How much will Bush screw you?

Quote:

---

The majority of Americans are in dept up to their eye balls. Stories of athletes and rap stars blowing millions on "bling", and then going bankrupt when their big money careers dry up, is the norm, not the exception! The system is for those idiots that should know better.

---

I'm going to burst your bubble but people with big money careers blowing their money on bling is not the norm..not by a longshot..that is the exception..the norm is the average American worker espeically those in poverty who don't have money to save or put into a saving account or IRA at the end of the month because its all gone on rent and food and gas and their children that is the norm, I wouldn't say that most people are stupid about money, mis informed and unaware and driven by a materialistic society that says buy buy buy and consume..if you don't have this car or this pair of tennis shoes, or this computer then your not worth anything...that the norm..

Quote:

---

Sorry, but I'd rather have the money from the "Privatization Plan", than even less that will be there when I retire under the current plan.

---

my oh my...

the privatization plan is the worse ever, look into the fees the you would have to pay the brokers...its a ruse and Social security was never meant to be invested in the stock market its a government run social insurance program...its not your money its everybodys and actually we had a surplus of money before Bush came along an war mongered it away...

Social Security may need some fine tuning thanks to Bush and his Admistration..but Privatization isn't the answer and the fact that you would be willing to fall for such a load of Crap is scary...now thats whats scary!!!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

If I want a private account there are any number of retirement investors who are more than happy to take my money and set up a 401 or IRA or any number of odder and more exotic things. This is standard SOP - SS isn't meant to be sole retirement support, just a minimum guarantee. Why do we need to gut a whole SS system and replace it with something that's already available, and FAR less guaranteed?

---

you said it...if that is what needs to be done then do it..why the privatization talk...

I can't believe that some are falling for this crap!! we as Americans cannot be that dumb!!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:
Social Security may need some fine tuning thanks to Bush and his Admistration..but Privatization isn't the answer and the fact that you would be willing to fall for such a load of Crap is scary...now thats whats scary!!!

---

You are on crack LOL if you think that 4 years of Bush policy is what drained the coffers of SS. It's more like 40 years of government bureaucracy and spending spending spending.

Finish your highschool education, get married have a couple little ones, learn what it is like to try and provide those "Material" things you seem to despise, for your family by working a crappy job for 50% of the time you are on this Earth. Then tell me how easy it is to get by with just the small things in life and how stupid I am for thinking that SS isn't starting to fall apart.

And for God sakes get off the partisan bandwagon. Clinton said SS needed to be fixed and he is the Democratic Golden Child. There are enough soundbites to show both sides claiming the same thing. One thing I do know for certain is I won't ever be able to retire, particularly if they keep raising the retirement age to keep SS solvent. I just hope I die instantaneously, so I don't have to be a drain on my family or try and live on what little assistance I may be able to "qualify" for after my medical bills and what not eat through what ever savings and investments I manage to have.

You can blame alot on Bush..but SS isn't one of them. Privatization scares the bejeezus out of me, because I trust the government about as far as I can throw Rosie O'donnell. Not at all LOL. I hope it doesn't pass..because it will seperate the poor working man even more.

Someone above had it right..when politicians start working for the us rather then themselves..we might get the straight truth on something.

PS: The American Way - Reactive rather then Proactive.

"It's like a finger pointing at the Moon. If you concentrate on the finger, you miss out on all the Heavenly Glory" - Bruce Lee

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I've guess I haven't been clear in my own opinion. I'm not convinced Privatization is any real solution or not. I'm not defending it. I'm defending the belief that SS is in trouble, and it needs to be addressed.

Spookyjesus would like everyone to believe that BUSH WILL SCREW YOU.

Piratejenny want's us to believe BUSH'S WAR MACHINE HAS STOLEN FUNDS FROM SS.

Both beliefs are falacious, but typical of rants from Bush bashers. To be fair, I've seen similar tactics used by Clinton bashers when he was in office.

The truth is much more complex. Here's an article covering the "offical" non-partisan review of Socal Security. Yes, it states clearly that Bush's Privatization plan isn't the answer, but it also points fingers at the Democrats for their plan to cut benefits.

If those were the only choices, I'd take Privatization over cuts to benefits. Fortunately, those aren't the only choices out there, and now that the issue is being discussed (Bush's real plan all along, IMHO), hopefully a better solution will come from all of this.

Read it, educate yourself of the facts, and decide for yourself. Then, instead of impotent ranting here, write your reps in Washington, and tell them what you think.





GAO Official: No Crisis in Social Security - AP
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Social Security "does not face an immediate crisis," the head of the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday, but it does face a long-term financing problem "and it would be prudent to address it sooner rather than later."

David M. Walker, who heads the nonpartisan Office of Comptroller General, also criticized President Bush for undertaking an aggressive two-month tour to try to sell his plan for allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Walker suggested that Bush and members of Congress focus on improving financing for the program, which would not be significantly affected by establishment of personal accounts.

The testimony launched formal debate, before the House Ways and Means Committee, on Capitol Hill over Bush's plan to overhaul the federal retirement plan that began as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's post-Depression era "New Deal."

"I would have done it differently, I would have done it differently," Walker said, under aggressive questioning by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the top Democrat on the panel. In his opening statement, Rangel declared, "Private accounts will not be on the table if you are looking for bipartisanship."

The panel's chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said in his opening remarks, "Clearly, the current program, because the American population has changed, is not sustainable based on the old method of financing."

Noting that Congress has not changed the program since 1983, the chairman also chided Democrats for opposing any potential cut in retiree benefits.

"In 1983, under the Democrat leadership, the solution included cutting benefits," Thomas said, adding that tax increases were also part of the 1980s remedy.

With polls showing that people are nervous about future financial shortfalls in the program, House Republicans intended to devote their first hearing to that rather than Bush's less popular idea of private accounts. Nonetheless, the partisan views surfaced in the hearing's opening minutes.

The trustees for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are expected to release their 2005 report on the long-term financial outlook of government programs later this month. Two trustees who appeared at the hearing, Thomas R. Saving of Texas and John L. Palmer of New York, said there have been no major changes in the program's demographics or financial outlook during the past year, but they joined Walker in urging immediate action on long-term program financing.

"We believe that action on it should not be deferred any longer than necessary for due deliberation and decision," the two said in a joint statement released before their formal testimony.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

One of the names from the article you mentioned jumped out at me, Thomas Saving. I'm not sure if this is a conflict of interest but he's also joined the group Progress for America, which is a 501c4 astroturf group working to privitize Social Security.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3056334

Is it a problem when a Social Security trustee is also working with a group whose stated goal is carving out private accounts from Social Security?

* hat tip to Josh Marshall for the heads up

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

good one here

Quote:

---

...

---

Suckered in by Osama, into occupying Iraq, US is on the decline; a new president might have realized that another Vietnam is in the making, and gotten out quickly.

Ban on stem cell research and "gay" marriages reminds me of authoratian religious regimes that the US wants to change in the Middle East.

Religion USA versus Religion Islam ?

I don't know if things are so bad, but here's more news

Bush wants
Regime change at the World Bank
There has been a cool response to President Bush's nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to be the next head of the World Bank, a key development agency.
Mr Wolfowitz, 61, currently US Deputy Defence Secretary, has a reputation as a "neo-conservative" hawk and was a key architect of the Iraq war.
News of his candidacy brought criticism from aid agencies and faint praise from several European government ministers.
Mr Bush described Mr Wolfowitz as a "compassionate, decent man".
French and German ministers were guarded in their reaction, while Sweden's foreign minister said she was sceptical about the nomination.

Aid agencies and development experts lined up to criticise the nomination.

A British-based campaign group, the World Development Movement, described the nomination as a "truly terrifying appointment".
Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner and a former World Bank chief economist, said: "Choosing the right general in the war against poverty will not assure victory, but choosing the wrong one surely increases the chances of failure."
Greenpeace, ActionAid, and Oxfam were among other critics.

Bogus News from Bush reminds some of communist propaganda
administration officials say new Pentagon office should not be allowed to tell lies to promote American views overseas; office has come under criticism, the military is thinking of planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media. A new department has been set up inside the Pentagon with the Orwellian title of the Office of Strategic Influence
propaganda efforts come under increased scrutiny
Media Matters noted a Sebastian Mallaby column in The Washington Post that relied heavily on a deeply flawed study to make the case for "tort reform."

The New York Times joined the fray on January 12, offering an article about efforts at the state level to limit civil litigation. Unfortunately, in reporter James Dao's 1,100-plus word article, only three sentences detailed the reasons to oppose such efforts. That imbalance was unfortunately representative of the whole article. While the article contained quotes from three advocates of lawsuit limits, it contained a quote from only one opponent -- and that was in the last sentence. On several occasions, the article repeated as fact claims from those who support limiting lawsuits -- but failed to provide specifics.

George W. Bush said the U.S. government's practice of sending packaged news stories to local television stations was fine and he had no plans to stop it.
His defense of the packages, which are designed to look like television news segments, came after they were deemed a form of covert propaganda by the Government Accountability Office watchdog agency.

Among the packages the GAO looked at was one produced by the Health and Human Services Department to promote the Medicare prescription drug law. The story included a paid actor who narrated the piece in a similar style to the way a television reporter would.

"The entire story package was developed with appropriated funds but appears to be an independent news story," the agency said.

It added that some stations were airing such pieces without a disclaimer saying they were produced by the government.

Bush said government agencies, such as the Agriculture Department and the Department of Defense, had been producing such videos for a long time and he said it was appropriate so long as they were "based upon a factual report."

He said it was up to the local news stations to disclose that the segments were produced by the government.

It was not the first ti

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Bush will screw us as much as we let him.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Bush will screw us as much as we let him.

---

If by "screw" you mean "boldly lead us into a new age of prosperity and security both at home and abroad and despite the duel challenge of international terrorism and domestic obstructionism", then you are correct, God willing.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME