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 10:08 AM
Politics is always local. No one will care about Iraq once Americans are not dying there at least with deciding their vote. Republicans will make or break upon economic decisions at home.

New democracies abroad = fewer terrorist states = safer at home. The Dems, for a whole host of reasons, just aren't considered strong on defense and will always start with two strikes against them. You can pretend (hope) that isn't the case, but even Kerry concedes that he lost on the defense issue.

After reading the details of the "personal accounts" I am a little less anxious. The government gets 3 percent of the return on these highly directed accounts. This is important because a great number of SS government programs that have been privatized have led to government insolvency especially in South America. In addition most people are not informed enough to make good decisions in investing. This does divert monies into the private sector as opposed to only government bond investment of SS funds. In the short run you'll see the impetus for growth in stocks prices and such. The question will be whether the private sector can be a good conservator of those assets for both present needs and future returns. It is not unlike private companies using their employees retirement program to finance activity.

I think Bush pre-empted one of the alternatives that the Dems could have offered. I'm a bit reluctant to embrace bond and mutual funds selected by the government (because you'll start to see the politicization of specific companies in those funds that may have great returns but be considered poor environmentally by a small segment of legislatures) but the concept of letting people OWN their retirement accounts and get a better return is something that I think is just a terrific idea that I can only hope the Dems will continue to oppose.

BTW, the government is going to end up with a lot more than 3% of the private SS accounts at the end of the day. I'm sure they'll build in some kind of death tax that will eat up a portion of the account upon death to accomplish two things: 1) satisfy the Dems desire to tax everything in sight, and 2) keep the money outside of the normal estate tax laws. At the end of the day you'll see the government generating some nice revenue from a 15-20% tax on these accounts at death I suspect.

Iowanian
02-03-2005, 10:10 AM
Well damn, you are Sean Hannity. You took those word right out of his mouth.

So what plan did Bush lay out last night? "Here's these guy's ideas. Pick one and let's go with it."


I notice you complain alot, but rarely offer ideas as to how to fix the problems you're complaining about. A fabulous Democrat.


So, on one hand, the Dems are complaining and telling Bush that he has to "reach across the aisle" and Bridge the gap, and work together..........but when he says he's willing to garner the Liberal input on the SS issue, view and try to incorporate their ideas........He's Bad for NOT just putting his plan out?

Sounds about right.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 10:11 AM
Sadly, I missed both the State of the Union and the response. Wish I had seen them, as it sounds like interesting stuff.

We'll see how Reid is, and Pelosi is still more of an unknown than a known quantity, but I can't say I'm necessarily inspired by them or anything.


The SOTU address was the pretty pedestrian laundry list up until the end when it got emotional between the marine's mom and the Iraqi voter, although Bush was effective politically at portraying the Dems as the party that can do nothing but say "no". The Dem response, on the other hand, was one of the most terrible pieces of political theater I've ever seen. And from a purely political standpoint the Dems, who were arguing that Bush was saying nothing new (!?!) were, in fact, themselves repeating the talking points from last year's election.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 10:13 AM
The SOTU address was the pretty pedestrian laundry list up until the end when it got emotional between the marine's mom and the Iraqi voter, although Bush was effective politically at portraying the Dems as the party that can do nothing but say "no". The Dem response, on the other hand, was one of the most terrible pieces of political theater I've ever seen. And from a purely political standpoint the Dems, who were arguing that Bush was saying nothing new (!?!) were, in fact, themselves repeating the talking points from last year's election.
I love it when the Dems keep telling me we are not safe at home.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:13 AM
I know what you mean, he delivered it well, the best I've seen.

I'm glad he's getting better at it. It will encourage me to listen to his future speeches. To date, it's been all I can do to get through them without puncturing my eardrums with a pen to stop the pain... :)

Iowanian
02-03-2005, 10:14 AM
If you were ready to puncture your eardrums with Bush's speech, you must have been ready to drown yourself in the toilet with the Dem Response.

Donger
02-03-2005, 10:15 AM
I'm glad he's getting better at it. It will encourage me to listen to his future speeches. To date, it's been all I can do to get through them without puncturing my eardrums with a pen to stop the pain... :)

Heh. I know what you mean. I still cringe every time I know he's about to say the word 'nuclear.'

But, I'm of the opinion that even his detractors are simply getting used to his speaking style, perhaps even finding a certain level of comfort in it. No one expects him to come out and speak like Clinton or Reagan.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:16 AM
If you were ready to puncture your eardrums with Bush's speech, you must have been ready to drown yourself in the toilet with the Dem Response.

PRIOR speeches. Again, I didn't listen to last night's parade of politicians. :)

Cochise
02-03-2005, 10:16 AM
I can't remember the last time I thought this, but I'm excited about the next couple of years. Politics have been more of a morbid curiousity for me for some time, but for once, I think we've actually got a chance to make some great things happen.

If it turns out that at the end of the 8 Bush years, we have gotten it so people own their own Social Security accounts, rebuilt the military to its former greatness, rebuilt and improved our intelligence infrastructure, seen Iraq through to a successful democratic nation (who knows, maybe a domino effect of Democracy in the middle east), drug the economy out of recession, cut taxes, and effectively protected the country from terrorism, this president is going to go down in history with Reagan and all the rest of the greats.

There are a lot of similarities in that list to Reagan, now that I think about it.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:18 AM
Heh. I know what you mean. I still cringe every time I know he's about to say the word 'nuclear.'

But, I'm of the opinion that even his detractors are simply getting used to his speaking style, perhaps even finding a certain level of comfort in it. No one expects him to come out and speak like Clinton or Reagan.

It was interesting/odd/amazing that Bush's handlers went out of their way to lower expectations prior to the debates with Gore back in 2000, to the point where as long as he didn't throw up on his own shoes, his performance would have been deemed satisfactory. :spock:

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 10:19 AM
Or they just didn't watch.

I do find it hard to believe Bush "knocked it out of the park". He is truly a horrendous public speaker. Better than he was early in his first term, but listening to him speak is generally physically painful.

"I think that....................it's really quite........................necessary for the United................................States to move forward and........................attack.........................Syria".

etc. The random long pauses just kills me.


For a while, he could barely talk for the applauses. He speech was well delivered last night...as good as anybody ever.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:21 AM
I can't remember the last time I thought this, but I'm excited about the next couple of years. Politics have been more of a morbid curiousity for me for some time, but for once, I think we've actually got a chance to make some great things happen.

If it turns out that at the end of the 8 Bush years, we have gotten it so people own their own Social Security accounts, rebuilt the military to its former greatness, rebuilt and improved our intelligence infrastructure, seen Iraq through to a successful democratic nation (who knows, maybe a domino effect of Democracy in the middle east), drug the economy out of recession, cut taxes, and effectively protected the country from terrorism, this president is going to go down in history with Reagan and all the rest of the greats.

There are a lot of similarities in that list to Reagan, now that I think about it.

There's a big gulf between the greats, and Reagan or Bush, IMHO. That's not necessarily their fault -- they just didn't face the challenges that a Washington, Lincoln or FDR did.

Your list doesn't look bad to me at all, although "rebuilt the military to its former greatness" is a joke. It was never anything less than the best military on planet earth since the early 80s.

My worry is that Bush will meanwhile put us so deep in the red we'll never dig our way out.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:22 AM
For a while, he could barely talk for the applauses. He speech was well delivered last night...as good as anybody ever.

That's rare when you have 400 or so people ready to clap if you wipe your nose after sneezing....

"as good as anybody ever". So now he's an orator on par with Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton? I can't begin to tell you how hard I find that to believe...

Donger
02-03-2005, 10:24 AM
My worry is that Bush will meanwhile put us so deep in the red we'll never dig our way out.

That's one of the issues that I wish that Bush had covered last night, but didn't. He mentioned cutting the deficit in half by 2009 (I think), but not a word on the debt.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 10:26 AM
He was as good as Clinton & Reagan last night IMO. Churchill, no.

Cochise
02-03-2005, 10:26 AM
It was interesting/odd/amazing that Bush's handlers went out of their way to lower expectations prior to the debates with Gore back in 2000, to the point where as long as he didn't throw up on his own shoes, his performance would have been deemed satisfactory. :spock:

Good move. The guy is not a gifted speaker, and not a debate professional like Gore was or Kerry is.

I think both of those elections demonstrate that the importance of debates is diminishing. I think the American people in the 24 hour news age have a much more accute 'political BS detector' and don't put as much stock in them as they used to.

With the 24 hour media, they hear these talking points all the time. More and more people see it for what it is, little more than the same old stump speech given taking turns, that has been rehearsed for weeks and sterilized by advisors.

I mean, with such tight conditioning, you hardly ever see a real substantive gaffe anymore. There is nothing like when Ford said that the Soviets weren't politically dominant over Eastern Europe. What passes for a gaffe anymore is Kerry leaving a country out of the list of the Iraq coalition or something. Nothing substantive, like Ford's, that betrays what was largely seen as a basic misunderstanding of a political situation.

So... there is my rant about how the debates are BS and the public is so innundated with political sniping these days that they are becoming more and more immune to them.

Donger
02-03-2005, 10:26 AM
It was interesting/odd/amazing that Bush's handlers went out of their way to lower expectations prior to the debates with Gore back in 2000, to the point where as long as he didn't throw up on his own shoes, his performance would have been deemed satisfactory. :spock:

Why is that odd? It was fantastic strategy. As you say, there was no way for him to lose.

And, unless I'm mistaken, it's widely held that Bush won all three debates against Gore, anyway.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:28 AM
That's one of the issues that I wish that Bush had covered last night, but didn't. He mentioned cutting the deficit in half by 2009 (I think), but not a word on the debt.

It's literally not important to him. It's obviously NOT a priority at all to this administration.

I'm in favor of fixing Social Security, but doesn't even seem remotely concerned about the cost implications of his proposals.

Query -- did he suggest cutting taxes more? I heard some rumors in advance that he might, but never saw anything certain.

(I'll read the WSJ write up on his speech so I can talk more intelligently about this stuff after lunch :) )

Donger
02-03-2005, 10:29 AM
Query -- did he suggest cutting taxes more? I heard some rumors in advance that he might, but never saw anything certain.

Not that I recall.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:30 AM
Why is that odd? It was fantastic strategy. As you say, there was no way for him to lose.

And, unless I'm mistaken, it's widely held that Bush won all three debates against Gore, anyway.
Odd that it SUCCEEDED!

edit: I note that I agree -- it was a fantastic strategy.

It's like saying "Forgive him if he sounds like a moron, he can't help it, but he'll be a good President anyway". A very strange notion to me. :shrug:

errr....no. I'd need to go through the archives but I seem to remember that one was a clearcut Gore victory, one was a close Gore victory, and one was a tie approximately. Or maybe each side had a close victory and Gore had one clearcut victory.

I don't have time to try to Google it down.

Cochise
02-03-2005, 10:30 AM
I didn't hear anything about new tax cuts either. Frankly, I haven't heard much about the flat-tax lately, I wonder if they are going to try to go through with that, or if they have deemed SS to be the first priority?

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:31 AM
Not that I recall.

Probably all they'll try to do is eliminate the sunset provisions and make prior tax cuts permanent.

Thank God there's no serious weight on eliminating inheritance taxes. Gotta prevent that dynastic family wealth thang... (haven't said that phrase in like a year...) :):p

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:32 AM
I didn't hear anything about new tax cuts either. Frankly, I haven't heard much about the flat-tax lately, I wonder if they are going to try to go through with that, or if they have deemed SS to be the first priority?

Sounds like it's all out on SS first. He has only a limited period of time to achieve such dramatic change with the political capital he accrued in the election. Soon, everyone will start worrying about mid-term elections, where the party of a sitting lame-duck President *usually* gets slaughtered.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 10:33 AM
It's literally not important to him. It's obviously NOT a priority at all to this administration.

I'm in favor of fixing Social Security, but doesn't even seem remotely concerned about the cost implications of his proposals.

Query -- did he suggest cutting taxes more? I heard some rumors in advance that he might, but never saw anything certain.

(I'll read the WSJ write up on his speech so I can talk more intelligently about this stuff after lunch :) )
I've asked the House Budget Chair about this.

After 9 - 11 - 2001 Congress had to kick start the economy, thus the big tax cut go get people spending again. I think its funny that people think that since its been 3 years, we should see DOW 20,000, we have a ways to go, but things are on the right track.

Plus since you are so worried about the debt, I'm sure you are against a National Health Care Plan that we can't afford.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 10:33 AM
Americans have very short term memories, and tend to vote their wallets more than anything else. You're way overstating it.

Besides, Cheney isn't running for President, and Rummy will be like 80 in 2008. Whoever runs for the Republicans in 2008, much less 2012 or 2016, isn't likely to have much in the way of ties to the Iraq adventure.


Yes, Americans have short memories (witness Daddy Bush). And yes, Americans frequently don't give credit where credit is due. But the difference here is that the Dem leadership has staked a very clear position on Iraq and fighting terrorists. They don't want to confront - they want to contain. Containment doesn't change things...in fact, it guarantees the status quo.

By publicly stating that they think Americans should come home because it has now become a haven for terrorists (as Pelosi implied last night) they're overtly embracing the containment policy. When the mouthpieces for the party go further and further out on the limb (Kennedy's comment that American troops are the problem being just one such example) they end up sounding more like Al-Jazeera and the paint the party candidates into a corner of having to address these statements and disown them. And as long as the terrorist threat looms they will have to run candidates that run away from this party position.

Another difference is that Bush will be able to reap the credit (or the blame) for what happens in Iraq and the greater war on terror in ways that his father could not claim credit for the fall of communism even though it happened on his watch.

It's tough to come back and say you were supportive of something that changed the make-up of the middle east and the world as a whole when your position at the time was "don't do it" (and after your original position was, "yes do it" you become just as indecisive on national defense as Kerry was before you).

Helps explain why Hillary isn't out there giving the "We were wrong to bring democracy to Iraq" speeches...politically she understands it will kill her chances to have a coherent defense vision.

Cochise
02-03-2005, 10:34 AM
Sounds like it's all out on SS first. He has only a limited period of time to achieve such dramatic change with the political capital he accrued in the election. Soon, everyone will start worrying about mid-term elections, where the party of a sitting lame-duck President *usually* gets slaughtered.

That's what was supposed to happen in the last midterm election too.

But, if the Dems keep operating from the playbook they pulled that Democratic Response from last night, I see even fewer of them having to worry about returning to Washington.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 10:35 AM
Sounds like it's all out on SS first. He has only a limited period of time to achieve such dramatic change with the political capital he accrued in the election. Soon, everyone will start worrying about mid-term elections, where the party of a sitting lame-duck President *usually* gets slaughtered.
Yeah if I'm a dem I'm worried. the only age group Kerry won was the 18-29 crowd, the ones who really need Social Security fixed or changed so they will see something out of the thousands of dollars they invested. But what are the Dems saying to them "Fu@K off, its fine, don't worry about it, and hey when your 80 enjoy the $800 a month to live on!"

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:36 AM
I've asked the House Budget Chair about this.

After 9 - 11 - 2001 Congress had to kick start the economy, thus the big tax cut go get people spending again. I think its funny that people think that since its been 3 years, we should see DOW 20,000, we have a ways to go, but things are on the right track.

Plus since you are so worried about the debt, I'm sure you are against a National Health Care Plan that we can't afford.

Funny how many of the tax cuts weren't really designed to boost the economy (that I would have supported) but instead were designed to address perceived "systemic" problems with the tax code, rectify injustices, etc.

If he had passed massive, short term tax relief that was closely tied to stimulating the economy, I would have had no problem with that. In fact, I would have supported it, and said so repeatedly at the time.

Note that SOME tax cuts were short term boosts, and that it has of course helped the economy (as any tax cut will). But that was nearly a sidenote to what they sought to achieve.

I don't know the details of the health care plan, so I can't speak to it. I think the nation's health care insurance is an absurd, dysfunctional system that needs changing, but I'm uncertain about how best to effect the change. Like Social Security, however, I'm about desperate enough to listen to any proposal.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 10:38 AM
That's rare when you have 400 or so people ready to clap if you wipe your nose after sneezing....

"as good as anybody ever". So now he's an orator on par with Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton? I can't begin to tell you how hard I find that to believe...

Maybe not churchill in the midst of getting bombed by the Nazi's daily, but very good. I was pumped. But yeah...as good as Clinton.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 10:38 AM
What good is short term tax relief, its a gimmick.

We need pople to invest to creat jobs, not just for a few months after 9-11, but for as far as we can see.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 10:38 AM
Well I wouldn't count out Cheney, I've heard some rumors that he would love to be President.

The one Dems need to watch out for is Newt, he's running for president.


Newt has zero chance of getting nominated, let alone winning.

It's funny because I was at a dinner with him before the 94 elections and I remember this guy who's a figure in the local GOP politics getting up in front of everyone and dressing Newt down for saying that the Republicans had any shot at taking back the congress. Newt was a genius for the Contract For America (which was a simple concept that the Dems have tried to replicate without any success because, I would imagine, abortions for all just isn't the same kind of national issue that term limits was), but he's viewed by most in a very negative light. Same thing sank Quayle's equally implausible shot at the presidency in 96.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 10:39 AM
I don't think they should sit during the responce.


Whether they're sitting or standing is the least of their problems...

Soupnazi
02-03-2005, 10:42 AM
Thank God there's no serious weight on eliminating inheritance taxes. Gotta prevent that dynastic family wealth thang... (haven't said that phrase in like a year...) :):p

The way you guys look at the death tax absolutely drives me insane. How is it fair to tax money that's already been taxed multiple times? This is one of those areas where your side feels you can apply your effort at social engineering through taxation.

Those of you that view taxation as a means to correct society's ills are precisely the reason why this country has fallen way down the list of the world's economic freedom index.

Donger
02-03-2005, 10:42 AM
Odd that it SUCCEEDED!

edit: I note that I agree -- it was a fantastic strategy.

It's like saying "Forgive him if he sounds like a moron, he can't help it, but he'll be a good President anyway". A very strange notion to me. :shrug:

Basic salesmanship: raise the objections before beginning the pitch. Sort of highlighting the bad in order to diminish the "Yeah, but..." factor later on.

errr....no. I'd need to go through the archives but I seem to remember that one was a clearcut Gore victory, one was a close Gore victory, and one was a tie approximately. Or maybe each side had a close victory and Gore had one clearcut victory.

I don't have time to try to Google it down.

Well, from memory, Bush clearly won the first debate.

In the second, Gore came out way too aggressively, and Bush countered perfectly. Remember the infamous part when Gore alpha-male walked over to Bush and stood in his "personal" space? Bush's response was priceless. Also, remember Gore saying, "My turn?" That was simply juvenile.

The third was also clearly a Bush win. IIRC, it was on Larry King or something? Gore basically just sat there and agreed with everything Bush said. It was almost pathetic. They obviously realized that the "tough" Gore approach in number two was a mistake and toned it down to the point of going too far the other direction.

Still, it's all pretty much subjective. But, with a different Gore showing up at each debate, I find it hard to conclude that Gore won any of them. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 10:43 AM
I'm in favor of fixing Social Security, but doesn't even seem remotely concerned about the cost implications of his proposals.



That's just it...the longer we wait...the more it costs...and it'll cost. What he talked about was eliminating useless programs in the federal goverment.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 10:44 AM
My worry is that Bush will meanwhile put us so deep in the red we'll never dig our way out.


That's a valid concern, but Kerry would have been even worse. Fiscal responsibility would be a great platform for the Dems but they just don't have it in them (or, should I say, the collection of interest groups that comprise the Democratic Party wouldn't let them have it in them) to be fiscally responsible. They try to live off the coattails of what happened in the mid-late 90s, but the Dems had virtually nothing to do with there ever being surpluses. Heck, if you just increased the capital gains tax revenues that we had in the late 90s when the budget was in surplus and removed the additional expenses we've incurred from fighting the war on terror we'd be in the same position today. The trick now is cutting/reforming entitlements...something the Dems tell us they won't even entertain.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:44 AM
Newt was a genius for the Contract For America (which was a simple concept that the Dems have tried to replicate without any success because, I would imagine, abortions for all just isn't the same kind of national issue that term limits was), but he's viewed by most in a very negative light.

Speaking of term limits, has anyone seen any analysis on how many Congressmen broke individual pledges to serve X years? I know I saw a reference or two to specific people a few years back, but I'd love to see how many Congressmen eventually turned out to be hypocrites on this subject. I'd bet it's not a few...

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 10:46 AM
Not that I recall.

Like I said he talked about eliminating useless federal programs which I think is great. Sucks for the people that will lose their jobs...but the federal governement shouldn't be in the business of employing people anyway.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 10:48 AM
That's a valid concern, but Kerry would have been even worse. Fiscal responsibility would be a great platform for the Dems but they just don't have it in them (or, should I say, the collection of interest groups that comprise the Democratic Party wouldn't let them have it in them) to be fiscally responsible. They try to live off the coattails of what happened in the mid-late 90s, but the Dems had virtually nothing to do with there ever being surpluses. Heck, if you just increased the capital gains tax revenues that we had in the late 90s when the budget was in surplus and removed the additional expenses we've incurred from fighting the war on terror we'd be in the same position today. The trick now is cutting/reforming entitlements...something the Dems tell us they won't even entertain.

Let me be clear, Kerry was a mediocre candidate, and if you go back through all my posts (which no sane person would do, of course, but I invite you if you care), you'll see that I was rarely supportive of Kerry in any way. Rather, I was critical of Bush. I dislike Bush's politics intensely. Kerry was better, but only marginally so, in my eyes.

The Democrats WERE active in helping to create the surpluses of the 90s, but there's no doubt that the overall economy and the gridlock with a Republican congress for most of Clinton's presidency didn't hurt things.

Nevertheless, it doesn't take a genius to see that since the early 80s, when Republicans were in charge, the rule was deficits, deficits and bigger deficits, and this was/is true even with Republicans controlling the WH and Congress. When we had a Democratic president, that was not the case.

Chief Henry
02-03-2005, 10:50 AM
My guess that after the Novemebr elections
and last Sundays iraq elections. The AMERICAN
people are feeling very good about themselfs and our country. I read a Poll on the www.usatoday.com website this morning. The results are EXTREMELY favorable for President Bush. He has alot of clout right now and he'll force
enough dems to come across the line to vote for SS
reform.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 10:51 AM
Probably all they'll try to do is eliminate the sunset provisions and make prior tax cuts permanent.

Thank God there's no serious weight on eliminating inheritance taxes. Gotta prevent that dynastic family wealth thang... (haven't said that phrase in like a year...) :):p

dynastic wealth? LOL...


Why don't you and your greasey gay democrat buddies keep your hands of my families hard earned. You have no right to it.

Donger
02-03-2005, 10:54 AM
Basic salesmanship: raise the objections before beginning the pitch. Sort of highlighting the bad in order to diminish the "Yeah, but..." factor later on.



Well, from memory, Bush clearly won the first debate.

In the second, Gore came out way too aggressively, and Bush countered perfectly. Remember the infamous part when Gore alpha-male walked over to Bush and stood in his "personal" space? Bush's response was priceless. Also, remember Gore saying, "My turn?" That was simply juvenile.

The third was also clearly a Bush win. IIRC, it was on Larry King or something? Gore basically just sat there and agreed with everything Bush said. It was almost pathetic. They obviously realized that the "tough" Gore approach in number two was a mistake and toned it down to the point of going too far the other direction.

Still, it's all pretty much subjective. But, with a different Gore showing up at each debate, I find it hard to conclude that Gore won any of them. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Well, obviously my memory sucks...

In 2000 Al Gore was expected to demolish George W. in the debates. He didn't. That worked to W.'s advantage -- evidence of how vital it is to win the game of "expectations" in advance of the debates. By not losing the debates W. actually was perceived as a winner. Gore's problem was not that he lost the debates; many people thought that he had scored more hits than Bush. But three different Al Gores showed up at the three debates. In the first debate there was Arrogant Al, sneering and huffing while Bush spoke. In the second there was Milquetoast Al, now so meek and mild that he appeared to have been drugged. In the final debate Normal Al showed up -- but by then it was too late. The indelible impression had been left that he was uncomfortable in his own skin, as the conventional wisdom had it.

BIG_DADDY
02-03-2005, 10:55 AM
All I know is this, if things come out even close to decent in the ME and Bush gets Social Security reform implemented he will go down as one of the greatest presidents ever. The Demorats are blowing it (as usual) on several fronts. First of all if they let Howard Dean have the chair for the DNC they can say goodbye to raising capital as corporate America isn't going to give squat to that socialist. For the life of me I don't know why the Demorats continue to pull further to the left. It cost them the presidency and now it's freaking killing their party. Life long Demorats that I know are even starting to disassociate themselves from the party as these are not the policies and leaders they want to follow. Of coarse they will not vote Republican but they are no longer motivated or excited about their party. This is a very bad thing as they are giving the Republicans WAY too much power by alienating much of their base. To say the leadership of the Democratic party is pathetic isn't going far enough. There are several issues I have with the right and I would really like to see some good moderates grab a hold of the party instead of these off the scale left wing wack jobs. Unfortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. With Socialists like Scary Kerry, Senator Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton speaking in their interest they are doomed. With the great majority of the public who still support the party and are vocal about it being people like Michael Moore and Al Franken they are just digging their own grave. Look at the wacko’s who are constantly regurgitate the party line right here at the planet, terroristme, flunkie, fruit boy and others. Who wants to be on the same side as these ass clowns? The most important thing the party can do right now that will make a difference is make sure Howard Dean does not get that chair, if he does it will send the party back BIG TIME.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 10:58 AM
Let me be clear, Kerry was a mediocre candidate, and if you go back through all my posts (which no sane person would do, of course, but I invite you if you care), you'll see that I was rarely supportive of Kerry in any way. Rather, I was critical of Bush. I dislike Bush's politics intensely. Kerry was better, but only marginally so, in my eyes.

The Democrats WERE active in helping to create the surpluses of the 90s, but there's no doubt that the overall economy and the gridlock with a Republican congress for most of Clinton's presidency didn't hurt things.

Nevertheless, it doesn't take a genius to see that since the early 80s, when Republicans were in charge, the rule was deficits, deficits and bigger deficits, and this was/is true even with Republicans controlling the WH and Congress. When we had a Democratic president, that was not the case.
The democrats nor congress or republicans had anything to do with the "economic surplus" of the 90's. If you want to play that game you can give the credit to Bush Sr. It had everything to do with over valued stock and investments in the internet to sell products. It kills me when people act as though the President or Congress was fiscally responsible at the time. They just started taking in more money than they were spending. I guess you could give the government credit for spending less on the military....great idea.

Chief Henry
02-03-2005, 10:59 AM
All I know is this, if things come out even close to decent in the ME and Bush gets Social Security reform implemented he will go down as one of the greatest presidents ever. The Demorats are blowing it (as usual) on several fronts. First of all if they let Howard Dean have the chair for the DNC they can say goodbye to raising capital as corporate America isn't going to give squat to that socialist. For the life of me I don't know why the Demorats continue to pull further to the left. It cost them the presidency and now it's freaking killing their party. Life long Demorats that I know are even starting to disassociate themselves from the party as these are not the policies and leaders they want to follow. Of coarse they will not vote Republican but they are no longer motivated or excited about their party. This is a very bad thing as they are giving the Republicans WAY too much power by alienating much of their base. To say the leadership of the Democratic party is pathetic isn't going far enough. There are several issues I have with the right and I would really like to see some good moderates grab a hold of the party instead of these off the scale left wing wack jobs. Unfortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. With Socialists like Scary Kerry, Senator Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton speaking in their interest they are doomed. With the great majority of the public who still support the party and are vocal about it being people like Michael Moore and Al Franken they are just digging their own grave. Look at the wacko’s who are constantly regurgitate the party line right here at the planet, terroristme, flunkie, fruit boy and others. Who wants to be on the same side as these ass clowns? The most important thing the party can do right now that will make a difference is make sure Howard Dean does not get that chair, if he does it will send the party back BIG TIME.


Don't hold anything back BD :)

Chief Henry
02-03-2005, 11:03 AM
The democrats nor congress or republicans had anything to do with the "economic surplus" of the 90's. If you want to play that game you can give the credit to Bush Sr. It had everything to do with over valued stock and investments in the internet to sell products. It kills me when people act as though the President or Congress was fiscally responsible at the time. They just started taking in more money than they were spending. I guess you could give the government credit for spending less on the military....great idea.


Can you say Capital Gain Tax being projected out for 10 years at the rate they were being paid in 98-99-00.

The Clinton ADM. was using those kinds of projections for 10 years
and thats where that socalled surplas came from. It was smoke and mears and then the BUBBLE burst into smitherings.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 11:03 AM
I'm in favor of fixing Social Security, but doesn't even seem remotely concerned about the cost implications of his proposals.

Look, social security will be bankrupt in a few decades and it will be in the red in 13 years. The cost to fund it between the time that it starts dipping into the IOUs and when it goes bankrupt* will be trillions of dollars. We can pay a fraction of that cost now and allow us to get younger workers the money they need to retire on through private accounts that would augment the shrinking amount that social security will be able to pay out.

Do you advocate borrowing 500 billion to 1 trillion now to keep retirement funds going to the next generations or do you want to borrow 4-5 trillion just to keep the system running until it goes under?

* And despite what the Dems want to claim the system will go bankrupt in 2042 - and that's if we have consistent economic growth...being able to pay out only a percentage of what is due sure sounds like what bankrupt companies do when they're paying off their debt. The fact is that if you know the system can't deliver the way it was originally designed (something even the Dems admit) then why not change the manner in which it delivers to keep the purpose of the program intact?

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 11:07 AM
The way you guys look at the death tax absolutely drives me insane. How is it fair to tax money that's already been taxed multiple times? This is one of those areas where your side feels you can apply your effort at social engineering through taxation.

Those of you that view taxation as a means to correct society's ills are precisely the reason why this country has fallen way down the list of the world's economic freedom index.


It's easy to advocate this position because the rich don't deserve what they have SN...

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 11:08 AM
Speaking of term limits, has anyone seen any analysis on how many Congressmen broke individual pledges to serve X years? I know I saw a reference or two to specific people a few years back, but I'd love to see how many Congressmen eventually turned out to be hypocrites on this subject. I'd bet it's not a few...


Quite a few I imagine. The House Republicans passed the legislation but the Senate wouldn't go along with it. Go figure.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 11:09 AM
The Death Tax will be gone, mark my words,

It have been reduced every year, but then in like 2012 it will sunset, thus being a huge tax increase. With Republican Majorityis you can just say goodbye to it.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 11:10 AM
Can you say Capital Gain Tax being projected out for 10 years at the rate they were being paid in 98-99-00.

The Clinton ADM. was using those kinds of projections for 10 years
and thats where that socalled surplas came from. It was smoke and mears and then the BUBBLE burst into smitherings.

:spock: WTF are you talking about? The federal government ran IN THE BLACK for several years under Clinton. That was the first time since the early 80s that was true. I'm not talking about projections, I'm talking about money in versus money out.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 11:11 AM
Let me be clear, Kerry was a mediocre candidate, and if you go back through all my posts (which no sane person would do, of course, but I invite you if you care), you'll see that I was rarely supportive of Kerry in any way. Rather, I was critical of Bush. I dislike Bush's politics intensely. Kerry was better, but only marginally so, in my eyes.

The Democrats WERE active in helping to create the surpluses of the 90s, but there's no doubt that the overall economy and the gridlock with a Republican congress for most of Clinton's presidency didn't hurt things.

Nevertheless, it doesn't take a genius to see that since the early 80s, when Republicans were in charge, the rule was deficits, deficits and bigger deficits, and this was/is true even with Republicans controlling the WH and Congress. When we had a Democratic president, that was not the case.

What did the Dems do to create the surpluses Amnorix?

The fact is that without the stock market bubble there would have been no surpluses. And until you can describe to me how exactly the Dems were responsible for creating that bubble you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that the Dems had a hand in the surplus ever being created.

I remember during the election Kerry was saying his policies were responsible for 23 million new jobs. But no one on the left could explain how voting for a tax increase in 93 (which is what he was using as the act that caused those jobs to be created in his mind) led to any jobs being created.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 11:12 AM
The Death Tax will be gone, mark my words,

It have been reduced every year, but then in like 2012 it will sunset, thus being a huge tax increase. With Republican Majorityis you can just say goodbye to it.

You're assuming Republican majorities at the necessary time. That has yet to be determined. :) :p

Hoover
02-03-2005, 11:14 AM
You're assuming Republican majorities at the necessary time. That has yet to be determined. :) :p
Um, they will vote on it this month my sources tell me.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 11:15 AM
:spock: WTF are you talking about? The federal government ran IN THE BLACK for several years under Clinton. That was the first time since the early 80s that was true. I'm not talking about projections, I'm talking about money in versus money out.


Because of capital gains tax revenues. Which you seem to believe the Dems were responsible for. The projections going out are what the Dems use to justify their comments that "we left Bush with a $5 trillion surplus and he squandered it". The fact is that it never existed and only a fool believed it would continue forever. It's also a big part of the reason a lot of states got into trouble.

BIG_DADDY
02-03-2005, 11:16 AM
Don't hold anything back BD :)

Social Security reform is WAY overdue, it's great to see somebody finally have the huevos to address it. Implimenting it will make Bush and Ikon of the Republican party and what they stand for. It will also be a banner they wave for generations to come. Again the Demorats will be on the wrong side of this and the Repulicans will be even more powerful. It's funny after the election the Democratic party pretty much admitted they needed to reinvent the party. Since when is reinventing the party moving further to the left? What a bunch of morons, I can't believe anyone would vote for these idiots.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 11:20 AM
What did the Dems do to create the surpluses Amnorix?


To be clear, I give some credit to Bush 1 for breaking his stupid "no new taxes" pledge in helping to create the surplus.

But meanwhile, look up the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act WHICH NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR. Although that bill was "only" expected to shrink the deficit rather than eliminate it altogether, it was certainly a step in the right direction.

But to Republicans raising a single tax on anything is right up there with slaughtering old women and children, so forget about figuring out how to FUND anything that Bush proposed at a cost of multiple billions (if not trillions) of dollars.

And cuts are also off-limits. So just rack up the old deficit and debt and go on our merry way...

Current debt: $7.6 trillion.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 11:23 AM
Because of capital gains tax revenues. Which you seem to believe the Dems were responsible for. The projections going out are what the Dems use to justify their comments that "we left Bush with a $5 trillion surplus and he squandered it". The fact is that it never existed and only a fool believed it would continue forever. It's also a big part of the reason a lot of states got into trouble.

And the tax increases in the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act.

Straight, No Chaser
02-03-2005, 11:37 AM
Well I wouldn't count out Cheney, I've heard some rumors that he would love to be President.

Fat Chance.
just my impression but watching his facial expressions during the speech made me wonder if this guy can EVER not look like he's smirking, frowning, grimacing, or sulking. Even if he doesn't feel like a curmudgeon he looks like one.

The one Dems need to watch out for is Newt, he's running for president.
That's scary.


--->

BIG_DADDY
02-03-2005, 11:40 AM
That's scary.


--->

Maybe the Dem's can move a little further to the left and let him in.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 12:29 PM
Can you say Capital Gain Tax being projected out for 10 years at the rate they were being paid in 98-99-00.

The Clinton ADM. was using those kinds of projections for 10 years
and thats where that socalled surplas came from. It was smoke and mears and then the BUBBLE burst into smitherings.


Yeah..I forget the phrase 'on paper'

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 04:19 PM
Look, social security will be bankrupt in a few decades and it will be in the red in 13 years. The cost to fund it between the time that it starts dipping into the IOUs and when it goes bankrupt* will be trillions of dollars. We can pay a fraction of that cost now and allow us to get younger workers the money they need to retire on through private accounts that would augment the shrinking amount that social security will be able to pay out.

Do you advocate borrowing 500 billion to 1 trillion now to keep retirement funds going to the next generations or do you want to borrow 4-5 trillion just to keep the system running until it goes under?

* And despite what the Dems want to claim the system will go bankrupt in 2042 - and that's if we have consistent economic growth...being able to pay out only a percentage of what is due sure sounds like what bankrupt companies do when they're paying off their debt. The fact is that if you know the system can't deliver the way it was originally designed (something even the Dems admit) then why not change the manner in which it delivers to keep the purpose of the program intact?

Calm down, I'm (mostly) on your side. :)

But he doesn't seem interesting in FUNDING the tremendous shortfall his plan will result in. I want a plan, and one that fixes or eliminates social security in some manner, but it needs to be FUNDED without incurring tons more debt. I wouldn't even mind SOME more debt, but he's just ignoring the funding issue. "More debt, who cares?" seems to be the attitude.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 04:24 PM
The way you guys look at the death tax absolutely drives me insane. How is it fair to tax money that's already been taxed multiple times? This is one of those areas where your side feels you can apply your effort at social engineering through taxation.

Those of you that view taxation as a means to correct society's ills are precisely the reason why this country has fallen way down the list of the world's economic freedom index.

First, to say that it's "already been taxed multiple times" is just a nice catch-phrase to get people's ears perked up. Money doesn't get taxed. Transfers of wealth get taxed. Transactions get taxed.

If I give you a million dollars, that money goes from me to you, and you're paying a tax (gift tax).

If you work for me and earn a million dollars, then you're paying a tax (income) and I'm paying various employer taxes.

If I croak and give you my money, then that money is going from me to you. Another transfer of money, and that transfer is also taxed.

I don't view taxation as a means to correct society's ills, but I do think that allowing endless accumulation of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of society is a really, really, really bad idea for any society. I don't deny that it's social/economic management, but it's neither unfair nor damaging to society in any way.

Look, make the threshold really high -- $50 million -- for all I care. All I know is that it's insane to have a constantly bigger percentage of the US's wealth in the hands of a constantly smaller percentage of society.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 04:26 PM
Quite a few I imagine. The House Republicans passed the legislation but the Senate wouldn't go along with it. Go figure.

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court would have struck it down as unconstitutional. They declared it unconstitution for states to do it, and the feds would have no more right to make rules regarding this.

Term limits would require a constitutional amendment.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 04:26 PM
Um, they will vote on it this month my sources tell me.

Great. What a horrible idea.

Donger
02-03-2005, 04:38 PM
First, to say that it's "already been taxed multiple times" is just a nice catch-phrase to get people's ears perked up. Money doesn't get taxed. Transfers of wealth get taxed. Transactions get taxed.

If I give you a million dollars, that money goes from me to you, and you're paying a tax (gift tax).

If you work for me and earn a million dollars, then you're paying a tax (income) and I'm paying various employer taxes.

If I croak and give you my money, then that money is going from me to you. Another transfer of money, and that transfer is also taxed.

I don't view taxation as a means to correct society's ills, but I do think that allowing endless accumulation of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of society is a really, really, really bad idea for any society. I don't deny that it's social/economic management, but it's neither unfair nor damaging to society in any way.

Look, make the threshold really high -- $50 million -- for all I care. All I know is that it's insane to have a constantly bigger percentage of the US's wealth in the hands of a constantly smaller percentage of society.

I'm simply opposed to the forced redistribution of wealth, period.

Cochise
02-03-2005, 04:40 PM
I'm simply opposed to the forced redistribution of wealth, period.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 06:27 PM
To be clear, I give some credit to Bush 1 for breaking his stupid "no new taxes" pledge in helping to create the surplus.

But meanwhile, look up the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act WHICH NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR. Although that bill was "only" expected to shrink the deficit rather than eliminate it altogether, it was certainly a step in the right direction.

But to Republicans raising a single tax on anything is right up there with slaughtering old women and children, so forget about figuring out how to FUND anything that Bush proposed at a cost of multiple billions (if not trillions) of dollars.

And cuts are also off-limits. So just rack up the old deficit and debt and go on our merry way...

Current debt: $7.6 trillion.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


If you're claiming that it was the 93 vote that brought us the big projected surpluses then respectfully you're just wrong.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 06:32 PM
Calm down, I'm (mostly) on your side. :)

But he doesn't seem interesting in FUNDING the tremendous shortfall his plan will result in. I want a plan, and one that fixes or eliminates social security in some manner, but it needs to be FUNDED without incurring tons more debt. I wouldn't even mind SOME more debt, but he's just ignoring the funding issue. "More debt, who cares?" seems to be the attitude.


Then you're going to have to hike taxes, increase the caps on taxes or decrease benefits. You can't transition to a new program and keep the system that is already broken intact. You could make the additional pay-in voluntary (that is, keep the SS tax rates where they are and mandate the new savings accounts), but if you're going to do that why do you need them in the first place?

My point is that keeping the system the way it is will result in many trillions more added to the deficit beginning next decade while the various privitization plans add anywhere from $600 billion to $1 trillion. You can change the system (which neither party will touch), you can cut benefits, raise the retirement age or increase taxes (which neither party will touch, except maybe the raising taxes part for Dems), or you can update the system and phase out some of the benefits a few decades from now to reduce the stress on the whole program.

tiptap
02-03-2005, 06:50 PM
The way you guys look at the death tax absolutely drives me insane. How is it fair to tax money that's already been taxed multiple times? This is one of those areas where your side feels you can apply your effort at social engineering through taxation.

Those of you that view taxation as a means to correct society's ills are precisely the reason why this country has fallen way down the list of the world's economic freedom index.

I have no trouble with inheriting money or liquid assets to a very surreal number say 100 million. What I do have trouble with is the inheritence of means of productions as well. That is the ownership of the wealth generating industry by means of inheritence. Set aside millions for your kids who then can use those funds to buy an enterprise but not the money and the generating industry too.
The reasons are basically two fold. If junior inherits the rights to the proceeds of production we (as a society) fail to gain by the struggle of junior to succeed in business. It is too much like royalty. In addition person much more suited to managing the enterprise is deprived of adding to our economy by never having the chance to ascend.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 06:58 PM
I have no trouble with inheriting money or liquid assets to a very surreal number say 100 million. What I do have trouble with is the inheritence of means of productions as well. That is the ownership of the wealth generating industry by means of inheritence. Set aside millions for your kids who then can use those funds to buy an enterprise but not the money and the generating industry too.
The reasons are basically two fold. If junior inherits the rights to the proceeds of production we (as a society) fail to gain by the struggle of junior to succeed in business. It is too much like royalty. In addition person much more suited to managing the enterprise is deprived of adding to our economy by never having the chance to ascend.
The lesson, don't be too successful because society is more important to you than your own family.

Hoover
02-03-2005, 07:01 PM
I'm simply opposed to the forced redistribution of wealth, period.
Right on Buddy!

Hoover
02-03-2005, 07:07 PM
One of the guys that work for me earns about $42K a year. They are payed twice a month. Each check 100 bucks is taken out of his gross, I as his employer has to match it, meaning he puts in $200 a pay period to Social Security Thats $4800 a year he puts in. He's 26 and SS might not even be there for him, is that fair? He only pays $120 per pay perion in Fed Income tax, $80 less than he play into a SS program where he might not get any benefits

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 07:24 PM
If you're claiming that it was the 93 vote that brought us the big projected surpluses then respectfully you're just wrong.

One of a number of factors. And an important one.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 07:26 PM
First, to say that it's "already been taxed multiple times" is just a nice catch-phrase to get people's ears perked up. Money doesn't get taxed. Transfers of wealth get taxed. Transactions get taxed.

If I give you a million dollars, that money goes from me to you, and you're paying a tax (gift tax).

If you work for me and earn a million dollars, then you're paying a tax (income) and I'm paying various employer taxes.

If I croak and give you my money, then that money is going from me to you. Another transfer of money, and that transfer is also taxed.

I don't view taxation as a means to correct society's ills, but I do think that allowing endless accumulation of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of society is a really, really, really bad idea for any society. I don't deny that it's social/economic management, but it's neither unfair nor damaging to society in any way.

Look, make the threshold really high -- $50 million -- for all I care. All I know is that it's insane to have a constantly bigger percentage of the US's wealth in the hands of a constantly smaller percentage of society.


The transactions between my folks and myself upon their death shouldn't be subject to your grubby hands. Crook.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 07:27 PM
Then you're going to have to hike taxes, increase the caps on taxes or decrease benefits. You can't transition to a new program and keep the system that is already broken intact. You could make the additional pay-in voluntary (that is, keep the SS tax rates where they are and mandate the new savings accounts), but if you're going to do that why do you need them in the first place?

My point is that keeping the system the way it is will result in many trillions more added to the deficit beginning next decade while the various privitization plans add anywhere from $600 billion to $1 trillion. You can change the system (which neither party will touch), you can cut benefits, raise the retirement age or increase taxes (which neither party will touch, except maybe the raising taxes part for Dems), or you can update the system and phase out some of the benefits a few decades from now to reduce the stress on the whole program.

I'd increase the cap at which the program phases out, currently at like $86K or so. I wouldn't mind increasing the retirement age either. When the program was instituted, it was designed for people to live on SS for an average of like 10 years. We're now at a considerably higher number.

I'd also eliminate the option to take it early, or else have the benefits even more significantly reduced if you take it early.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 07:28 PM
The lesson, don't be too successful because society is more important to you than your own family.

Don't be absurd. Being successful has huge rewards, for both oneself and future generations. No sane person would avoid becoming rich in order to avoid death taxes which would only reduce his heirs benefits by a finite sum, and still leave them with the bulk of the estate.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 07:29 PM
Don't be absurd. Being successful has huge rewards, for both oneself and future generations. No sane person would avoid becoming rich in order to avoid death taxes which would only reduce his heirs benefits by a finite sum, and still leave them with the bulk of the estate.
Absurd is taking millions from an individual with the concept of "this is good for the collective" in a true Republic.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 07:29 PM
One of the guys that work for me earns about $42K a year. They are payed twice a month. Each check 100 bucks is taken out of his gross, I as his employer has to match it, meaning he puts in $200 a pay period to Social Security Thats $4800 a year he puts in. He's 26 and SS might not even be there for him, is that fair? He only pays $120 per pay perion in Fed Income tax, $80 less than he play into a SS program where he might not get any benefits

SS as we know it won't be there for him. We definitely need a drasticalyl different system. The current system cannot continue indefinitely. Not even close.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 07:31 PM
Absurd is taking millions from an individual with the concept of "this is good for the collective" in a true Republic.

Welcome to the real world. Increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the population tends to lead to social unrest and many other negative consequences for the nation.

There's simply no benefit to overconcentration of wealth.

Garcia Bronco
02-03-2005, 07:37 PM
Welcome to the real world. Increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the population tends to lead to social unrest and many other negative consequences for the nation.

There's simply no benefit to overconcentration of wealth.


LOL...a revolution is going to break out because I get to keep my folks money tax free?

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 07:55 PM
Welcome to the real world. Increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the population tends to lead to social unrest and many other negative consequences for the nation.

There's simply no benefit to overconcentration of wealth.
He said while advocating continuing the process of concentrating our funds into a social security system.

Donger
02-03-2005, 08:03 PM
The transactions between my folks and myself upon their death shouldn't be subject to your grubby hands. Crook.

ROFL

Most excellent.

Every time I think of the way liberalism seems to contemplate taxation, I'm reminded of the old bank robber who responded to the question, "Why do you rob banks?" with, "That's where the money is."

Iowanian
02-03-2005, 08:25 PM
AMX....I think you've got me on your side.

Its long ago been proven that too much of the Nations wealth has been hoarded in NE, particularly massachussetts.

Please make your check Payable to Iowanian to help alleviate this injustice to Midwestern People.


The Money our parents/grandparents and ourselves have accumulated over a lifetime, has already been taxed.........and taxed. Its bullshit to kick a dead man while he's down.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:30 PM
He said while advocating continuing the process of concentrating our funds into a social security system.

errr...no I didn't. I've repeatedly said SS needs to be revamped, eliminated, replaced or something because the current system isn't sustainable. Please pay attention.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 08:30 PM
errr...no I didn't. I've repeatedly said SS needs to be revamped, eliminated, replaced or something because the current system isn't sustainable. Please pay attention.
Revamped is not an option for one who does not choose to hoard wealth in one area.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:31 PM
AMX....I think you've got me on your side.

Its long ago been proven that too much of the Nations wealth has been hoarded in NE, particularly massachussetts.

Please make your check Payable to Iowanian to help alleviate this injustice to Midwestern People.


The Money our parents/grandparents and ourselves have accumulated over a lifetime, has already been taxed.........and taxed. Its bullshit to kick a dead man while he's down.

Don't worry, the northeast already helps fund Iowanian and others throughout the mid-west. Wealth redistribution through taxation and the allocation of federal spending has been consistently shifting wealth from the northeast and into the "red" states. Or didn't you know that?

So, umm, I'm already doing that. Thanks for playing.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 08:34 PM
Don't worry, the northeast already helps fund Iowanian and others throughout the mid-west. Wealth redistribution through taxation and the allocation of federal spending has been consistently shifting wealth from the northeast and into the "red" states. Or didn't you know that?

So, umm, I'm already doing that. Thanks for playing.
Really, what funds have you allocated this way and for what programs?

Are you stating you pay more in federal taxation than someone in the Midwest? Please don't tell us on a state level you pay more, because that is your own fault for whom you elect.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:36 PM
Following up on my prior post:

Massachusetts received $.78 for each $1.00 paid in taxes to the federal government in 2003.

Iowa got $1.06 for each $1.00 paid in taxes to the feds in 2003. You guys did much better in '02, when you got $1.22 for each dollar paid.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:38 PM
Really, what funds have you allocated this way and for what programs?

Are you stating you pay more in federal taxation than someone in the Midwest? Please don't tell us on a state level you pay more, because that is your own fault for whom you elect.

See my follow up post. Massachusetts on a per capita basis is actually in the lower (better) half in terms of percentage of tax dollars paid in taxes. We are Taxachusetts no longer. But that wasn't the point I was making.

The point is that the federal government and its taxation system redistributes wealth in many ways. One way is FROM blue states to red states. So before you say that the Democrats benefit too much from higher taxes and reallocation of tax dollars, you should realize that the BLUE states generally paid more to the feds than the feds gave to them, and that the red states generally got more from the feds than they paid in.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 08:39 PM
Following up on my prior post:

Massachusetts received $.78 for each $1.00 paid in taxes to the federal government in 2003.

Iowa got $1.06 for each $1.00 paid in taxes to the feds in 2003. You guys did much better in '02, when you got $1.22 for each dollar paid.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
Looks like that "midwest" bastion of Washington D.C. kinda wipes out any "give and take" from the East to Midwest, doesn't it?

So your allocation program is merely for those who earn more than you? That sounds fair.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 08:39 PM
See my follow up post. Massachusetts on a per capita basis is actually in the lower (better) half in terms of percentage of tax dollars paid in taxes. We are Taxachusetts no longer. But that wasn't the point I was making.

The point is that the federal government and its taxation system redistributes wealth in many ways. One way is FROM blue states to red states. So before you say that the Democrats benefit too much from higher taxes and reallocation of tax dollars, you should realize that the BLUE states generally paid more to the feds than the feds gave to them, and that the red states generally got more from the feds than they paid in.
Is Washington D.C. a red state? When did that happen?

Iowanian
02-03-2005, 08:41 PM
Don't worry, the northeast already helps fund Iowanian and others throughout the mid-west. Wealth redistribution through taxation and the allocation of federal spending has been consistently shifting wealth from the northeast and into the "red" states. Or didn't you know that?

So, umm, I'm already doing that. Thanks for playing.

Its impolite to talk with your Mouth full.

What % of the Food you Kah-Pahkahs think comes from Massachussetts?
Which State do you think has a larger Percentage of Old Money-Wealth, unearned by the current Holders of those funds? If you didn't have so much of the Wealth and high salaries, you wouldn't be forking up so many tax dollars.



We're talking about your personal wealth. Fork it over, or you're a hypocrite.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:46 PM
I looked up this one for you too, since you seem to need some guidance on this also.

Massachusetts state/local combined taxes was 9.6% of total income in 2003, the 34th worst (i.e. 16th best, or top half) in the US. Missouri was at 9.4% for 38th worst (i..e 12th best, or top quarter) in the US. A pretty small difference (.2% of income.

Add federal taxes into the mix, however, and we become worse off, because of our higher incomes. With fed taxes counted, we were taxed at 30.4%, or FOURTH WORST (i.e. on a per capita basis, only 3 states paid more of their income in taxes).

Missouri, meanwhile, paid 26.6% of their income including federal taxes, or 37th worst (i.e. 13th best), or barely changed in proportion to other states.

So if we are Taxachusetts, it's because our higher incomes result in paying higher federal taxes, and for every $1.00 paid in taxes to the feds, we get only about $.80 back.

In other words -- our higher incomes means the average citizen of Massachusetts is taxed at a higher rate than the citizens of other states, AND our tax dollars are reallocated, mainly to red states.

Iowanian
02-03-2005, 08:49 PM
aahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Poor High tax bracket folks.

I guess you're supporting giving that money away when they're dead anway....why not just spread it out over lifetime payments instead of one lump sum.

Don't be Greedy. Don't Hog all of the Fun Money.

I'm liking your idea better all the time.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 08:49 PM
I looked up this one for you too, since you seem to need some guidance on this also.

Massachusetts state/local combined taxes was 9.6% of total income in 2003, the 34th worst (i.e. 16th best, or top half) in the US. Missouri was at 9.4% for 38th worst (i..e 12th best, or top quarter) in the US. A pretty small difference (.2% of income.

Add federal taxes into the mix, however, and we become worse off, because of our higher incomes. With fed taxes counted, we were taxed at 30.4%, or FOURTH WORST (i.e. on a per capita basis, only 3 states paid more of their income in taxes).

Missouri, meanwhile, paid 26.6% of their income including federal taxes, or 37th worst (i.e. 13th best), or barely changed in proportion to other states.

So if we are Taxachusetts, it's because our higher incomes result in paying higher federal taxes, and for every $1.00 paid in taxes to the feds, we get only about $.80 back.

In other words -- our higher incomes means the average citizen of Massachusetts is taxed at a higher rate than the citizens of other states, AND our tax dollars are reallocated, mainly to red states.
Again, you missed Washington D.C.

I wonder why?

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:51 PM
Looks like that "midwest" bastion of Washington D.C. kinda wipes out any "give and take" from the East to Midwest, doesn't it?

So your allocation program is merely for those who earn more than you? That sounds fair.

err...no. Not even remotely close, as I'm sure you'd realize if you spent half a minute thinking about it.

DC certain gets a heckuva lot more than it pays in. However, the number of citizens involved in those numbers are very small. Clearly, not ALL of those dollars are going to DC. It's just a weird "small sample size" issue. In fact, this is proven by the large number of states that get more than they pay in. If ALL excess dollars were going to DC, then other states wouldn't be getting more than they pay in.

Quit trying to avoid it -- one element of federal tax reallocation PRIMARILY favors red states at the cost of blue states. Not in all instances, of course, but by and large. And I note this was true EVEN WHEN the "Big Dig" was going on in Massachusetts.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 08:53 PM
err...no. Not even remotely close, as I'm sure you'd realize if you spent half a minute thinking about it.

DC certain gets a heckuva lot more than it pays in. However, the number of citizens involved in those numbers are very small. Clearly, not ALL of those dollars are going to DC. It's just a weird "small sample size" issue. In fact, this is proven by the large number of states that get more than they pay in. If ALL excess dollars were going to DC, then other states wouldn't be getting more than they pay in.

Quit trying to avoid it -- one element of federal tax reallocation PRIMARILY favors red states at the cost of blue states. Not in all instances, of course, but by and large. And I note this was true EVEN WHEN the "Big Dig" was going on in Massachusetts.
Ahh, now we add "primarily". Nicely done and adequate dodge.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:54 PM
Again, you missed Washington D.C.

I wonder why?

Cuz it's statistically irrelevant. Yes, DC gets a HUGE bonus from tax reallocation. So what? It's an insignificant number of people relative to the rest of what I'm talking about.

What you're saying doesn't directly impact what i'm saying whatsoever. You're noting a small exception to the general rule. I acknowledge it's an exception. So what?

Cochise
02-03-2005, 08:54 PM
jeez, not this crep again

Iowanian
02-03-2005, 08:58 PM
...and Iowa's population is around 2.9Mil.........Less than the Megalopolis area you're claiming is overpaying.

about this Rich Folks giving their money to the "poor".....PM me and I'll get you one of my deposit slips.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 08:58 PM
Ahh, now we add "primarily". Nicely done and adequate dodge.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not dodging anything.

1. There is a MASSIVE wealth redistribution going on.

2. It is GENERALLY correct that the shift is FROM blue states TO red states.

3. Obviously it's not uniformly true, but it is certain true in the vast majority of instances.

Each of the following "solid" blue states -- California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Delaware, New Jersey & New York -- paid more in taxes than they got back IN EACH YEAR from 1994 through 2003.

Nearly every "red" state benefitted from the reallocation.

You can't deny this. Just raising a few exceptions doesn't change the basic facts.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 09:01 PM
err...no. Not even remotely close, as I'm sure you'd realize if you spent half a minute thinking about it.

DC certain gets a heckuva lot more than it pays in. However, the number of citizens involved in those numbers are very small. Clearly, not ALL of those dollars are going to DC. It's just a weird "small sample size" issue. In fact, this is proven by the large number of states that get more than they pay in. If ALL excess dollars were going to DC, then other states wouldn't be getting more than they pay in.

Quit trying to avoid it -- one element of federal tax reallocation PRIMARILY favors red states at the cost of blue states. Not in all instances, of course, but by and large. And I note this was true EVEN WHEN the "Big Dig" was going on in Massachusetts.
A sampling? Since when is 600,000 people getting almost 7 times what my state gets per dollar a samping? If you add the percentage and population to Mass, you offset any gain to MO exponentially.

Again, nice try.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 09:02 PM
jeez, not this crep again

Yeah, facts are pesky and annoying. I understand.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 09:06 PM
A sampling? Since when is 600,000 people getting almost 7 times what my state gets per dollar a samping? If you add the percentage and population to Mass, you offset any gain to MO exponentially.

Again, nice try.
Missouri gets more money from the feds than they pay to the feds. In other words, being involved in the current federal tax scheme is a NET PROFIT to Missouri.

It is a NET LOSS to Massachusetts.

(obviously, just isolating the tax dollars paid in/received concept here).

Are these facts too complex for you? You seem overwhelmed by the fact that DC is a statistical aberration because it is the seat of the federal government and has a small and poor population that actually live there.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 09:08 PM
Missouri gets more money from the feds than they pay to the feds. In other words, being involved in the current federal tax scheme is a NET PROFIT to Missouri.

It is a NET LOSS to Massachusetts.

(obviously, just isolating the tax dollars paid in/received concept here).

Are these facts too complex for you? You seem overwhelmed by the fact that DC is a statistical aberration because it is the seat of the federal government and has a small and poor population that actually live there.
LOL - DC funds Mass, Mass gets the DC overload.

Just because one pompous ass decides that an arbitrary number he likes (which is more than he will attain) should be the golden number to a wonder of socialism doesn't mean that it makes sense to people in the real world who want to keep what is theirs.

Amnorix
02-03-2005, 09:10 PM
LOL - DC funds Mass, Mass gets the DC overload.

Just because one pompous ass decides that an arbitrary number he likes (which is more than he will attain) should be the golden number to a wonder of socialism doesn't mean that it makes sense to people in the real world who want to keep what is theirs.

Your ability to close your eyes, plug your fingers in your ears, and repeatedly shout "I'm not listening" when faced with facts you don't like is truly impressive.

Anyway, time for me to hit the sack. G'night all.

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 09:11 PM
Your ability to close your eyes, plug your fingers in your ears, and repeatedly shout "I'm not listening" when faced with facts you don't like is truly impressive.

Anyway, time for me to hit the sack. G'night all.
Facts?

We pay more in taxes from Massachusetts so we should stop people from earning xx amount of dollars from giving it to their kids.


Yeah, sounds factual to me alright.

Next, why the sun rotates around the Earth on even days because man in the moon marigolds don't eat cheese.

Iowanian
02-03-2005, 09:12 PM
Like I said.......Chew your food 32 times before swallowing.

you're welcome

Hoover
02-03-2005, 09:17 PM
SS as we know it won't be there for him. We definitely need a drasticalyl different system. The current system cannot continue indefinitely. Not even close.
So what options are the democrats offering a guy like him?

bkkcoh
02-03-2005, 09:33 PM
err...no. Not even remotely close, as I'm sure you'd realize if you spent half a minute thinking about it.

DC certain gets a heckuva lot more than it pays in. However, the number of citizens involved in those numbers are very small. Clearly, not ALL of those dollars are going to DC. It's just a weird "small sample size" issue. In fact, this is proven by the large number of states that get more than they pay in. If ALL excess dollars were going to DC, then other states wouldn't be getting more than they pay in.

Quit trying to avoid it -- one element of federal tax reallocation PRIMARILY favors red states at the cost of blue states. Not in all instances, of course, but by and large. And I note this was true EVEN WHEN the "Big Dig" was going on in Massachusetts.

If congress had any balls at all, they would use DC as a social playground for numerous programs, either to try or to stop. Congress has a lot of opportunity to work with DC, but either they are afraid to do it or DC is afraid to have it done to them. Not so sure that I would blame DC for that FEAR. But they could try lots of different things.

Baby Lee
02-03-2005, 10:11 PM
Did you see Bush in Lieberman's ear...I bet he said "I know it was you, Fredo."
Jonny used your bit!!!!

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 06:49 AM
Facts?

We pay more in taxes from Massachusetts so we should stop people from earning xx amount of dollars from giving it to their kids.


Yeah, sounds factual to me alright.

Next, why the sun rotates around the Earth on even days because man in the moon marigolds don't eat cheese.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to get involved in a debate today, but wanted to just make one point. The discussion regarding the shift of dollars from blue states to red states has nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with the "are inheritance taxes a good/bad thing". It was in response to something someone brought up, and is completely unrelated.

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 06:51 AM
So what options are the democrats offering a guy like him?

None that I know of. I completely disapprove of the Democrats position on the SS issue thus far, although I understand their reasons for it.

Unfortunately, both sides play games with politics, and the Democrats think they can gain an advantage with voters by "standing up for Social Security". Although reasonable minds may differ about the urgency of the need for SS reform, there's little argument in my mind that (1) SS must be reformed, and (2) the earlier we do it, the better/easier it will be.

tiptap
02-04-2005, 08:22 AM
The lesson, don't be too successful because society is more important to you than your own family.

If everyone makes up their own language, then there is no cooperation. This is the extreme your position represents. Each family does not do all for itself. We have discovered that division of labor increases efficiency and allows greater wealth for all. Yet your position is that we each do it all on our own. We are a society of coordinated activities. And whether we choose to organize it under a private entity of a corporation or a government, or spontaneous voluntee cooperation, the success or failure is dependent upon how well that entity is run, that is, how competent are the people involved. Either way there are opportunities to corner markets when both the means of production and the products themselves are controlled by the same entity. This is true of company towns, governments and coordination between industry wide corporations. If you are going to allow your decisions to be selfish ones of meeting your family's needs we all are diminished. It is the salient teaching of Christian ideals that I as an agnostic can still claim as relevant. Look carefully at your statement. You use the word success. I was talking about money. A successful leader would be the one who sees the fortunes of greatest number of people increase and not horde wealth for him alone.

Hoover
02-04-2005, 09:32 AM
None that I know of. I completely disapprove of the Democrats position on the SS issue thus far, although I understand their reasons for it.

Unfortunately, both sides play games with politics, and the Democrats think they can gain an advantage with voters by "standing up for Social Security". Although reasonable minds may differ about the urgency of the need for SS reform, there's little argument in my mind that (1) SS must be reformed, and (2) the earlier we do it, the better/easier it will be.
This kid could put 75% of his 4800 in social Security and the other 25% in a Roth. Whats the problem with that?

Donger
02-04-2005, 09:35 AM
This kid could put 75% of his 4800 in social Security and the other 25% in a Roth. Whats the problem with that?

Because the Democrats don't have control over the 25% in the Roth.

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 09:36 AM
This kid could put 75% of his 4800 in social Security and the other 25% in a Roth. Whats the problem with that?

I don't have a problem with revamping social security.

I have a problem with not addressing how to FUND it at all. Bush has talked about making changes to ensure that SS is stable and self-supporting in the long run. So far, he's only given us half a loaf on that.

But seriously, I'm ALL for SS reform in nearly any fashion.

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 09:37 AM
Because the Democrats don't have control over the 25% in the Roth.

Silly statement. The Dems don't control Social Security now. They don't control Congress, or the executive branch either, or hadn't you noticed... :p

Donger
02-04-2005, 09:41 AM
Silly statement. The Dems don't control Social Security now. They don't control Congress, or the executive branch either, or hadn't you noticed... :p

Of course I was being somewhat silly.

But surely you admit that the Democrats are hell-bent on keeping SS the way it is? In other words, they are determined to prohibit Americans from having a greater say in their retirment options.

Why is that exactly?

Do they simply think that Americans are too stupid to handle it?
Do they have some vested interest in keeping SS the way it is?

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 09:44 AM
Of course I was being somewhat silly.

But surely you admit that the Democrats are hell-bent on keeping SS the way it is? In other words, they are determined to prohibit Americans from having a greater say in their retirment options.

Why is that exactly?

Do they simply think that Americans are too stupid to handle it?
Do they have some vested interest in keeping SS the way it is?

No vested interest that I know of. What would it be?

I think mainly they're trying to score political points as "the Defenders of Social Security".

Donger
02-04-2005, 09:47 AM
No vested interest that I know of. What would it be?

I think mainly they're trying to score political points as "the Defenders of Social Security".

As I said, I honestly don't know.

But, why in the world would they want to be defenders of a system that is eventually going to belly up?

Hoover
02-04-2005, 09:48 AM
I don't have a problem with revamping social security.

I have a problem with not addressing how to FUND it at all. Bush has talked about making changes to ensure that SS is stable and self-supporting in the long run. So far, he's only given us half a loaf on that.

But seriously, I'm ALL for SS reform in nearly any fashion.
Sure they do, their threat of a fillibuster.

I don't have a problem with them being against it, I expect that. But have an alternative plan

Donger
02-04-2005, 09:52 AM
Sure they do, their threat of a fillibuster.

I don't have a problem with them being against it, I expect that. But have an alternative plan

They do have alternate plans. From what I've seen, each includes increased taxation.

Hoover
02-04-2005, 09:57 AM
They do have alternate plans. From what I've seen, each includes increased taxation.
They want to raise the celling form 90,000 to no cap at all. Ouch!

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:16 AM
One of a number of factors. And an important one.


:shrug:

The additional revenues from the 93 vote didn't contribute hardly anything to the projected surpluses that the Dems like to cite. The fact that neither you nor any other lib I've asked to provide the exact reasons how that vote lead to multi-trillion dollar surpluses or how that vote led to 23 million new jobs says it all.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:21 AM
I'd increase the cap at which the program phases out, currently at like $86K or so. I wouldn't mind increasing the retirement age either. When the program was instituted, it was designed for people to live on SS for an average of like 10 years. We're now at a considerably higher number.

I'd also eliminate the option to take it early, or else have the benefits even more significantly reduced if you take it early.


:doh!:

How does that FIX the system Amnorix? It doesn't. The original program was never intended to function how they're attempting to make it work now. You're also not factoring in the fact that taxes are a PROVEN drag on the economy and that your ideas raise taxes. You've got to remember that the numbers being bandied about now project us having a steadily growing economy. Lord help the current system if there is a major downturn in employment in the next 35 years.

Putting more money into a failing program that can't EVER hope to deliver returns anywhere near what private accounts could deliver just makes zero sense.

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 10:27 AM
:doh!:

How does that FIX the system Amnorix? It doesn't. The original program was never intended to function how they're attempting to make it work now. You're also not factoring in the fact that taxes are a PROVEN drag on the economy and that your ideas raise taxes. You've got to remember that the numbers being bandied about now project us having a steadily growing economy. Lord help the current system if there is a major downturn in employment in the next 35 years.

Putting more money into a failing program that can't EVER hope to deliver returns anywhere near what private accounts could deliver just makes zero sense.
It doesn't fix the system. What I'm proposing isn't isolated. It's in combination with Bush's plans, or some other plan, for radical change.

All I'm proposing is a system that will FUND these changes. That's all I'm talking about. FUNDING dramatic change.

I'm NOT advocating just doing these things to delay the eventual bankruptcy of SS. Just to pay for the transition to whatever the new plan is.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:30 AM
Welcome to the real world. Increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the population tends to lead to social unrest and many other negative consequences for the nation.

There's simply no benefit to overconcentration of wealth.


Give me the plan that fixes it. Some people have personal initiative and drive and ambition and make millions. Some people have those things and fail and lose everything they have. Most people don't have any of those things. If you're telling me the person that risks everything should be legislated into sharing with those who don't want to be burdened by the risks (well, forced to share more than they already do with the progressive tax code) then I can only tell you that you're living under the wrong system.

And for the record I think the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans in all classes agree that those who prosper didn't do so because of luck. And a lot of them can thank their own employment to the drive of those willing to risk everything.

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 10:30 AM
As I said, I honestly don't know.

But, why in the world would they want to be defenders of a system that is eventually going to belly up?

Because they're short-sighted politicians more worried about winning seats in '06 and the WH in '08 than in necessary changes to fix a system that won't go bankrupt until long after '06 or '08. Republicans are short-sighted too, just in different ways.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:33 AM
errr...no I didn't. I've repeatedly said SS needs to be revamped, eliminated, replaced or something because the current system isn't sustainable. Please pay attention.


I was paying attention and upthread you said that your idea to fix it was to raise the taxes and essentially keep the same system intact.

Double :doh!: :doh!:

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:37 AM
Your ability to close your eyes, plug your fingers in your ears, and repeatedly shout "I'm not listening" when faced with facts you don't like is truly impressive.

Anyway, time for me to hit the sack. G'night all.


ROFL

Sounds to me like you might be doing better if your Jr. Senator spent a few more days at work and your Sr. Senator actually stood for something other than cutting and running from Iraq.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:39 AM
If congress had any balls at all, they would use DC as a social playground for numerous programs, either to try or to stop. Congress has a lot of opportunity to work with DC, but either they are afraid to do it or DC is afraid to have it done to them. Not so sure that I would blame DC for that FEAR. But they could try lots of different things.

Exactly! Kind of like the 100 weird test food dishes you can get at McDonalds headquarters. Although McSushi is still something I wish I would have avoided...

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:44 AM
I don't have a problem with revamping social security.

I have a problem with not addressing how to FUND it at all. Bush has talked about making changes to ensure that SS is stable and self-supporting in the long run. So far, he's only given us half a loaf on that.

But seriously, I'm ALL for SS reform in nearly any fashion.


Oy. Dude, he's going to fund it with a bond issue. It will be somewhere between $600 billion and $1 trillion IMO. And whatever the number is it will be MUCH less than what we'll have to pay out of the treasury between 2018 and 2042.

You can pay me now or pay me later.

That is unless you want to raise taxes (which you advocated earlier), raise the retirement age (which you advocated earlier) or wanted to cut benefits (which will never happen unless there's also a retirement account involved).

Again, it sure sounded to me earlier like you wanted to keep the status quo upthread.

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 10:46 AM
I was paying attention and upthread you said that your idea to fix it was to raise the taxes and essentially keep the same system intact.

Double :doh!: :doh!:

Raise the taxes, etc., was just to fund the dramatic changes. If that didn't come across, then my apologies.

I want Social Security dramatically revamped so that it doesn't need constant tweaking, doesn't represent a massive drag on the economy or threaten to bankrupt the country. The increase in the max tax cap, increasing the age of receipients and eliminating early receipt of benefits aren't fixes, to be sure. I suggest them only to help fund the transition to a better system.

If I seemed to suggest otherwise before, then I'm sorry for any confusion. I've said many times before this thread that I'd like to see SS revamped, so this isn't any kind fo position change on my part.

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 10:47 AM
ROFL

Sounds to me like you might be doing better if your Jr. Senator spent a few more days at work and your Sr. Senator actually stood for something other than cutting and running from Iraq.

Please. Both are fine Senators. Whether you dislike their politics or not, they are effective Senators, which is why we keep returning them to their jobs.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:49 AM
It doesn't fix the system. What I'm proposing isn't isolated. It's in combination with Bush's plans, or some other plan, for radical change.

All I'm proposing is a system that will FUND these changes. That's all I'm talking about. FUNDING dramatic change.

I'm NOT advocating just doing these things to delay the eventual bankruptcy of SS. Just to pay for the transition to whatever the new plan is.


IF you excluded chapter 'S' corporate income from the raise I would have no problem raising the high end of the taxable wages during the transition period or for some finite period of time to a finite cap of $120K to $150K...not necessarily to make up the full amount of any transition cost but to lessen the blow. I also don't believe you should force business to match the amount over the current threshold.

But you've got to exclude small business from the equation.

And I would only entertain this if it got us the full 4% funding into the private accounts the way Bush wants to do it.

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 10:49 AM
Oy. Dude, he's going to fund it with a bond issue. It will be somewhere between $600 billion and $1 trillion IMO. And whatever the number is it will be MUCH less than what we'll have to pay out of the treasury between 2018 and 2042.

You can pay me now or pay me later.

That is unless you want to raise taxes (which you advocated earlier), raise the retirement age (which you advocated earlier) or wanted to cut benefits (which will never happen unless there's also a retirement account involved).

Again, it sure sounded to me earlier like you wanted to keep the status quo upthread.

He's going to fund it by INCREASING THE NATIONAL DEBT. I fugging know that. That's not a plan for paying for it. That's a plan for having someone else pay for it downstream. Of course, I'm not surprised since this is how Bush plans to pay for everything he does.

Increase costs, cut taxes, and let someone else worry about it later.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:52 AM
Please. Both are fine Senators. Whether you dislike their politics or not, they are effective Senators, which is why we keep returning them to their jobs.


You can argue that Kennedy is effective at what he does...but Kerry has done very few if any meaningful things in 20 years. That was just one of his many problems last year.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 10:54 AM
He's going to fund it by INCREASING THE NATIONAL DEBT. I fugging know that. That's not a plan for paying for it. That's a plan for having someone else pay for it downstream. Of course, I'm not surprised since this is how Bush plans to pay for everything he does.

Increase costs, cut taxes, and let someone else worry about it later.


If the alternative way to pay for it costs trillions and trillions and trillion and this plan costs $600 billion then I would say that's a plan. I just don't think you can change the level of taxation or raise the retirement age without private accounts because you've just putting off the inevitable...acknowledging that the system can no longer function as it was designed to function.

Of course I realize the above argument bears a striking resemblence to my girlfriend telling me how much money she saved me when she buys the $75 shoes she doesn't need instead of the $200 shoes she doesn't need and informs me she just saved me $125. ;)

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 10:55 AM
IF you excluded chapter 'S' corporate income from the raise I would have no problem raising the high end of the taxable wages during the transition period or for some finite period of time to a finite cap of $120K to $150K...not necessarily to make up the full amount of any transition cost but to lessen the blow. I also don't believe you should force business to match the amount over the current threshold.

But you've got to exclude small business from the equation.

And I would only entertain this if it got us the full 4% funding into the private accounts the way Bush wants to do it.

I have no problem sheltering small businesses from the hit.

Are you referring to subchapter S corporations that have pass-through tax treatment? You need to know (if you don't already) that while the majority of them are small businesses, it's also true that some of them are extremely large and wealthy corporations. Subchapter S status isn't limited by size of revenues or earnings or anything. It's limited to number and type of stockholders, etc.

The small S corps. can (and I believe usually do) pay the owners through dividends. I admit I don't know whether the dividends are subject to FICA tax.

You should also recognize that many small businesses run as S corps. are very wealthy and profitable. Specifically, dentists, doctors, lawyers and other highly paid professionals take advantage of S corp. status.

Not that there's anything wrong with any of this, but it's all noteworthy. S corps. are much more than Mom and Pop grocery stores...

Amnorix
02-04-2005, 10:56 AM
If the alternative way to pay for it costs trillions and trillions and trillion and this plan costs $600 billion then I would say that's a plan. I just don't think you can change the level of taxation or raise the retirement age without private accounts because you've just putting off the inevitable...acknowledging that the system can no longer function as it was designed to function.

I've acknowledged this many, many times. You can't just tweak around the edges on this. We did that in '83 or thereabouts under Reagan, and that helped for quite a while, but just constantly revisitng this is too painful.

I'd also revise the COLA formula for SS recipients.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 11:01 AM
I have no problem sheltering small businesses from the hit.

Are you referring to subchapter S corporations that have pass-through tax treatment? You need to know (if you don't already) that while the majority of them are small businesses, it's also true that some of them are extremely large and wealthy corporations. Subchapter S status isn't limited by size of revenues or earnings or anything. It's limited to number and type of stockholders, etc.

The small S corps. can (and I believe usually do) pay the owners through dividends. I admit I don't know whether the dividends are subject to FICA tax.

You should also recognize that many small businesses run as S corps. are very wealthy and profitable. Specifically, dentists, doctors, lawyers and other highly paid professionals take advantage of S corp. status.

Not that there's anything wrong with any of this, but it's all noteworthy. S corps. are much more than Mom and Pop grocery stores...


I'm not making that argument vis-a-vis "S" corps. Many have to pass through large sums of money not for reasons of enrichment but for other tax reasons. Small biz is one of those areas that could be easily excluded and never is, regardless of their numbers. And, again, I would want the matching that is required from business to be excluded on any increase in the taxable portion of a person's salary because that would be a serious drag on the economy.

I'm still not convinced that it's not more harmful to simply issue new "SS" bonds rather than increase the taxable income, but if that was the only way to get everyone on board to have the private accounts then I wouldn't be against them for a limited amount of additional revenue (with biz matching excluded in that additional amount) for a limited period of time to help fund some (but not necessarily all) of the transition costs.

RINGLEADER
02-04-2005, 11:02 AM
I've acknowledged this many, many times. You can't just tweak around the edges on this. We did that in '83 or thereabouts under Reagan, and that helped for quite a while, but just constantly revisitng this is too painful.

I'd also revise the COLA formula for SS recipients.


Yeah, I forgot about COLA. Although I think that's something the Dems would jump on to bang the overall idea of fixing the system over the head. They're already talking about the 43% cut number that's so specious it's not even funny.

Lzen
02-04-2005, 12:41 PM
Or they just didn't watch.

I do find it hard to believe Bush "knocked it out of the park". He is truly a horrendous public speaker. Better than he was early in his first term, but listening to him speak is generally physically painful.

"I think that....................it's really quite........................necessary for the United................................States to move forward and........................attack.........................Syria".

etc. The random long pauses just kills me.

Oh come on now. You are exaggerating. Besides, it should not matter whether a president is a great public speaker or average. That's what I would call nit picking.