My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 17:07
VIEWED: 13307
PAGE 4 of 11
cream.
Cash
Rules
Everything
Around
Me
This is where we start, left or right.
It's CASHISM!!!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bush is not Evil, nor is he a great leader. He's your average dope making good or bad decisions based on the knowledge he has at the moment.
Imperfection is inherent in the person, hence the system.
All WE can do is be the best us WE can be.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
BTW... In science, a 'theory' attempts to explain something using known facts. Since you did not offer any 'facts' which support the claim that Bush is indeed trying to ruin social security, I'd suggest you rename this post. Why 'I think' Bush wants...,(or) MY VIEW on why Bush wants....etc. Just my $ 0.02.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Thank you your Correctness
I know what a theory is and I think mines has enough facts in it to make it a theory!!
No need to get defensive, I was merely offering some constructive criticism. Had you offered some of those 'facts', I'd not have had post my comment in the 1st place. Care to offer some facts now ?
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm just going to freeflow off on a tangent for a while 
.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
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.
You may be right that Bush's real plan was to have a discussion about various ways to save Social Security so that a better plan could be developed, but that would surprise me. He's on record (going back to the late seventies) as stating that privitizing Social Security should be done - so this has been on his mind for quite a while. I personally think that he sees himself as accomplishing something the Republican party was never able to do previously, and that is getting rid of Social Security. He's thinking about his legacy. He has stated publicly that he governs more by his gut and his beliefs rather than by facts. He doesn't admit to making any mistakes - it could be interpreted that he sees this as a sign of weakness (or, at the very least, he cynically thinks Americans do not want leaders who admit to being human). He refused to participate in a German townhall meeting because they wouldn't guarantee the absence of critical questions. Those who are allowed to attend his public appearances are carefully screened to remove dissent (these events are not an attempt to convince anyone who is actually there - it's more just preaching to the choir with the main goal of providing appropriate visual sound bites for the nightly news [as a side note, I am absolutely fascinated with how this administration creates visual images and uses language - they are masterful. I really think they are the best crafters of message to the medium of television that we have ever seen. I always love to watch a craftsman work and so there's a part of me that just stands back in awe]). These are not the hallmarks of a person who is used to sitting down and negotiating. So you may be right that he just wanted to open a dialogue and brainstorm various ways to save Social Security. But his past actions do not support this behavior (at least IMHO).
There's so many different sides. Some people think Social Security is an abomination that must be gotten rid of immediately (that's one extreme - and is a view that has been held since the inception of the program.) These are the people you see using words like Socialist program (as if that automatically makes it evil) and Ponzi scheme. Some people think Social Security is one of the best social programs in the history of our country, should be preserved at all costs, and more programs like it should be enacted (I'm not sure if this is the other extreme - but getting in that general direction). I would place myself in the latter camp. The majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle with the main theme being they like Social Security and think saving the program is a good thing.
This is why it's important to pay attention to the language that is used. For years, the goal was privitization. That didn't poll well or test positively in focus groups. So the switch was made to private accounts. That still didn't poll well, it was too close to privitization. So the new switch was made to personal accounts. The same plan has been called by three different names - it's all marketing. And administration proponents of the accounts formerly known as private (to borrow the phrase from Josh Marshall) have criticized the media for using the discarded terminology and accused them of bias. Beautiful.
The new word of the month is "add-on". President Bush's plan involves carving out private/personal accounts from Social Security. This is not supported by the public who really don't like the idea of carving anything out of Social Security. So he's started calling his accounts "add-on" because this terminology is supported by the public - and, in addition, many of the Democrats have opposed privitizing Soci
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The logic in the original post is baffling.
Could you tell me the logical reason that Bush would want to create this facist state for? He's going to be out of power in 4 years. He knows it. What good will changing the government do him at that point?
I'm also lost on how privatising social security makes the rich richer and keeps the poor poor. If the poor invest their social security money well they have the opportunity to become richer. If they invest poorly then they may become poorer. However, I know I've always been told from day one not to rely on social security for anything. If you're not saving for retirement then you're in trouble. That's what I've always heard. That's one of the reasons why social security needs to be fixed.
Basically I'm happy with the new plan. If it means I get something over nothing, sounds good to me. It's not the best plan in the world but we make do with the best we can get.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except that even non-partisan goups estimate that with a 10% return (which would be very good overall) somewhere between 25%-30% of the fund would be sucked up by fees. The only people I see getting rich on this are stockbrokers and mutual fund managers and the brokerages and banks that would be handling the money. Dollar for dollar, Social Security as it is currently run is more efficient at returning money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So what's going on here? It's not OK for a "right-winger" to name call, but it's OK for you to do so. It's not OK for a "right-winger" to flame someone, but it's OK for you. It's not OK to be ignorant saps with no opinion--but if I should form an opinion that's different from yours (based, for instance, on my experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan), then I'm an ingnorant wretch with no clue about what's going on in the world.
Now this is just getting down right petty, I didn't name call , I don't think their is a need to name call, I simply pointed out after reading that posters post based on what they said that they must not be aware of current events, thats my story and I'm sticking to it, everyone has an opinion and I wouldn't dare try to stop someone from voicing it!!
actually if you want to look at who is doing the name calling throughout this thread I can assure you it isn't me so you should save your preachy rant for them!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I don't even know where to begin responding to this post
This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against
There is ALWAYS a majority, it is just not the Democrates right now, like it has been in the past. Boohoo.Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country
Again, President Bush was not alone in the decision to go into Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!
The Constitution changed? Really? How? Prove it.Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!
Nope, I do not have a clue, sorry I bothered. My reply was not directed AT you alone. This is why I usually do not post on these threads. We shouldn't try to confuse you with the facts.
On a side note, I do not pay into Social Security, Railroad Retirement is the way to go!
As for you INEVITABLEBETRAYAL...Thanks!
ByteTheBullet (-:
you know I wish it was as simple as your making it out to be but its not!!!
once again you people keep trying to make this about Democrates and Reps or conservative and Liberals its not, its got nothing to do with that, all you have to do is see whats going on, but you don't or you can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Perhaps the real reason you find yourself in such vehement opposition to President Bush is because you find you have more in common with the likes of Saddam Hussein.
how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!...I know what kind of person you are, as you've stated yourself with glee your the kind of person who would try to stop a little old lady from exercising her right to vote..yeah your some Hero!!
I think you are the person who finds that you have more in common with Saddam Hussein!! stop projecting yourself onto me!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The logic in the original post is baffling.
Could you tell me the logical reason that Bush would want to create this facist state for? He's going to be out of power in 4 years. He knows it. What good will changing the government do him at that point?
I hope that Signym did a better job of articulating what I was getting at in my orginal post. I often post late after work and my thoughts are often all over the place, but I also know that there are those on this board like Signym who are aware of whats going on and have more information then most so they know what I'm getting at. I'll try to post more concisely from now on!!
Bush may or maynot be leaving in 4 years if he does leave then I have no doubt that Jeb Bush is standing in line to take his place, so really we aren't getting rid of Bush nor would we be getting rid of the corrupt administration, This Bush Administration is basically the same one that was in place under Bush Senior and I have no doubt it would basically be the same one under Jeb!!
actually Social Security isn't really broken so it doesn't need to be fixed, what it needs like any program is some fine tuning a new coat of paint so to speak...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME