Bush's "conversation" w/troops staged

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Both McCain and Gore would have been worlds better.

McCain I may consider but please don't write better and Gore in the same sentence.

 

[LoraJ]

McCain I may consider but please don't write better and Gore in the same sentence.

Gore is definitely better than Bush. The guy can at least complete a full sentence.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Gore is definitely better than Bush. The guy can at least complete a full sentence.

Is this the same Gore that was bad mouthing the U.S.in Sweden?? No thanks.

 

[Puffy2]

With your misrepresentation of the social security plan. No, it doesn't 'give' it to investment companies. It gives the wage earner a choice about how he wants to invest a small 4% portion of their money, that is yes, theirs and can be passed on to whom they see fit. I know that is just a foreign concept for someone who thinks that only the government can tell us how to spend our money.

You need to reread the "plan" - most certainly the investment companies WILL receive compensation for their "management" ...if I remember correctly, 3% comes to mind.

 

[Puffy2]

Here is a calculator to see how you would fair under the Bu$h social security plan:

http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html#

and a website to see how the plan would actually work (see link for accurate charts and graphs) Note that actually the account would have to earn 3% ON TOP OF INFLATION to receive even a penny of investment earnings. Can't you see that they are trying to STEAL from you???:

http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec4.htm

This analysis is based on the briefing on the Administration’s Social Security plan that was provided to reporters on February 2 by a “senior Administration official.”

1. Administration Acknowledges Private Accounts Would Do Nothing to Improve Social Security Solvency.

The Administration official acknowledged what analysts have long known — private accounts themselves do nothing to restore solvency. The official stated:

“So in a long-term sense, the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security and on the federal government.” [Transcript, page 5.]
A reporter subsequently asked the senior Administration official: “. . . am I right in assuming . . . that it would be fair to describe this as having — the personal accounts by themselves, that it would be fair to describe this as having — the personal accounts by themselves as having no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue?” The senior Administration official replied: “That’s a fair inference.” [Transcript, page 7.]
2. Claimed $750 Billion Estimate Makes Borrowing Costs Look Much Lower Than They Actually Would Be.

The senior official said the borrowing costs over the first ten years — 2006- 2015 — would be $664 billion without interest costs, and $754 billion when interest costs on the debt are included.

These figures are misleadingly low. They are generated by using a ten-year budget window (2006- 2015) that includes only five years of the fully phased-in plan. The plan would not be launched until 2009 and not be in full effect until 2011.

Over the first ten years that the plan actually was in effect (2009-18), it would add about $1.4 trillion to the debt. Over the next ten years (2019- 28), it would add about $3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add $4.9 trillion (14 percent of GDP in 2028) to the debt over its first 20 years.

The additional debt resulting from the President’s proposal would continue to rise as a share of the overall economy, reaching more than 25 percent of GDP in about 40 years and remaining at or above that level for the entire 75-year projection period (see Figure).[1]



Although the senior Administration official contends that the plan would be fiscally neutral in the long-run, the figure shows that the individual accounts in the President’s plan would add to government financing needs for many decades into the future. These debts would need to be financed annually, unlike the implicit debt we owe to Social Security beneficiaries.

Furthermore, these estimates are based on the assumption that the individual accounts are offset by 50 percent reductions in guaranteed benefits for average earners, as envisioned in the plan. This cut would offset the entire value of the individual account for the typical worker. If these cuts prove politically unsustainable and get scaled back by future Congresses, the plan would have an even larger impact on the debt and would result in worsening of even the very long-run fiscal situation.

3. White House Declines to Propose Measures to Restore Solvency

At the briefing, the senior Administration official declined to offer any proposals to close Social Security’s shortfall, despite acknowledging that the private accounts would themselves do nothing to close it. The official punted on the issue, indicating it was something for the Administration and Congress to work out subsequently.

The principles that the President directed his Social Security Commission to follow, and that he subsequently reaffirmed, call for no new revenue-raising measures to help close the shortfall. If revenues are ruled out, however, the $3.7 trillion, 75-year gap would have to be closed entirely through cuts in Social Security benefits.

The one proposal that the President’s Social Security Commission advanced to close the gap through benefit cuts was to change the formula for computing initial Social Security benefits from one that uses “wage indexing” to one that uses “price indexing.” Administration officials have talked up this proposal in recent weeks. If the Administration uses price indexing to restore actuarial balance, then the benefit reductions under the plan that the Administration otherwise outlined today would be very large. For instance, a worker born in 2000 who has average wages, participates in the private accounts, and retires in 2065, would have total benefits (from Social Security and the private account) that are 50 percent below the Social Security benefit scheduled under current law (and 34 percent below what Social Security would be able to pay even if no steps are taken to restore solvency). This estimate and others shown in the table below use the Congressional Budget Office’s methodology for computing the benefits levels under the proposed private accounts and price indexing.

Benefit Cuts With Price Indexing and the Private Accounts
That the White House Described Today

First-Year Annual Benefits for the Median Worker in Middle of the Income Scale

10-Year Birth Cohort Starting in Year
Current Law Benefits
White House Plan, with Price Indexing

Scheduled Benefits

($2004)
Payable

Benefits

($2004)
Benefits (Social Security Plus Private Accounts)

($2004)
Percentage Reduction, Compared to Scheduled Benefits
Percentage Reduction, Compared to Payable Benefits

1940
 $14,900  $14,900 $14,840
-0.4%
-0.4%

1950
15,200 15,300 13,994
-8%
-9%

1960
15,500 15,500 12,742
-18%
-18%

1970
17,700 17,700 12,841
-27%
-27%

1980
20,500 19,700 13,097
-36%
-34%

1990
23,300 18,100 13,104
-44%
-28%

2000
26,400 19,900 13,092
-50%
-34%


Source: The columns for scheduled and payable benefits are taken directly from CBO, “Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 2004. The columns on the plan are calculated using CBO assumptions and methodology, assuming the change to price indexing goes into effect in 2011 and that the individual account offset rate is set at 3 percent (the rate the Social Security actuaries project for Treasury bonds). The benefits are for a worker who initially claims benefits at age 65.


4. Private Accounts Would Provide No Gain to Workers Unless The Accounts Earned a Rate of Return Equal to More than 3 Percent Above the Inflation Rate.

The senior Administration official revealed that most of the balances in a worker’s account would be recaptured by the government when the worker retired, in order to repay Social Security for the loss of revenue it incurred when a worker elected to direct some of his or her payroll taxes from the Social Security Trust Fund to a private account.

The senior Administration official explained that this repayment would be made by subjecting people who elected the private accounts to an additional reduction in their Social Security benefits (over and above any cuts that may be imposed to restore solvency). The additional benefit reduction would be made by lowering these individuals’ Social Security benefits each month by an amount equal to the monthly income that would come from their account if the account had earned a three percent real rate of return (the assumed rate of interest on Treasury bonds). As a result of this additional benefit reduction, people opting for the accounts would get no net gain from the accounts unless their accounts produced a return higher than three percent above the inflation rate. If the return on their accounts was lower than three percent above the inflation rate, people would lose money as a result of the private accounts, and that loss would be on top of the other Social Security benefit cuts (such as price indexing) to which they were subjected. (The senior official stated in the briefing: “So, basically, the net effect on an individual’s benefits would be zero if his personal account earned a 3 percent real rate of return.” A reporter then asked: “So he would only get a benefit to the extent that his portfolio performed in excess of 3 percent [above inflation]?” The senior official replied: “Right.” See transcript, page 8.)

As a result, for many workers, the private accounts in the plan would not offset any of the reductions in Social Security benefits that would be part of the plan. For these workers, their entire private account balance would be recaptured by the government when they retired.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Notes:

[1] Traditionally, the Social Security actuaries release a memo showing the impacts of Social Security proposals over 75 years. In this case, the actuaries memo shows only 10 years of the plan (see Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, “Preliminary Estimated Effects of a Proposal to Phase In Personal Accounts,” February 3, 2005). As a result, all estimates in this paper are based on a conservative extrapolation of the data past the first 10 years.

Specifically, the White House has not formally decided what happens to the maximum account contribution after 2015, although Administration officials have stated that, “Yearly contribution limits would be raised over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.” All estimates here assume conservatively that the contribution limits would not continue to be raised after 2015 (beyond the standard indexing for wage inflation) and thus that the accounts would be less than four percent for many middle and upper-income workers. With four percent accounts for everyone, the adverse fiscal impacts of the plan would be larger; for example, the plan would add $5.1 trillion to the debt over its first 20 years (2009-2028), rather than $4.9 trillion

 

[yeartolate]

This is a public service announcement:

The views expressed above do not express the sentiments of the great state of Connecticut (thank goodness).

Carry on!

 

[LoraJ]

Interesting:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/14.html#a5380

 

[yeartolate]

 

[What the Heck]

You have got to be kidding me. The republicans just passed an "energy bill" that gave MASSIVE tax breaks to the oil companies...would have been a perfect time to put in some legislation addressing those refinaries that you are talking about but did they? NOoooooooo. But they thought it was necessary to pile on a few more heaps of cash to an industry which made 50% profits in ONE QUARTER this year.

And don't try to tell me that the republicans are fiscal "conservatives" - they have spent more money while in power these past 5 years than a bunch of drunken sailors...unfortuately, it's not going to the American people - it's going to members of the "club". And they are trying to steel more of our money (ie., Bu$h's brillant Social Security "Plan" to take that saved income and give it to the investment companies...the very companies that support his administration...duh, it's a plan to steel from us!) And the taxes they do collect have been WASTED. (ie., FEMA, Iraq, No-Bid contracts that over pay to hand picked corporations that are in Bu$h's back pocket, etc...) All that money and none of us are any "safer" - all we've been given as a nation is window dressing, a "show" , to make you feel like your government is actually doing something to keep you "safe". It's a show just like his "town hall meetings where he screens the guests and makes them sign loyalty oaths before letting them in", and his "press confrences where he plants reporters", "and his scripted 'chats' with the troops. What a phony.

How anyone can still support these theives, and bumbling fools is beyond me.

You know, you make some valid points on this, when you toss out the adjetives and the insults. Some of it is pure hatred/garbage, but you do have some valid points. Your point about the energy bill is very good.

However you restrict it to the Republicans, as if the Republicans are the only ones who get the support from these business'. You don't really believe that they only cut one check at election time do you? They cut many, usually to the different people running in the elections, unless the Corporation is dominated by just one person. For some reason I have a difficult time believing they give to the Republicans for what they can get and they give to the Democrats out of the goodness of their hearts.

As for the massive spending, we are in a war right now. Spending goes up in a war. Spending goes up when you have to respond to 2 of your tallest buildings in the worlds #1 financial district being blown up. These are items we would have had to pay for no matter who was president. Are there areas we could save money? Definately. But to say or imply the pork is only going to the right is extremely naive.

 

[Puffy2]

However you restrict it to the Republicans, as if the Republicans are the only ones who get the support from these business'. You don't really believe that they only cut one check at election time do you? They cut many, usually to the different people running in the elections, unless the Corporation is dominated by just one person. For some reason I have a difficult time believing they give to the Republicans for what they can get and they give to the Democrats out of the goodness of their hearts.

Granted the Democrats get donations from corporations and the well-to-do as well - that's how both parties are able to stay in the game. It is unfortunate that the common man has zero chance in this country of ever rising to high levels of government without selling his soul. It's like with the last election, when the right kept painting John Kerry as a rich boy with a silver spoon in his mouth married to the ketchup tycoon. Well, who the heck did they think George Bush was??? It's not like he's some poor, farm boy and we all know it. They are both men of priviledge.

The difference I see in this administration , is that Bush's Republican Party has consistantly favored big business over the average American time and time again. History has shown us that at least the Democrats are generally passing legislation and policy that aid and give back to the people.

As for the massive spending, we are in a war right now. Spending goes up in a war. Spending goes up when you have to respond to 2 of your tallest buildings in the worlds #1 financial district being blown up. These are items we would have had to pay for no matter who was president. Are there areas we could save money? Definately. But to say or imply the pork is only going to the right is extremely naive.

When Clinton left office after Bush won 5 years ago this country had a SURPLUS. Bush and his republican supports immediately plunged the country into massive debt BEFORE the war and it has just gotten worse and worse since. The republicans have been horriably irresponsible with spending and that is a fact that cannot be refuted.

 

[Puffy2]

Good GRIEF. I live in the town where Neil Boortz is on the radio and massive conservatives lap up his program like it was the word of God - how can folks still listen to such rubbish and buy into it???

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510140006

Boortz: Faced with an impending national disaster, "we should save the rich people first"

On the October 14 broadcast of his daily radio show, right-wing radio host Neal Boortz stated that if the country is faced with an impending national disaster, it should make it a higher priority to save rich Americans rather than poor Americans.

An October 13 New York Daily News article spurred Boortz's comments. The front-page story, headlined "Rich Got Terror Tip," reported that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has launched an investigation into whether its officials alerted certain New Yorkers of a terror threat to the city's subway days before the rest of the city learned of the possible plot. According to the article, the probe was launched after the discovery of two emails describing the bombing plot that "had been sent early last week to a select crowd of business and arts executives by New Yorkers who claimed to have close connections to Homeland Security."

After summarizing the story, Boortz responded, "This is as it should be." He went on to imagine a scenario in which the country is forced to "set some priorities" regarding who will be notified of an impending disaster. "We should save the rich people first," Boortz declared. "You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity." Boortz described the poorest Americans as "a drag on society" and stated that they "don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read."

From the October 13 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:

BOORTZ: OK, I've got an insensitive thought, folks. There's a news story out there -- there's a news story out there that rich people got some sort of an email notification of the terrorist threat against the New York subway before poor people did. OK? They're making a big deal out of it. Let me see if I can find it on the Drudge Report here. Let's see. There's a guy strangling a goose. That's a pretty good -- that's a pretty impressive picture. It's something about bird flu. So he's got this goose and he's just wringing its neck. You can -- oh, who tipped off the big shots? OK, now here's the story. And it says, "The Homeland Security Department launched internal probes yesterday into whether its officials tipped off friends and relatives to a possible subway terror plot days before average New Yorkers were alerted." So the real gripe here is that it seems that some wealthy people got notified of the terror plot before the great unwashed, before the others. Now, the Daily News in New York has a headline: "Rich got terror tip." Rich got terror tip. OK, let's get logical about this, folks. Let's play logic with this. This is as it should be. OK? If we are faced with disaster in this country -- let me ask you this, OK? You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? OK? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provide the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels -- you know, which group fuels our economy? Drives industry? The rich or the poor? Now if you -- all of a sudden, somebody walks up to you and says, "Hey, Boortz listener. You're gonna have a -- you have to make a choice. You're going to -- we're gonna move you to another country. And you're just gonna have to make your way in this other country. We have a choice of two countries for you. In this country, people achieve a lot and they are wealthy because of their hard work. In this country, people don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read. And the high point of their day is Entertainment Tonight on TV. Which country do you want to live in? The country of the high achievers, or the country of sheep, the country of followers?" You know what you're gonna do. I don't see what the big problem is. I just don't. I mean, if you -- who do I want to save first? The rich. Save the poor first. Then, when everything's over, where are you gonna go for a job? OK, hey, if I get a tin cup, can I sit next to you and sell pencils too?

[...]

I'm serious about that, folks. You see, that's the kind of thing that's going to end up in news stories: "Neal Boortz said that in times of disaster we should save the rich people first." Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity. I mean, you go out there and you look at this vast sea of evacuees, OK? You want to get an economy going in some city? Well, who you gonna take back? The people who own businesses? Or the people that sit around waiting to get their minimum wage job, work 'til Friday, get a paycheck and then not show up again until the following Wednesday? Come on. Just put a little logical thought into this, folks.

 

[MizBlu]

I'd call this the "we're bad, but you're worse" defense.

Self-destruction to commence in 5...4...3...2...

I call it delusional.

 

[MizBlu]

Reality is shinning. You believe because Bush is in office we are in the shape we are in??????? Like I posted before the world is messed up because we have done it to ourselves! We always have to lay blame on someone. The man of the hour happens to be" Bush." Lets play the blame game when we elect the next President. Different face same old story.

Well, DUH!

No, WE did not do it to ourselves. Whoever voted for Bush did it to this country. And some people stuck it to the country twice when they bought the Bush bull**** again in 2004. Along with help from Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, a stacked Supreme Court, Diebold, Kenneth Blackwell, etc.

This "we're all in the same boat and we're all responsible" is baloney. If you voted for Bush, you're responsible and I and millions of others are stuck with your bad decisions.

 

[MizBlu]

I was not sticking up for Bush. I don't like either party. If you think every adminstration doesn't do this sort of thing with broadcasts, you are wrong.

Link please backing up this line of rationalization.

 

[MizBlu]

Not at all. All presidencies have highs and lows. When this presidency is viewed in its totality, with a free Iraq, The Bush Presidency will be one of the greatest sucesses of our life time.

Into the mushrooms again?

 

[Belle for President]

I call it delusional.

Yeah, I'd say the follow-up comment pretty much proved that.

 

[MizBlu]

The Bush Presidency will be one of the greatest sucesses of our life time

If that someone was 8 years old and dropped dead, I'd agree with this point.

You had to see that one again too?

 

[MizBlu]

You have got to be kidding me. The republicans just passed an "energy bill" that gave MASSIVE tax breaks to the oil companies...would have been a perfect time to put in some legislation addressing those refinaries that you are talking about but did they? NOoooooooo. But they thought it was necessary to pile on a few more heaps of cash to an industry which made 50% profits in ONE QUARTER this year.

And don't try to tell me that the republicans are fiscal "conservatives" - they have spent more money while in power these past 5 years than a bunch of drunken sailors...unfortuately, it's not going to the American people - it's going to members of the "club". And they are trying to steel more of our money (ie., Bu$h's brillant Social Security "Plan" to take that saved income and give it to the investment companies...the very companies that support his administration...duh, it's a plan to steel from us!) And the taxes they do collect have been WASTED. (ie., FEMA, Iraq, No-Bid contracts that over pay to hand picked corporations that are in Bu$h's back pocket, etc...) All that money and none of us are any "safer" - all we've been given as a nation is window dressing, a "show" , to make you feel like your government is actually doing something to keep you "safe". It's a show just like his "town hall meetings where he screens the guests and makes them sign loyalty oaths before letting them in", and his "press confrences where he plants reporters", "and his scripted 'chats' with the troops. What a phony.

How anyone can still support these theives, and bumbling fools is beyond me.

Whenever you something like that filters down from the mothership, remember 10 months into the second term of the Bush presidency, 29% of the people in this country believe it is headed in the right direction.

You're looking at the La-La-Land base. Not the Republican base, the La-La-Land base. They're so out of touch with the mainstream, they actually make Bush seem like he's got his finger on the pulse of America. You guess which finger.

 

[MizBlu]

McCain would have had people outside of cronies to scrutinize the WMD crap. He would have insisted on better intel. Senator McCain trusted that President Bush (and crew) were feeding them reliable intelligence.

President McCain wouldn't have sat with his thumb up his *** reading about a "Pet Goat" after being told "Mr. President, America is under attack".

I'm no McCain fan, but when it came to courage, duty, and honor, he knew what that meant and it didn't mean one more opportunity for a photo op.

 

[DawnCt1]

President McCain wouldn't have sat with his thumb up his *** reading about a "Pet Goat" after being told "Mr. President, America is under attack".

I'm no McCain fan, but when it came to courage, duty, and honor, he knew what that meant and it didn't mean one more opportunity for a photo op.

President Bush personally asked Crowned Prince Abdullah that the FBI be allowed to interview the Khobar Towers suspects that the Saudi's had in custody. President Clinton refused to do that, despite promising the families in 1996 that "no stone would go unturned" in the investigation. He was quite willing to take the donation for the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor from the Saudi Prince for undisclosed huge sums of money. You need to seriously ask yourself if a policy of "lack of law enforcement, let alone lack of engaging the terrorist enemy really did the USA any good. I would suggest reading Watership Down again. In one of the warrens,the rabbits were fat and happy and only a few disappeared every now and then. That was the Clinton administration's approach to terrorism. Perhaps it would serve you well to develop a little more curiousity about "Able Danger".